Masculine Clothing- Is There Such A Thing?

On this blog and on others I have addressed the subject of feminine clothing. But I don’t think that I have ever addressed the subject of masculine clothing. In fact, I had never really given the subject any thought until I saw this comment by Cellogirl over at peacefulhonestlife:

I have yet to read donal graeme’s blog for anything on how a man should carry himself because there are too many men out here that dress very poorly yet, they want a high-value woman to call their own. No! No! No!

That not how things work a masculine man is very attractive but, a high value masculine man that dresses properly and can be conversational is even more attractive. There are not too many of those out there anymore.

So, how exactly should a masculine man dress? What kind of clothing is appropriate for a man who wishes to establish or demonstrate that he is high-value? Well, I can think of a few examples of clothing that does the opposite:

1) Really short shorts. You know the type. The ones that look more like speedos than shorts.

2) Super tight fitted jeans. Those can look good on women (although I still prefer dresses and skirts), but they look awful on men. For example:

Those are some pretty un-masculine jeans right there. Definitely not something a high-value man should be seen wearing.

3) Wimpy scarves. Scarves aren’t necessarily feminine, but if you want them to be masculine they need to be matched with the proper clothing and be anything but dainty. This doesn’t cut it:

Something like that just screams “PATHETIC” to the whole world.

4) The color pink. A long time ago pink might have been a color used by men. That time is long gone, and long buried. Don’t count on it every coming back. Pink is not a masculine color, so don’t wear it. (Unless you are John Wayne. In which case you can wear whatever you want.)

Ok, those are a few examples of what not to wear. But what makes for masculine clothing for men? Some ideas are easy enough:

1) The Tuxedo- simple but stately, a man who can wear a Tux well is a man who can tell the world that he is high-value. Don’t believe me? Take it up with 007…

2) While not quite as classy as a Tux, a well tailored suit can be nearly as effective. And depending on your profession, something you can wear nearly every day.

3) A uniform. The old saying that “women dig a man in a uniform” has some truth to it, even in this day and age. A good looking uniform can lend a man a sharpness and presence which sets him apart from less men.

To be honest, this topic is one where I am out of my league. Male fashion has never been a strength of mine, and it was pretty obvious to me when I tried to write this post. So I am asking for my readers to provide ideas (whether links, photos, videos or whatever) on what they believe masculine clothing looks like.

Update: Deti has contributed his thoughts on the subject of proper dress for men:

1. Determine your body type and dress for it. Three basic body types: The muscular man (mesomorph), heavy man (endomorph) and thin/skinny guy (ectomorph). Determine yours, and dress for it. Muscular men can wear pretty much what they want. Ectomorphs should wear clothes that widen them; and endomorphs should wear lengthening, tailored clothes and dark colors.

2. Determine the dress level for the occasion, and dress one step up from that (except for formal occasions). The idea is to be one of the better dressed men at the occasion.

3. The tuxedo is appropriate for formal occasions only. However, it is not appropriate to wear a tuxedo to a wedding unless you are in the wedding party.

4. The following should be in every man’s wardrobe, regardless of his age, station and profession:

CASUAL CLOTHES
a. Good quality white t-shirts.
b. Blue jeans, relaxed fit (preferably Levi’s 501s because they fit almost every body type).
c. polo shirts in several colors.
d. long sleeve and short sleeve button down shirts in several colors.
e. slacks: khaki, tan, navy, and black.
f. a short heavy winter coat.

SUITS AND ASSOCIATED ACCESSORIES:
a. at least two 2 piece suits, one navy, one charcoal, medium weight fabric.
b. at least 3 white barrel cuff shirts, one oxford, the others standard point collar.
c. at least one French cuff shirt.
d. at least one set of cuff links.
e. medium width ties of varying colors and patterns. Some of them must be red.
f. one pair of wingtips, black or burgundy.
g. one other pair of lace up dress shoes, black or burgundy
h. a pair of loafers, black or burgundy
(all shoes with leather uppers and frequently shined)
i. a navy blazer with brass buttons. (This is absolutely essential. You MUST get one of these. It will be one of the most versatile, oft worn items in your wardrobe).
j. accessories (ties, cuff links and socks). Understated and conservative is the order of the day. You may have a couple of fun ties — for holidays or depicting some cartoon character. You may not wear your Marvin the Martian tie to work, however.
k. One long, heavy wool winter coat.
l. One long, lighter raincoat/trench coat.

Update 2: Lady Siygn provided a link to site about masculine style. Worth a look, I should think.

Market Failure

There has always been a Marriage Marketplace (“MMP”). In days past it looked a lot different from what it is today. But it has always existed in some form or fashion. Why is this so? Perhaps it is because humans tend to be transactional and economic in their behaviors. After all, marriage is a contract of sorts (for a Christian that contract takes the form of a covenant), with an exchange of promises between the man and woman in what they will and won’t do during the marriage. Given the base transactional nature of marriage, it is hardly surprising that a marketplace would form around it. Whether it was families or the individuals themselves, bargaining of some sort went on and clearly some individuals were higher value than others. In the past titles, dowries and inheritance were the primary currency, while today things like youth, beauty, fertility, earning power and status can make someone high or low value.

However the Marriage Marketplace worked in the past, one thing is abundantly clear about how it works today: it doesn’t. The current Marriage Marketplace is broken, and is almost completely subsumed into the greater Sexual Marketplace (“SMP”) which has largely taken its place. This process has been a complete and utter disaster, whose consequences will be felt for generations. It manifests itself in many different ways, some of which I will explore in this post.

False Advertising

Free Northerner has recently taken upon himself the task of examining how well Churchians are marketing marriage these days. As you might guess, it is not a pretty sight. His post is in response to one of Dalrock’s latest, Brilliant Advertising. Here is how Free Northerner expressed his initial thoughts on seeing the video that Dalrock brought to our attention:

Instead of making marriage look like something men would want to pursue and would be willing to sacrifice for, they make it look horrible.

In the little skit in the middle, the man is the thoroughly henpecked, seemingly unhappy husband of a fat, dumpy, controlling wife. He’s so thoroughly beaten down that he’s afraid to have a little masculine bonding time with his son and the video implies that there’s something wrong with him wanting to do so.

Watching this, my main thought was ”is this really how they want to advertise marriage to men?”

My personal philosophy is that if you aren’t sure if someone is acting the way they are out of malice or stupidity, stupidity is the safer bet. More than a few in the manosphere have argued that Churchian leaders like Driscoll are actively malicious in their efforts to get men to “Man-Up and Marry those Sluts!” Others insist that they are just misguided fools, so blinded to feminist indoctrination that they don’t realize what they are doing. Myself, looking at this video, I have to agree with those who label Driscoll and his ilk fools. If their goal is to sell marriage, that video isn’t the way to do it. In fact, it is one of the best testimonies against marriage that I have seen lately.

So what is an effective marriage marketing ad? Here is how Free Northerner would go about selling marriage:

It starts with an average-looking man in a suit, someone most guys could identify with, coming home from a day at the office. He looks kind of worn-out and stressed. He parks his car, sighs a bit, then walks up to his house. He opens the door.

The first thing seen when the door opens is his non-offensively pretty wife dressed femininely. She looks up from working in the kitchen and sees he’s stressed, so she comes up to him with a smile on her face and gives him a hug and quick kiss on the lips. She takes his bag and says, “Dinner is almost ready, why don’t you sit down?” He gets into his recliner and leans back, his stress visibly fading away. She joyfully brings him a small plate of freshly made cookies and some milk. He thanks her with an expression of mingled gratitude and relief and takes the cookie. While he snacks she says, “How about later…” and bends over and whispers something in his ear while brushing her hand up his leg. The man responds with a large, expectant smile.

Cut to her calling out that dinner is ready. The man goes to the table to find a delicious home-cooked meal of steak and potatoes, his cute, happy children run up to the table. His wife wipes the dirt smudges off of one of the rascals as they sit down. The man looks on proudly as he sits at the head of the table. His wife sits to his right. She looks at him with an expectant smile, her hand on his arm, and he proudly says grace for the family.

During the prayer fade to black and end with the tagline: Worth being a man for.

The picture that Free Northerner presents is a far cry from the marriage conveyed in Driscoll’s video. As Free Northerner points out, a lot of men, Christian men especially, would sign up for this. So why don’t we see an ad like this? Martel explains it succinctly:

However, they’ll never accept it because it shows the woman being submissive, feminine, and supportive. This defeats the entire point of marriage as they see it.

That just about covers it. Driscoll’s ad showcases Marriage 2.0, which any man worth his salt can see is completely unappealing. It offers nothing to the man, and demands more than ever.  What Free Northerner is selling is Marriage 1.0. A marriage where the man is the head of the household. Where he has a lot of responsibility, but the authority to back it up. And where he is respected and admired for his efforts. Driscoll and his ilk could never make an ad in the manner of what Free Northerner suggests. From them it would be false advertising. Because what they believe in is Mutual Submission, Female Spiritual Superiority and a non-covenantal marriage.

Predatory Practices

Of course, just like any marketplace, there are predators to be found. Those who prey on the naive and the vulnerable, hoping to fleece them of their worth and leave them penniless. In our current MMP, they can take on several forms. Two that I wish to briefly cover are the Former Carousel Rider (“FCR”) and the False Christian Player (“FCP”).

The FCR is a woman who rode the carousel while she was younger (aka a slut) and then upon hitting “The Wall” (or getting close to it) decides to “settle” and marry. So she seeks out a hapless “Beta” and gets him to marry her, despite the fact that she feels no attraction or respect for him. She plays upon his desperation and likely inexperience, and uses it to her advantage. Then, after several years and probably several kids, she divorces him and tries her hand at the SMP once again.

The FCP is a cad, a player who specializes in “robbing” young Christian women of their virtue. He hangs around in Churches and among Christian circles and preys on the pure and innocent. His goal is simple: to deflower Christian women (and probably make them Alpha Widows in the process). He knows the right catchwords and phrases to put them at ease and to convince them that they can trust him. The FCP relies on their innocence and inexperience to trick them into giving up their most valuable asset, after which he fades away to play the field elsewhere.

To understand why they are marketplace predators, it is important to understand what gives men and women value in the MMP. For men, besides their attractiveness or SMV value (as determined by their LAMPS attributes), they also bring something very important to the table: commitment. For women, they bring their attractiveness/SMV value as determined by their youth and beauty, but also their character and virtue is a component as well. Both women and men are looking for as much attractiveness from a spouse as possible, but they are also looking for something completely different from the opposite sex. Women look for commitment from men, both in how much a man has to offer now and how much he will be able to offer in the future. Men look for sexual access and sexual fidelity from women; these are both heavily impacted by the N count of the individual woman. In many respects a woman’s virginity is the most valuable asset she can possess, because nothing else adds as much to her Marriage Market Value (“MMV”).

With this understanding, we can see why the FCR and the FCP are both predators: they both seek to steal what is most valuable from men and women in the MMP. The FCR, in marrying and then divorcing a “Beta” male, destroys his financial standing and thereby reduces his ability to offer commitment in the future. Essentially this cripples the man’s MMV. The FCP, on the other hand, by sleeping with a Christian woman takes her virginity and with it a huge and irreplaceable part of her MMV.

In the past these kinds of predatory practices were not accepted in respectable society. Divorce theft was nigh-well impossible, and cads were not only kept far away from most good women, but faced the prospect of a “shotgun wedding” for their actions. Sadly, neither is punished anymore. Men and women both can get away with behavior that would have been considered reprehensible a century ago. Yet another sign of a market failure.

Supply and Demand

For a while, after I had taken the Red Pill and into the first few months of this blog, I was convinced that the current MMP heavily favored chaste women. I based this opinion on what I believed to be a simple supply and demand situation. They were a limited supply, and the demand for them was much greater than the supply. Surely chaste women would have no trouble finding a husband. But now I appreciate the difficulties that such women, especially chaste Christian women, face in the current MMP.

Predators

For one they have to contend with the dangers of market predators like the FCP. There are Pick-Up Artists (“PUAs”) who specialize in going after virgins, and some of them are very, very good at it. So chaste women have to take steps to protect themselves. And those steps often restrict when and where they go, which reduces their chances of meeting a good, marriage-minded man.

Bad Programming

There is also the fact that most women these days aren’t taught how to find a good man. Like men, they are given awful advice, usually along the lines of how men want strongandindependentgirrrrrrlpower women. All of which will send a good man running far away in the opposite direction. The fine ladies at Girls Being Girls have been trying to offer advice on how to go about finding a young marriage-minded man, and I salute them for their efforts. Of course, my admiration is not entirely selfless, as I could potentially be the beneficiary of their advice to a marriage-minded young woman out there.

Abandoning the Market

But one problem that has become more apparent to me of late, and that represents a significant obstacle to chaste young women, is that many formerly marriage minded men are checking out. The cumulative effect of the divorce culture, unjust laws against men, the inequitable nature of the SMP, Nuclear Rejections and the generally unfeminine nature of most women these days has convinced a lot of men that marriage is not worth pursuing. They are disappearing from the dating/courtship scene, and probably won’t ever return. Twenty years ago my assumption about the supply/demand situation was probably correct. Men back then hadn’t quite wised up to what was going on. But things have changed; thanks to both the internet as well as everyday experiences, more and more men are giving up on marriage. Unfortunately for my Christian sisters out there, many of those men are Christians. Some have become players and PUAs themselves, while others simply go their own way in an effort to avoid as much female contact as possible.

Ultimately their motivations don’t matter. What matters is that the MMP is massively distorted when a large chunk of the remaining male population there just up and leaves. And worryingly enough, this distortion seems to be getting worse and worse. This is yet another example of a massive market failure.

End of Part 1

This post was getting long, so I decided to break it up. I should post part 2 in the next day or so.

At What Price Knowledge?

I think it can be universally agreed upon, or at least the closest thing to it, that what we know as the Manosphere today would not exist without the Pickup Artist community.  The combined hours of effort spent by those in the PUA community to make empirical observations of women, experiment with different techniques and then record the results must be mind-boggling. Whether it was profit which drove them, or a desire to show off,  doesn’t really matter. Were it not for the dissemination of that knowledge by PUAs (what is commonly referred to as “Game”) the “Red Pill” would yet remain the realm of The Matrix alone. Those of us who are devoted to the task of piecing together the inner nature of women owe them a debt of gratitude for the collective knowledge that they have made available to us.

Yet it is all too easy to forget the source of that data. Information on female behaviors like fitness testing, serial monogamy and “bitch shields” was acquired only as a result of sexual immorality on a truly staggering scale. For those of us in the “Christian Manosphere”, we need to be frank with ourselves that there is a moral cost associated with this knowledge. Having been in these parts of a while, I’ve noticed that most members of the Christian Manosphere rarely stop and consider the moral ramifications of using this knowledge, which was procured by conduct which is anything but Christ-like.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t those who object to “Game,” of course. But what I find interesting is that many of those who oppose “Game” do so based less on moral principles and more based on the idea that the whole thing is snake oil medicine. I happen to believe there is some truth to the charges; more than a few of the PUA “Game” techniques do smack of this. And honestly, I think a lot of what “Game” teaches is really about building up your Confidence, which is absolutely essential for you to have a strong Power value. But based on my personal experiences I can vouch for at least a few of the “tricks” that are out there. And others have echoed the same as well. My suspicion is that that much of the resistance over the efficacy of “Game” is really about the source, not the product.

Setting aside the practical value of “Game”, there are serious ethical questions raised by the use of this knowledge:

Is it right for a Christian to learn from the sinful behavior of others as part of his plan to get married?

Should Christians pass on this information to other Christians, knowing that some believers may ultimately use it to sin?

Would it be wrong for a Christian to purchase products and/or services from the PUA community, or recommend them to others, knowing that this might encourage yet further sinful behavior?

—————————————————————————————————————————

The first question I find easy enough to answer, once I re-write it to this: Is it right for a Christian to learn from the past sinful behavior of others in order to find, attract and keep a wife? Understanding that you can’t do anything about the past behavior of others relieves much of the moral burden. Also, placing everything in light of the objective of marrying, and staying married to, a good  woman makes it clear that you aren’t using this knowledge for evil ends. Whatever evil was responsible for the development of the knowledge you use has already been done, and you cannot change this fact. But what you can do is use it for a greater end.

The second question isn’t difficult either. If someone, upon learning about the Red Pill and picking up some skill and knowledge with Game, were to go out and use it to sin, then he was never a believer to begin with. He called himself a Christian but was really a Churchian. In his heart and his mind he had already sinned or planned on sinning, which means that any fault or blame lies with him, and not with whomever introduces him to the Red Pill (unless of course the teacher knew his true nature beforehand).

The last question is a lot trickier than the others. I am inclined to think that any contribution financially would be relatively insignificant, and not enough by itself to encourage further sin. But it is a possibility that can’t be ignored. Which is why I think it really comes down to a balancing test: is the good that comes about from the use of these services greater than whatever evil might result? I would think that in most cases the good would outweighs the bad, but this is never something which we can be certain of.

I got to thinking about this subject after reading Martel’s latest post, wherein he mentions some of his past misdeeds. What struck me about his post was his frank discussion of those failings and how he hoped to find ways to use them for good. Martel’s post, and others like it, reminds us that the use of Red Pill knowledge always carries with it a great burden. It was purchased at terrible price, and for those of us who belong to the Moralist school we must use it responsibly.  Of course, let us not forget that the PUA’s didn’t create our immoral culture; they merely developed the tools to best benefit from it. In the end, should we learn how to use those same tools to make better tools with which to redeem our culture, then I for one will sleep soundly at night, my conscience secure and untroubled.

The Married Prostitute

No, I am not talking about the wife of Hosea here:

² When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” ³ So he went and took Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

Instead, I am talking about something else: married women who use sex as a source of power over their husbands. The problem of wives denying their husbands sex is a rather common topic in the manosphere. Some prominent bloggers have asked why Christian women won’t have sex with their husbands. Others have addressed this situation as well recently. I suspect there are several reasons why this topic keeps coming up:

1) Many of the members of the manosphere experience or have experienced it.

2)  Many members of the manosphere have heard of other men being cut off by their wives.

3) Many members of the manosphere are worried that if they marry they too would be the subject of a wife’s sexual denial.

4) This topic is one that is largely ignored by most of society, and when it is addressed the results are not helpful.

Bad advice and commentary is especially prevalent in Christian circles, where husbands are usually advised to love their wives more, as if that will fix the problem. Unfortunately, most Christians in the West have adopted a whole lot of foolish narratives and beliefs about sex and women which get in the way of the truth. This is especially troubling in light of the fact that the New Testament has pretty specific guidelines about sexual denial:

 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” ² But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. ³ The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵ Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Of course, this set of guidelines is usually ignored or disregarded in Churchian circles, and even more sound congregations and denominations will often skip over it. However, every now and then you will find those who are willing to call out this sexual denial for what it is: sin. Somewhere in my travels across the internet landscape I came across the websites Acts 17:11. Therein I found a particularly powerful and direct attack on this particular sin. It was so potent that I couldn’t help but blog about it. Bolded parts are mine:

As to frequency, I suppose people differ. But it is not for an outsider to say in any case. If one partner wants sex, then God’s command for marriage is clear enough: “no refusal” is permitted unless mutually agreed to for a time of prayer. That is the command of scripture. Your body belongs to her, and vice versa.

First, search your own heart and see if you have not “destroyed your own household” (Pv 14:1) in terms of normal sexual response and desire. We deal with this in another posting, but for our purposes here you must honestly ask yourself the question if you have contributed to her frigidity. Have you brought pornography into your marriage bed, for example, or thoughts of another woman? Have you been a lover or just a user of your wife’s body? In other words, if you have been sinning and are just reaping the harvest of your ways, then there is no time like the present to repent, ask for forgiveness, and seek God for healing. But if your conscience is clear, and she is sinning by “holding out”, this is also a grievous sin that directly disobeys the word of God, and she must be confronted about it.

Practically, this needs to be worked out some other way than by the letter of the law; but the law has its “ministry” (of condemnation). The law won’t change her, in other words, but will serve to bring proper conviction into her life. Confront her with the word, in private, as commanded by Jesus Himself. If this does not work, bring two or three to confront her of her sin. Hopefully, she will see her sin and repent. Perhaps the shame of having her secret sin exposed will goad her to take seriously her covenantal responsibilities. God has told you what to do if you find your brother (or sister, in this case) in sin (Mt 18:15-17). Go to her, just the two of you, and confront her. If she does not repent, then go with two or three. This is the command of your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

More than a few women have a problem in this area. Not to be overly dramatic, but these women are prostituting themselves within marriage. For one reason or another, such women like to have their husbands sex starved so they can blackmail them, control them, humiliate them, dole out the favors on their terms, get what they want, etc. They are prostitutes, in other words, who happened to be married. Husbands can do the same thing, and have, as a form of control; but it is more often women who fall into this pathology of sin. Of course, there is always the excuses and contingencies, as with any sin. But God looks to the heart of the matter, to what is really going on. Whenever sex is bartered, it is prostitution; and no money need change hands. Married people belong to each other. A wife in disobedience has become a married prostitute with a single customer. God is not mocked. Such is a great offense and thus the warnings of the scriptures above.

While at first this article seems to possibly go the Churchian route, the impression doesn’t last for long. For one, the author clearly establishes that it is “your” conscience which matters, not hers. This is good, because submitting yourself to your wife’s judgment about your conduct is a sure fire way to always fail to measure up to her standards. Rather than loving your wife, you end up trying to find ways to make her feel loved. This is guaranteed to fail. Thankfully this article avoids that folly. Now, I am not sure about the rest of the site; it could be Churchian everywhere else. But it doesn’t even buy into the servant leadership nonsense.  Instead, it doesn’t pull any punches. Really, there isn’t much to say that it doesn’t already say.

A singular exception might be the unusual awareness of the mercenary nature of women which this article displays. That attitude is something which I suspect comes as a bit of a shock to most men when they first take the Red Pill. The truth depth of it can be both highly disturbing and highly difficult to accept.  Which is why it is rare to see this kind of admission, or something like it, from a Christian perspective. Far more common is the idea that women are all sugar and spice and all things nice. While I hope that this kind of message will become more prevalent as time passes, part of me knows this is unlikely, as the cancer of feminism continues to spread its tentacles throughout Western Christianity.

[I thinking about working on a companion post that addresses this issue from the perspective of the husband, not sure when it will be completed though]

Exploring Ideas and Questioning Myself- Episode 1

This is going to be a rather uneven and disjointed post, as I intend to seek out the opinions of fellow bloggers and readers about some subjects which I’ve been thinking about lately. Mostly they concern ideas/theories which I have long held to be true, but now want second opinions about.

A Seller’s Market

Ever since I became acquainted with the Red Pill, I have believed that there were far more men who could be considered marriageable than women. Especially when it came to Christians; it has been my contention for a while that the number of chaste (even purposefully chaste) Christian men is greater by far than the number of chaste Christian women.  I’ve always just assumed this, and never really gave it a whole lot of thought until recently. Given what I (think I) know about the current SMP/MMP, plus male/female attraction filters and the like, it would stand to reason that my belief is accurate.

If so, then it would appear to me that we are currently in a sellers market to a significant degree. A marriageable woman should be able to pick and choose amongst a variety of potential suitors. Furthermore, most such women should be able to easily satisfy their hypergamous instincts by “marrying up” to a man whose SMV is higher than their own. Given the dearth of women worthy to be wives, men would have to look down in SMV for mates, because the men above them have likely already taken their SMV equals for themselves. All of which means that a chaste Christian woman, to be specific, is sitting in the catbird’s seat when it comes to the MMP. [Of course, that ignores search and time costs inherent with any kind effort for her to find a husband.]

So the question is, am I off with my assessment? Or do my readers agree?

Male and Female Commitment

It is generally agreed upon that women are much more selective when it comes to attraction filters than men. I’ve written on the subject of female attraction before to explain how. Numbers often thrown around, although without anything more than anecdote as backing, state that men find roughly 50% of women attractive and women find only about 20% of men attractive. I don’t know if that is true or not. What I do know is that while men may find more women attractive than vice versa, that doesn’t mean that men are inclined to commit to those women. Just because a man wants to have sex with a woman doesn’t mean that he wants to commit to her. As part of this,  I believe that men filter for commitment fare more stringently that women do for attraction. A simple graphic I created a while back illustrates this:

Speaking for myself, I will admit that when it comes to commitment I am rather wary. While my religious beliefs play a role in this, and no doubt the legal climate does as well, I suspect that men are hard-wired to be wary of commitment. Just as eggs are expensive for a woman, and so she must be careful whom she sleeps with, commitment is also expensive for men, and so they must be careful whom they invest in.

What I am curious about is if women also filter for men commitment from men in a similar way. Will women accept commitment from any man that they find attractive, or do they have a further set of requirements past the LAMPS categories. I assume that they do, and yet the argument from many quarters seems to be that “tingles uber alles”, or attraction is king. But clearly some women have certain desirable or comfort traits they look for in men, in addition to being attractive. I guess the question is whether those filters are as important for women as they are for men. My suspicion is that they aren’t; women are often willing to trade them away under the right circumstances.

What are my reader’s thoughts on the matter?

Tone Over Bulk

This topic isn’t nearly as deep, but do most men prefer tone over bulk when it comes to women and muscle? Stingray has re-posted an old post of hers called Hitting the Gym over at the new group blog Girls Being Girls, and it covers female exercise. While full of tips, she ends the post with this caveat:

One last thing, you can take lifting weights as far as your body will allow it.  However, you should be aware of what your husband finds attractive.  Some men do not like overt muscles on a woman.  If this is the case, use lower weights with higher repetitions.  You will gain tone without bulk or striations.  Some men do find it very attractive and they admire the discipline behind what it takes to achieve.  It’s really up to you (and your genetics) how far you wish to take it.

Count me in the category of men who prefer tone over bulk. Some overt muscles are alright in my book, but when it comes to the upper body I definitely prefer tone. For the legs I can make an exception, muscled legs don’t bother me, and might even be a plus in my book. The stomach/abs might be another area where some (but not a lot) of overt muscles are fine. But I happen to find too much muscle on women in the upper body area unfeminine, and think it detracts from the woman’s attractiveness. This is how I figured most men thought, so I’m curious to see if there is a general consensus on the matter.

Does this jive with my male readers? Do you prefer tone over bulk, or have certain areas where one might be more acceptable than the other?

The Latent Threat: Male Dominance and the Capacity for Violence

The Shadow Knight wrote a guest post for Sunshine Mary which she recently published. Titled “The Stabilizing Influence of Masculine Dominance in Women’s Lives“, it addresses how women have a physical and psychological need for men through dominant sex and a dominant masculine presence in their life. The initial comments are worthwhile too , because many of them try and grasp the extent and nature of masculine dominance. One potential aspect for masculine dominance that is brought up several times, and which sparked my interest, is a man’s potential and ability when it comes to violence. This got me thinking, and re-examining some of what I had previously written on the subject.

Then I read When Women Rage over at Sarah’s Daughter. While the overall purpose of the posts was different, there was a constant theme/idea which showed up in both: the male capacity for violence. Here is what SD had to say:

Fast forward a few years. We were no longer having fights of this nature. I had been reading the Bible and marriage books trying to change the rage within me. It wasn’t completely gone, unfortunately. We were driving to a meeting and again, I don’t remember what our argument was about, I was likely being very disrespectful and snotty and he’d had enough. He said something to me I didn’t like and I threw my coffee at him. He pulled the car over quick, reached across and grabbed my neck, pinned me up against the car door and informed me how I will never do anything like that again.

I haven’t.

RLB can, quite easily kill me with one hand. I learned that that night and have never wanted to incite him in that way again. The realization of his strength and willingness to use it has contributed greatly to my very high attraction to him.

It was the realization of the full measure of his power over her which I believe ultimately changed the way that SD interacted with her husband. SD mentions that she respects her husband now, and that it drives her current behavior, not fear. I must disagree. Fear and respect are joined at the hip, where there is one the other usually resides. SD still fears her husband, but that fear has been trumped or overcome by her respect for her husband. Setting the fear/respect dichotomy aside, one thing is clear: SD became more attracted to her husband based on that encounter; an encounter which not only highlighted RLB’s strength but his ability to commit violence.

I have written before about how men and women need one another in different ways. In The Need and The Void, I explored a bit into how men need women. Here is some of what I have said elsewhere about the female need for men:

Women need men to provide safety and security, to be a warm blanket that protects them from a dangerous and hostile world. A woman runs to a man to escape the dangers of the world.

It is easy for men to forget how much more powerful we are than women. We just take our strength for granted. But because they are the weaker vessel women must approach the world in a very different way. Sometimes they express this consciously, but most of the time subconsciously. Women are fearful because they must be fearful, they can’t defend themselves like a man can. How do women compensate for this?

Well, they act as a herd with other women, for one. You ever notice how oftentimes women will all go to the restroom together? As a group? Myself, I see it all the time. What I’ve never seen is men do the same thing. I suspect the reason for this behavior is because women subconsciously know that when you are relieving yourself you are even more vulnerable than normal, and so for protection women will group up, counting on numbers to protect them. Men, who can both relieve themselves more easily and are more capable of defending themselves, experience no such compulsion.

But the most important way that women compensate for their weakness is by associating with men. But not just men in general. Or any man. No, the Man. The Alpha Male. The big, strong man who can defend her, and her children, from harm. The Man who makes her feel Safe. This is where a man’s capacity for violence is important, even essential. Because a man who has a strong capacity for violence is a man who can keep his woman safe. Of course, sometimes this violence is directed at the woman herself, a perfect example of unintended consequences. Yet even those women who suffer at the hands of their man will often go back to him, perhaps driven by the subconscious belief that while may hurt her, he can also protect her from greater harms at the same time.

One of the most important truths that the Red Pill can teach is what it means when a woman says that she feels unloved by her man. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t cherishing her, or treating her romantically, or anything of the sort. No. What a woman really means when she says she feels unloved by her man is that her man does not make her feel safe. A sense of security is essential to women. The need for security drives all sorts of female behavior. Fitness Tests are one example of this. When a woman fitness tests a man, she is trying to determine if he is man enough for her, if he is capable of protecting her and keeping her, and her children, safe. Dalrock relates some of his experience on the matter:

She knew I loved her, but she didn’t feel it the way she wanted to.  It of course was equally frustrating for her as well because she kept telling me something was wrong and I wasn’t making it better.

Dalrock experienced this because he was failing his wife’s fitness tests. She was challenging him, and he wasn’t up to it. As a result their relationship suffered. But see what happens when Dalrock takes the Red Pill and adopts some of what he has learned:

It wasn’t just my actions and words which changed however, my frame changed as well.  Had I tried these same things from my old more beta frame, they might have backfired spectacularly.  I struggle to define it, but my frame was more of a playful cocky/funny one.  This was actually fairly natural for me, but I had made the mistake of listening to the conventional wisdom on how to please my wife.  The results were as expected more attraction from my wife.  As I mentioned this wasn’t ever a real problem before but I could tell a difference in her response to me.  Then something very startling happened;  she thanked me for finally making her feel more loved!  I had given up on that goal for the time being, and yet along with more attraction I had also inadvertently filled that nagging void which she had been feeling for so many years.

Just by changing his frame to be more “Alpha”, Dalrock managed to make his wife feel more loved. Why did this change of frame make such a difference? Why, if we accept “make me feel loved=make me feel safe”, did his attitude change things? The key relates to what women find attractive in men, and why. Under the LAMPS theory of female attraction, women are attracted to men based on a man’s Looks, Athleticism, Money, (Masculine) Power and Status. If the male capacity for violence is linked to the female desire/need for security and those impulses are connected to what a woman finds attractive in a man, then those traits which relate to a man’s capacity for violence should correlate with the LAMPS categories. And they do, specifically to Athleticism and Power. Because Athleticism relates to the physical capacity for violence, and Power to the mental capacity for violence. By adopting the cocky/funny attitude, Dalrock improved his Power value because he demonstrated that he was unafraid of confrontation, and willing to stand up for himself, which is critical if one is to have the mental capacity for violence. Of course this isn’t what Dalrock’s wife was thinking… but this is what her brain’s subconscious was concluding.

Based on this understanding, I think it is safe to conclude that the male capacity for violence is hugely attractive to women. A man who can demonstrate to a woman that he is dangerous, or capable of being dangerous, will be highly attractive.  This is why Ton’s “Gun Game” works. Women want, no need, a man who is capable of protecting them. They may not understand this at a conscious level,  and they may even consciously oppose it, but beneath the surface it drives much of what they say and do. So the lesson for men is this:

If you want to attract the ladies, it helps to be dangerous.

What’s Your Number?

One significant difference between men and women which the Red Pill brings into stark focus is the fact that measuring male and female Sexual Market Values are very different propositions. One reason is that both male and female SMVs are on a different curve. But the principal reason lies in the fact that you can gain a relatively accurate idea of a woman’s SMV after a few seconds of looking at her (assuming she isn’t wearing a Burkha). How do you easily measure a man’s SMV? Appearance is only part of what makes a man attractive to a woman. In fact, the whole package can be summed up in the LAMPS formula: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status. However, the most important set of attributes, which fall under Power, cannot be measured or discerned easily. Power is a highly subjective sub-category of attributes, and thus defies easy efforts to rank on a 1-10 scale. Certainly for men trying to judge this and have that judgment line up the same as a woman’s discernment is unrealistic, at best. This makes it nigh-well impossible to assign a man a SMV value on the 1-10 scale using a static observation.

So this raises the question: how do you evaluate male SMV? I think that the only practical way to do so is to observe the SMV value of the woman who are attracted to a man. It stands to reason that if a man is capable of pulling the attention of female 8s, but not 9’s, then he is a Male 8. Likewise, a man who can pull 10’s is also a male 10. The hypergamistic nature of women means that they are very unlikely to be attracted to men below them in SMV rank. Therefore, you can use a woman’s SMV value as a tool to measure the SMV ranking of men she associates with.

Where this method might break down is with regards to lower tier men. Female hypergamy, especially the toxic hypergamy we see today, might be of such a nature that men below a certain threshold get essentially no female attention at all. Or at least female attention from equals. Novaseeker is a strong proponent of the argument that the lowest tier of men and women are essentially locked out of the SMP/MMP, and always have been. If that is so, then this is hardly a universal means of measuring male SMV.

Given all of this, I am asking my readers for their thoughts on the matter. How do you measure male SMV? Can you realistically measure male SMV? Or is the complexity of female attraction to men simply too much?

Going APE- What Attributes do Women Find Attractive in Men? Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status (LAMPS)

PROLOGUE

This post is an attempt to explain a fundamental and long unanswered question: What it is that women find attractive in men? It is a clarification and expansion on a previous attempt to explain male-to-female attraction, known as The Five Vectors of Attraction. It will contain some sections lifted straight from that first attempt, although much of the content will be new or modified from what came earlier. I intend for this post to serve as a basic introduction to male attractiveness to those who are new to the Red Pill, as well as a consistent link source for those who wish to blog about female attraction to men. I will strive to update it over time as needed.

INTRODUCTION

To begin with, it is important to understand that the attributes and features by which men determine if a woman is attractive are not the same as those which a woman uses to determine if a man is attractive.

The principle feature which men look for in women to determine attractiveness is easy enough to figure out: Beauty. Age factors into Beauty, as Beauty will diminish over time as age increase. Now, ideal Beauty can vary depending on culture, but there are still certain physical features in women that carry across most cultures: a feminine face with strong facial symmetry, large breasts, a low waist-to-hip ratio, smooth and unblemished skin, etc. Beauty is essentially a purely visual attribute,  indeed well over 95% of that which men use to determine the attractiveness of a woman falls under visual Beauty.  Therefore it is usually quite easy for a man to quickly gauge a woman’s attractiveness on the standard 1-10 scale. The remaining features which determine attractiveness include how the woman smells, what her voice sounds like, and what her body feels like to the touch.

Male attractiveness is much more complicated. While visual features do play a part, and other physical features have their role as well, there are other things which can make a man attractive to women. It is well established throughout history that money is something which women find attractive in men, along with that undefinable characteristic known as charisma, and women have long been known to be drawn to men of high station. When all of this is analyzed in the context of female behavior like hypergamy, it is possible to discern the triggers for male attractiveness to women, and categorize them based on their nature. There are three principal categories under which male attractiveness is analyzed: Appearance, Personality, and Externalities, or APE for short. Under these three categories are five more specific subcategories which contain the sets of attributes which determine male attractiveness: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status, or LAMPS for short.

They are organized in this fashion:

Appearance         |        Personality     |        Externalities

     Looks                   |            Power              |               Money

  Athleticism            |                                      |              Status

APPEARANCE

This category includes those features of a man which are of his outward appearance. It does not include any behaviors or mannerisms, just what the physical senses could determine of the man in a snapshot. Outside of the two main sub-categories, Looks and Athleticism, the other senses would factor in here. This includes the man’s voice, his smells, as well as the feel of his body.

Looks- This includes physical attractiveness, such as facial symmetry and strong masculine features in a man’s face. It can also include healthy skin, healthy and good looking hair, and other external features. Youthfulness is featured here as well, but it is valued far less by women than men, probably because age doesn’t impact male fertility as much as it affects female fertility. Height is included in this sub-category, and is perhaps the single most important aspect of a man’s Looks. As a general rule those aspects of a man’s Appearance which cannot be modified without resorting to surgical procedure fall under Looks; cosmetics allow for temporary attempts to modify Looks.

Athleticism– Here we have the overall physical attributes of a man. His strength, muscle tone, endurance, dexterity and general athletic ability. Weight falls under this sub-category, because it is largely something a man can have a measure of control over. As a general rule, if a man can control an aspect of his Appearance through training, dieting and physical (or mental) effort, it falls under Athleticism.

PERSONALITY

This category includes all of a man’s behaviors and attitudes, his quirks and unique mannerism. It is an entirely internal category, as it manifests itself only by the actions of the man in question.

Power– This subcategory is a short-hand for Masculine Power, or Masculinity. Although in some respects masculinity is power when it comes to attraction and relationships.  As an attribute, Power includes a lot of traits, behaviors and mannerism which are commonly labeled “Alpha” or “Alpha traits” on Game sites. Aspects of a man’s personality such as confidence, assertiveness, self-mastery, dominance, a commanding presence, poise and posture would fall under the Power sub-category. It it important to understand that the power one has from any position of authority doesn’t fall under Power; rather that falls under Status. Power is entirely personal to the man; it is based on his own unique characteristics and charisma. As a general rule, Power cannot be measured except by observing the man in action.

EXTERNALITIES

This category includes those features of a man which are not connected to him directly. In essence Externalities includes anything which is outside of the man’s body which might serve to make him attractive to women.

Money– This sub-category includes a measurement of both the amount of resources that a man can call upon in the present, as well as what he might be able to make or create in the future. This doesn’t necessarily mean just money; real property and other assets can be included as well. Essentially, it includes all resources which belong to the men.

Status– This sub-category includes the social position of the man and is principally based on where he is on the social ladder. It includes how well respected he is by those around him, whether they are above him or below him in station. Any authority that a man can exercise in the community based on his position would fall under Status. Think Big Fish or Small Fish; the bigger the fish, the more attractive a man is. To sum Status up, it is based not on anything inherent to the man, but rather his general position in society relative to all other men (and women).

RELEVANCE

There is no universal female measure of what makes a man attractive. Some women are more attracted to one attribute over the other, just as men are attracted to different women in varying degrees. Each woman has her own set of preferences, so there is no single standard. As a mental exercise, one can view these as a point system, where a man has a certain value from 1 through 10 in each LAMPS subcategory. Then they are added together some sort of weighted average is applied. Theoretically, as long as you have enough in certain areas, it can make up for deficiencies in others. However, based on personal observations, anecdotes and the vast amount of empirical research provided by the PUA community, it is clear that certain attributes/subcategories tend to be more important than others for most women. In general the (not universal) order of importance:

1) Power- Clearly the most important set of attributes, well above the others. Charisma is king.

2) Status- Also extremely important, plays a significant role in interacting with female hypergamy.

3) Athleticism- Of middling importance, perhaps because resources are plentiful, but still something which women like in men.

4) Looks- With the exception of height, this set of attributes provides little bang for your buck; it might get you initial attention but won’t keep it for you.

5) Money- Great wealth is required for this attribute to be meaningful, likely a product of a resource-rich culture where women can easily provide for themselves.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to measure values for the LAMPS attributes. Whereas it is relatively easy to discern a woman’s Sexual Market Value, the same cannot be said for men, in large part because most of these attributes are extremely subjective.

CONCLUSION

As far as how to use these terms, APE can serve as a quick way of referencing the different categories of attributes which women use to judge male attractiveness. LAMPS, however, serves as a better reference point because it breaks those attributes into more manageable categories which also allows for them to be more easily arranged in order of importance.  Any blogger who wishes to use this system however they like is free to do so, although I do ask for a link back to this post.

News You Can Use

In response to a comment by Matt King over at Sunshine Mary’s, Rollo Tomassi suggested that those Christian men who believed that their virtue would be attractive to women put this belief to the test:

Locate the single (preferably not a single mother) Christian woman you’ve been so patiently trying to become more intimate with (in as non-lust conflicting a way as possible) and, as deftly and as Game savvy as possible, play up your virtuous nature as a ‘value added’ benefit of your character in selling yourself as an intimate proposition to her.

In other words, use Virtue Game. Make sure you pay attention to the subtle hints of her arousal while you expound upon your noble dedication to your virtuous nature. Erect nipples, dilated pupils and a noticeable increase in her spontaneous efforts at kino will all be IOI’s of your new found secret weapon of attraction.

I will admit to having found this amusing, although I agreed with what Sunshine Mary said about Rollo’s suggested “Virtue Game”:

Nota bene – Men don’t have virtue to please women. They have virtue to please God. If you think virtue will get you laid, it won’t. That isn’t the point of virtue in a man.

I have already written about what women find attractive in men in my LAMPS post, and in fact I am writing an update to that post now. Sadly, virtue has no place when it comes to attracting women. Or does it?

Courtesy of US News and World Reports, here is a article about a study that seems to suggest that Devout Catholics Have Better Sex:

Devout, married Catholics have the best sex of any demographic group, the Family Research Council said at an event Wednesday, pointing to a collection of studies from the last several decades.

The socially conservative Christian group relied heavily on statistics from the University of Chicago’s last National Health and Social Life Survey, conducted in 1992, which found the most enjoyable and most frequent sex occurring among married people, those who attended church weekly – any church, whether Catholic or not – and people who had the least sexual partners.

Some of this makes sense from a Red Pill perspective, especially the part about the number of sexual partners. While the exact mechanics of the female pair bonding ability are still not well understood, they do have obvious effects. The article itself is worth reading in full, especially because it isn’t very long. However, the data is somewhat old, and seems to be contradicted by more recent trends. Especially regarding the frequency of sex among married couples compared to non-married couples, because co-habitation has become more common lately. Which means this next part may not be relevant either:

The notion that Catholics have better sex isn’t a new one, especially coming from Catholics. In 1994, Andrew Greeley, a Catholic sociologist and priest, published “Sex: The Catholic Experience,” which released a litany of new statistics: 68 percent of Catholics professed to have sex at least once a week versus 56 percent of non-Catholics; 30 percent of Catholics had bought erotic underwear versus 20 percent non-Catholics; and 80 percent of devout Catholic women approved of having sex for pleasure alone.

Nearly twenty years have passed since Greeley’s work was published, leaving its current applicability questionable. But there are some reasons to believe the various studies are accurate. For one, the Catholic Church opposes birth control, including condoms, and some studies seem to indicate that semen acts as an anti-depressant (more here). It stands to reason that happiness and depression would have strong impacts on the likelihood of sex inside a marriage. Devout Catholics, not using condoms, would therefore be more likely to benefit from this mood-effect and thereby more likely to engage in sex , creating a strong cycle which encourages sexual activity.

In addition, devout Catholics also tend to want, and have, larger families. And in order to have more children, they would need to have sex a lot more often (plus it would by its nature have to be unprotected sex, encouraging the potential anti-depressant factor). This is just speculation, but there might also be ethnic/cultural factors at play as well, with Catholics less likely to come from puritanical traditions which viewed sex with distaste.

So where does all of this lead? Why, it leads to the conclusion that if you want to have the best sex possible, then statistics say that you should be a devout Catholic. Which leads to how to play Virtue Game: as part of the sexual escalation aspect of Gaming a woman, a devout Catholic man could impress any woman with the fact that a marriage with him would be the best route to great sex possible. The pick-up lines practically write themselves:

You think this is great music to get you in the mood? Just you wait till you hear the bells on your wedding day, you won’t know what hit you afterward.

That is a sexy black dress you are wearing… but you know what is even sexier? One in white. Trust me, seeing you in that… I wouldn’t be able to restrain myself from ripping it off you when I got you all alone.

Maybe Virtue Game has a chance, after all?

[I should hope that I don’t have to point out this post is rather tongue-in-cheek.]

The ABCs of Marital Happiness

Several days ago, over at Sunshinemary and the Dragon, the blog mistress asked a question which touches on a lot of Red Pill issues:

Do happy marriages depend on the husband’s status in the socio-sexual hierarchy?

After this she linked to Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy, and posted it for good measure, before continuing to seek to answer the fundamental question. Her closing paragraphs:

I always appreciate other women saying the same thing that I keep trying to say: my marriage isn’t happy because my husband is allegedly an alpha (and I don’t think he fits the personality type of Vox’s alpha category, anyway).  Having a naturally alpha personality and fitting into the social hierarchy as such is not the same thing as having control of your life and having positive masculine power.  A man can score well in all the LAMPS vectors (looks, athleticism, money, power, status) but still be a social beta.  And so what?  That doesn’t make him icky and weird, and it doesn’t mean that he will necessarily have poor success with women.  We don’t really have much control over the personality types that we were born with, but almost anyone can improve at least some areas of their LAMPS vectors, which will improve nearly every aspect of a man’s life, not just his romantic prospects.

In terms of a happy marriage, I agree with Novaseeker’s thoughts on attraction: it is extremely important.  It is more important that the woman be sexually attracted to her husband (and that this attraction be maintained) than that the man be an alpha in the socio-sexual hierarchy.  Keeping her sexually attracted, provided she had natural sexual attraction to him to begin with, almost entirely involves maintaining the proper biblical marital hierarchy of male headship and wifely submission and has almost nothing to do with whether one is an alpha, a beta, or a delta.

I was rather busy at the time, so I wasn’t able to provide my thoughts on the subject. Given that there are well over 400 comments at this point, and another post has followed, I decided to give my answer in a post of its own. So, lets look at that question one more time:

Do happy marriages depend on the husband’s status in the socio-sexual hierarchy?

There are actually several questions inherent in this question, the first of which  is this: do happy marriages depend on the woman’s happiness, the man’s happiness, or both? Scripture, and the nature of the present cultural and legal climate seem to make it clear that the woman’s happiness seems to be more important. So that leads to the next question: What does it take for a woman to be happy in a marriage? Here I have to agree with Novaseeker that attraction is likely paramount for determining a woman’s marital happiness. I’ve already taken a stab at answering what women find attractive in men with my LAMPS theory, so this leads us to the next question: how does a man’s LAMPS value relate to Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy?

After thinking on it, I realized I had trouble answering the question. The reason why is because I don’t exactly subscribe to Vox’s hierarchy. I find it to be a clever, but ultimately inaccurate attempt to try and categorize men. The key to the hierarchy is that it attempts to categorize men by virtue of their interactions with women. However, that is just another way of saying that it categorizes men by their attractiveness to women. Which, when you think of it, means that the Alpha/Sigma conundrum which Vox tries to explain away is merely his best effort to explain why men with very different attitudes and behaviors can still attract a lot of women. This reminds me of how the ancient astronomers created the concept of epicycles in order to explain away the problems with a geo-centric model of the solar system with perfect spheres. In short, it overly complicates a situation because you don’t want to let go of some root assumption. I think it is better to toss aside any notion of alpha, beta or any other letter of the Greek alphabet. Set aside any notions of a hierarchy, or lesser or greater. Instead, get to the root of the problem, attraction.

The question is, do women have to be attracted to the man to whom they are married in order to be happy?

I think the answer is yes. For the marriage, as a marriage (and not some kind of partnership or anything), to be a happy one the woman needs to have her sub-conscious desires met. Those desires, based on her 3 basic drives (Sex with a high-value man, Protection, and Provision), and filtered through Hypergamy, cannot be suppressed. A woman can fight against impulses like Fitness Testing, but there is no way for her to simply over-ride her subconscious. If these needs are not met, then she will not be happy. It is very important that to note that this unhappiness is intentional: it serves to alert the woman that something is wrong with the relationship. And that something wrong happens to be that she is in a relationship with an unattractive man, or said otherwise, she is in a relationship with a man who is not worthy to the be father of her children.

Sunshinemary is correct that the biblical standard of marriage,where the wife is submissive to her husband or subject to his authority, and the husband is head of the household and family, greatly helps with this. Under the LAMPS theory, the P or (Masculine) Power attribute is the most important. And dominant behavior by a man is one of the strongest expressions of Masculine Power. By requiring the man be in a dominant position and the wife be in a submissive position, biblical marriage enhances the Power of the man. This improves his attractiveness, which in turn will make the wife happier in the marriage. Essentially, the purpose of wifely submission and husband headship inbiblical marriage is improve the wife’s happiness, not to oppress her.

[Interesting question: does biblical marriage exist as part of the feminine imperative, as it serves to make things better for women?]

So, to return to the original question, the answer is yes, assuming that “alpha male” equals an attractive man. Otherwise, the answer is no, all that is necessary is that the wife is attracted to her husband.