Pulled Every Which Way

One of the points I have made on this blog before is the following:

~Women live in a perpetual state of contradiction~

It isn’t a unique claim, other bloggers have made similar statements before. But it is still an important point to make, because men do not grasp this at first and need to in order to truly understand women.

In today’s post I want to explore one dimension of this crucial aspect of female behavior: that Mate “Idealism” versus Mate “Pragmatism.” You see, women have two opposing natures which are always fighting against each other when it comes to selecting a mate. I don’t think I am going to cover any new ground here, but if anything I hope this post will serve as a bit of a recap.

The first of these is what I will call “Idealism.” This is expressed in the female desire for the best mate possible. Sometimes this is called Hypergamy, but that isn’t really an accurate descriptor of the behavior involved. Rather, what women experience is a sort of “Ruthless Idealism” which screams for the best possible man possible, compromises be damned. They will ignore the good or even the great in a mad desire for the perfect.

On the other end of the spectrum we have what I will call “Pragmatism.” This can be summed up by the expression “any port in a storm.” Otherwise stated, women can experience a “Ruthless Pragmatism” which will find that any acceptable man (and that can be very generous indeed) will do and try and lock him down as swiftly as possible.

These two… forces… are naturally opposed to one another. And as a general rule a woman is guided by either one or the other at any given time. However, there is usually still some “play” or flexibility. After all, the other force is still there, even if suppressed. Also, I suppose it is possible that a woman might fall somewhere in the middle for some reason or another, but I believe this to be a temporary state. Given any appreciable period of time she will revert to one of them.

My personal belief is that while genetics likely plays some role in where a woman falls on this spectrum, the primary guide is the environment. The environment that a woman lives in will shape her perceptions and beliefs, and possibly the deep seated neurological functions which control her mating behavior. Some environments will naturally favor Ruthless Idealism, and other environments will favor Ruthless pragmatism. My educated guess is that a forgiving environment with plentiful resources and a great deal of safety will encourage a woman to favor the Ruthless Idealism force. On the other hand, an environment which is unstable, or has limited resources, or is dangerous will likely cause her to favor Ruthless Pragmatism.

Now, because of changes both in herself and in the environment, a woman will not be stuck in one direction forever. It is possible for her to favor one most of her life, and then to move to the other and stay there. Or she could shift back and forth several or even many times. It all depends on the particular woman, and the environment she finds herself.

This can be very problematic if one supports lifetime monogamy, as it means a woman’s perception on what men are “acceptable” mates or not can shift over time. This means that she might marry a man while she finds him acceptable, and then later when she shifts he is no longer acceptable- meaning of course she will want to dump him.

A common trope in the ‘sphere is the former carousel rider who gets close to the Wall, develops Baby Rabies and then tries to lock down a nice, pliable Beta. In that example, we have a woman who was riding the Idealism train for years, only for the environment (featured in her fading looks and fertility and possible social cues) telling her she needs to settle, and fast. She then switches over to a Pragmatism mindset, during which she tries to lock a “good man” down. And she succeeds, only for her to divorce him a number of years later. My speculation is that she has switched back to an Idealism mindset, perhaps guided by the fact that she has a few kids now and so can afford to be more reckless (after all, her genetic future is now relatively secure). Also, her financial status and security are likely much better than they were before marriage.

In the past, the general layout of society was to create an environment which fostered the Pragmatism force within women. A good example was ancient Israel, which was no favorable towards unmarried women in its economics or laws. Given that kind of environment, it isn’t shocking that the writer of the Book of Sirach might note that for a woman, any man will do. After all, the alternative to having a man is to be a social nobody with basically no rights or power. That kind of environment would naturally encourage a Ruthless Pragmatism.

In the present age, however, the environment has changed dramatically. Women have financial and political and social power on a mass scale they have never experienced before. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they are guided by Ruthless Idealism. The risks to them are relatively low, and the potential gain of locking down a top notch male, or at least bearing children by him, are great. One might go so far as to say that this is the default  setting for women these days, and only certain factors will push them towards Ruthless Pragmatism- and that only for a limited time.

I will try and wrap this post up by noting that men must understand this feature of women if they are actively trying to find a wife. Marrying a woman who is in the Ruthless Pragmatism phase is dangerous. After all, that pragmatism is bound in desperation, and desperate people do stupid things. Not to mention, that her “attraction” to you is bound up in a perceived pragmatic need. If she no longer feels that need, than any prior feelings towards you are likely to disappear. Unless you have managed to meet the expectations of her Idealism, she will reject you as a possible mate. This means, at best, a miserable marriage, and at worst adultery and/or divorce. So my advice is simple: men need to avoid women driven by that force.

Of course, that leads to the question of how one determines whether a woman is driven by Idealism or Pragmatism. But that is a subject for another post.

Something Else

Today’s post is a Masculine Monday post. Male commenters only, please. Also, somewhat stream of consciousness as well.

Rollo has a new post up titled “The Something Else.”

If you want to sum up Rollo’s post, it would be in this simple phrase:

If it wasn’t X-Box it would be something else.

The reality of male/female relations these days is driving more and more men to seek out “something else” to occupy their life.

For some it is escapism- merely an attempt to drone out the overwhelming meaninglessness they feel marks their lives.Whether it is porn or video games or something else, they want to blur out reality. There is no drive for something more, something greater. Merely something to distract.

For others it is a genuine desire to find something of meaning and value. To obtain a purpose for life. Some Red Pill sites call this “your mission.” As a Catholic, I recognize that the word they are searching for is vocation. These men are looking for a calling that they can hold fast to and make their own.

Unfortunately, for many the vocation that most will be called to, marriage, seems mostly out of grasp. And for most probably will be (if they are smart, anyways). The problem, from the Church’s perspective, is that there is nothing in place to really help men who find themselves so frustrated. They will instinctively search of that “something” to replace their vocation, but how much is really there for them? Just among Catholics many will not be called to be priests, or monks (in the traditional sense).

It seems to me that the Church needs to adapt to the change in the Marriage Marketplace. There needs to be something for all the young men who will not be able to marry in the years ahead. And probably something as well for the men who find themselves divorced. I’m talking more than some support group. Rather, something more akin to a community, a brotherhood. Something that provides support and doesn’t leave all these men discrete individuals adrift in the modern world.

I suppose some sort of urban monastery might be in order. Not a place for contemplatives, but a communal home where everyone is a “roomie” and can uplift and support his fellow men. I invite my readers to offer their thoughts on the matter. All the same, I am sure that something is needed to help devout men find that something. Many men are drifting away from the faith, and given the cold shoulder the Church is basically giving them these days, it is hard to blame them. Furthermore, creating a place for men without a home might help secular men who are also adrift in the same ocean.

Men are looking for something else, and the Church needs to help them find it.

 

The Way We Met

[See update at the bottom of the post.]

I ran across the following story via a friend. Apparently it is part of some Facebook feed called The Way We Met:

“I was best friends with George for 10 years before we started dating. We met in High School and developed a really special friendship over the years. I always felt more comfortable telling George something than anyone else I knew. He became my most trusted companion and we hung out all the time. People who didn’t know us always thought we were dating. When we went our separate ways for college, we didn’t talk as much anymore but our friendship remained just as strong. George was always there for me after every bad relationship ended to help me pick up the pieces. I would often say to people, “I think friends can be soul mates, I really think George is mine.” It was odd how we would say the same thing at the same time and always knew what the other person was thinking. I always knew how much George meant to me, but it wasn’t until after my Mom got remarried that I started to look at him in a different light. The day of my Mom’s wedding I came down the stairs and he looked up at me with a big smile and said, “You look beautiful baby,” and then kissed me on the cheek. I don’t know why but something about that moment has always stuck out so strongly to me. The rest of the evening I kept staring at him and thinking about how handsome he was, what a gentleman he was, and how much I cared about him. We danced with each other all night and I realized how perfectly we fit together. It felt like home. After that, it took a couple weeks of nervous deliberation but we finally decided we wanted to be together. It’s crazy to think that my soul mate has been with me this whole time, I just wasn’t ready to accept it yet.”

There are a couple of images that accompany this. They are side by side for comparison:

Now some of you might recognize these images. That is because I featured them in my recent post, Telling Photos. Now that I have included the text that accompanies the photos we can finally start with the making of sense.

So what do we learn from both of them together? Here are a few things:

• The guy (George), was a beta orbiter for a long, long time.
• The gal (whose name I don’t have), had numerous broken relationships. A reasonable inference can be made that [those relationships, or at least some of them, were sexual, although it is not certain].
• The gal believes in Soul Mates. Ouch.
• The gal’s mom was either a divorcee or was a widow. That is not good news for good ol’ George [if it is the latter].
• They are probably somewhere between 24 and 28 years old.
• George majorly stepped up his attractiveness over those ten years.
• She was somewhat overweight at first, and it seems she has managed to get at least some of that weight off.

[A number of these are red flags. They are indicators of possible problems with her as LTR material. That doesn’t necessarily mean she is poor material, but they should prompt caution.]

Here is the thing- if someone who wasn’t “Red Pill” savvy read this piece, they would probably find it sweet. Those of us who are savvy, however, would probably have an entirely different reaction. I found the story sad, not sweet.

You see, reading the piece and looking at those photos tells me that the woman here wasn’t having issues accepting that she was supposed to be with George. Rather, the problem from the beginning was that George just wasn’t sexually attractive. He was too “Beta”, if you will. Since he wasn’t sexually attractive to her, his other great traits meant jack. However, as the years passed by George grew in confidence, and it shows in that second photo. Eventually his attractiveness grew to the point where she no longer dismissed him as a sexual partner. At that point his other great traits were able to come to the forefront, and before you know it you have this:

“I realized how perfectly we fit together.”

Among other things, this story serves as further evidence in support of Rollo Tomassi’s SMV chart:

What happened here is that the girl’s SMV started out much higher than George’s. However, as time went on his SMV continued to climb and climb. Meanwhile, age has reduced the girl’s potential SMV. However, her (presumed) weight loss had the effect of reducing the effective loss of SMV that she felt. The end result of all of this is that both are pretty close in comparative SMV at the time of this photo.

I mentioned before that I find this sad. The reason why is simple: George is now attractive enough that he can get the attention of decent looking girls (I suspect that while most readers would disagree about the actual number, most would agree that she is at least attractive). Yet what does he do with that newfound power? He goes after the girl he has been crushing on for a decade. A girl with all kinds of baggage (which she freely admits to). A girl whose mother probably was a divorcee. A girl who might very well be reaching her “Epiphany phase,” and thus looking to “cash out”on what remains of her SMV.

George seems like a decent guy, and now probably one with options. He should have focused on younger women with less baggage. Instead he married a girl with more red flags than a Communist parade.

Now that I have fleshed out the rest of this story, I invite my readers to comment further. I believe some good solid lessons can be derived here. Sure, most will already know them, but a refresher course never hurts. Plus you never know, there is always the chance for some newfound wisdom.

*For the record, the couple put all of this out there. They made it public, not me. I am merely commenting on what is effectively a public statement of theirs.

Update: Made a few corrections to try and clarify things; they are in brackets. People came to more conclusions than I was expecting in this post.

Update 2: I wrote a followup post which addresses the problems with this one- In Defense of George.

Guest Post: The Irrational Female

The following is a guest post from reader and comment mdavid. As always with guest posts, they represent the beliefs of the author and not my own. I am hosting it both because I think it has some value, as well as the fact that it should hopefully generate some good discussion. [Yes, this is pretty much the same disclaimer as before.]

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

The blog Rational Male explores the psychological ‘why’ of male-female relations. It’s fairly taboo stuff; the author writes under the moniker Rollo Tomassi (the guy who gets away with it). The general theme: helping men understand the indifference of female hypergamy.

 

It’s an exceptional blog. For those detached from today’s sexual marketplace, it resembles an honest, all-guy watercooler discussion about today’s sexual landscape. It’s nearly always thought-provoking. Needless to say, I read Rollo regularly.

 

Rollo recently did a live interview with Goldmund. Below is a transcript of a part I found intriguing. It called to my attention how marriage has become a wholly bimodal institution. The traditionally religious now have completely different marriages than secular versions. This was not the case even 30 years ago. Rollo mused:

 

I think that after 19 years of marriage there is a certain degree of development between the two of you where you know what’s expected of one another. And I also understand that it could all end tomorrow; you know, that’s another thing to keep in mind. Even if you think you have the most unique woman in the world, you think you have the best marriage you ever had, you know there’s a lot of guys in divorce court right now who’ve said exactly the same thing. And I understand that. If you are looking for a woman it’s important, if you want to have a long term relationship you have to keep that in mind. I wrote in the book this chapter called The Pet and how women can go feral on you and if you really, really want to have some sort of an honest relationship with a woman it’s important to accept the fact that she can go feral on you.

 

What I found so intriguing about the above comment was its bland, stoical acceptance that a marriage may simply “blow up” at any time. Note that Rollo’s a smart, experienced guy and no blowhard; I accept what he says as fact for the average American male. Divorce is an ever-present risk, one that looms over a modern man’s marriage.

 

Nevertheless, I cannot personally agree with Rollo’s above quote. Why? It’s simply not true for people of my religious background. I have familiarity with a fair number of traditional people; exactly zero of them have been in divorce court. None seem concerned with spousal abandonment. More than a few are of low SES status and thus more statistically prone to divorce, so it’s not that I travel in elite circles and am ignorant of the proletariat. Divorce is frankly not even a minor concern for traditional religious people.

 

This makes sense. For a traditional religious woman to divorce she must reject her extended family and entire community. She would become alienated from her (likely numerous) children. She would be a public disappointment, an embarrassment to everyone she knows. Women, unlike many men, are sensitive to social pressure, so divorce simply doesn’t happen often in these communities.

 

In Rollo’s interview (which is worth listening to, by the way) he is asked: “What’s the most important trait you as a man can display to prevent [a wife] from going feral?” I was once again dumbfounded at the underlying assumption. Is there really such an outrageous expectation of male performance today? Is it now a man’s purview to prevent his wife from destroying her own marriage? Divorce is certainly not in a woman’s best genetic interest in nearly every case, since her fertility window is tight and modern culture is very K-strategy focused. Single mothers may have raised Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, but they are far more likely to visit their kid in prison than the White House. And they know it.

 

So why do modern women so often go feral? It can’t be traditional female nature; traditional women don’t behave this way at all. Seen many Amish feminists lately? Me neither. My hypothesis: The modern loss of female fidelity is an organic reaction to below replacement birth rates. Modern women intuit they are going extinct* and this triggers a subconscious yet frantic quest for a fruitful mate.

 

I’m inclined to this explanation since it handles the data while avoiding fuzzy psychological, religious, or moral guesswork. For every childless woman in a tribe, it’s a plain fact that another woman must crank out 4.2 children just to break even (only 7% of women of childbearing age are currently doing so). Natural selection would likely evolve a feral response for unfruitful women since empty wombs are a first-order death knell of any culture. Visit Southern California for pointers. Brush up on your Spanish first.

 

Having children is a woman’s primary raison d’être. She either breeds at replacement or vanishes into the dustbin of history. Empty wombs (especially amid the extreme wealth of today) should cause modern women to go feral. Men, however, are not encoded to so panic, having evolved to find meaning and purpose as worker bees for the tribe (e.g. soldiers). This enables their brothers, extended family, and tribe to march on to genomic victory.

 

The battle between the sexes has clearly heated up to epic levels. Men have responded to the challenge of women’s unilateral control of family with a brilliantly effective scorched earth tactic: boycotting the husbanding of children and family while taking sex whenever possible. Subconsciously men believe all is genetically well, since they are having sex and that’s enough for r-strategy survival. For this reason, men’s happiness versus women’s has been increasing over the last decade. What’s not for him to like? Less work, more varied sex options, and no family obligations.

 

Women, undeniably barren, are driven into unhappy desperation. As a final insult, they are expected to work outside the home and can’t help but subconsciously note migrants populating the gaps left by their own lack of children. For most men this culture, while worth enjoying, is certainly not worth fighting for. So they sit poolside, having accepted and even embraced the status quo.

 

*US Census shows 42% of women of childbearing age currently have no children. 22% have two, 17% one, 12% three, and 7% four or more. That means only 1/5 of women today have yet to dodge the ignominy of the Darwin Award. Interestingly, nearly all of the traditional women I know (who eschew divorce, natch) are in that final 7%. Having won the genetic lottery, why go feral? Domesticated animals rarely leave the warm farm if the farmer is feeding and breeding them well.

This Isn’t Revenge

An assertion that is made with some frequency around these parts, mostly but not always by female commenters, is that the present feminist paradigm is a response to the injustices of the previous social system. As is often explained, “the Evil Patriarchy” is responsible for the injustices of feminism, because its oppression drove women to overreact and go to the opposite extreme. In other words, it is all about revenge.

A similar assertion is sometimes made about folks in the manosphere, especially those who fall in the “Pick-Up Artist” camp. The general idea is that after years of suffering under feminism, these men are “turning the tables” on women and having their revenge through pump’n’dumps and the like.

What all of this seemingly points to is an endless cycle of revenge. One sex gets the advantage over the other, abuses that power, and causes the other sex to “rebel” and seek to dominate in turn. Patriarchy –> Feminism –> Patriarchy –> Feminism and on and on and on. It is a very tantalizing theory. Certainly there are plenty of people on both sides whose apparent motive is revenge. As far as theories go, it explains an awful lot.

Of course, it is also flat out wrong.

Revenge is certainly a factor for some people. For them, it gives real strength and impetus to their pursuits, whatever they may be. But something far more fundamental is at play than revenge. That something is base human nature, specifically our sexual nature. There are two very important things which must be understood in order to comprehend why this isn’t about revenge:

The first is that human male and human female base sexual strategies are not the same. Where men tend to by polygamists, women tend to be serial monogamists. Men want sexual variety, women want the best possible man around. The sexes both look for different traits in a mate, and have different approaches to deciding if someone of the opposite sex is worth commitment or a worthy long term partner.

The second is to understand Rollo’s Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own. [Relevant post here.]

When you put both of these together you can immediately see that conflict is inescapable. Men and women have incompatible sexual strategies that cannot co-exist. At least one sex must be the “loser” in this conflict- at least one must see its preferred strategy and social order to support it, yield to the other. Of course, some among the “losing” sex will still benefit, and perhaps might even be individually winning. But on the whole that particular sex comes out behind.

[There is also the possibility that both “lose” in a social order which regulates both male and female sexual strategies towards some sort of “compromise point. Such systems are very difficult to sustain, as they are not natural to either sex and therefore will encounter opposition, on various levels, from both sexes.]

All of this is leading towards the logical conclusion that the present conflict between the sexes, on whatever level it exists, was inevitable. If you were to wipe everyone’s memory, so that the “evils” of the past and present were gone, the conflict would still be ongoing. Men would still want to be Pick-Up Artists, women would still want to be carousel riders who then latch onto “Betas.” Revenge might give some individuals extra vigor, but our base nature is pushing us in that direction in the first place. Both movements are merely natural expressions of our base nature, a base nature that has lost none of its potency during the “rise of civilization.” The theory of evolution and Genesis’s Fall both point towards a humanity whose proclivities lead men and women to do exactly what they are doing now.

All of this is important to keep in mind in order to not get bogged down by distracting arguments. Don’t get distracted by talk of “waves” or “payback” or “our turn” or the like. The blame game might be easy, and it might be fun, but it obscures what is really going on here. There is a conflict raging between men and women, one that has been going on since our species first appeared on this Earth. It is a conflict that will not abate as long as we remain human. At best we can merely control or contain it, but only through extraordinary, or even extreme, measures.

So when asking yourself, or when asked by others, what is driving feminists to oppress men, and what is driving men to respond by adopting “gutter tactics”, keep the following in mind.

This isn’t Revenge.

This is War.

The Gift Of Advice

Long time readers might be familiar with the book A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century, which I plugged last year. The author of the book, Don Riefstahl, has edited and updated his book and just released a second edition. Even better, he is offering a free PDF copy to anyone interested. If you want to check it out, or would like to send a quick and easy gift to a man in need, you can download it here. The book is published under a creative commons license and can be freely shared and copied.

The book itself is short (about a hundred pages) and provides a very brief encapsulation of much of what is discussed here and on other Christian monsopherian blogs. Don has cleaned up a lot since his first edition, and the book reads better and gets the point across much more smoothly. One thing that Don deserves a lot of credit for is sourcing – he has lots of footnotes providing all the sources for his quotes and statistics. They definitely raise the credibility of the book significantly.

The book is aimed at the dating crowd, however, even if a Christian man isn’t interested in marriage (or is too young), this book still has a lot of value. Don explores a great deal of male and female nature which every man should know. Truthfully, there is a lot in there for pretty much any Christian man to find something educational and edifying.

As Don explained it to me:

I have yet to find a book this size (or any other size for that matter) that shows how gender relations work in the framework of a contract between the sexes, and how that contract was built upon how God designed men and women. This book also tackles the wage gap myth, MGTOW, and “manning up” – all key topics that men today need to be aware of, whether they are looking to get married or not.The church today largely doesn’t understand these issues, so they are blaming men (and single men especially) for the breakdown in the system. We need to get this message to the men of the church so that change can come from informed believers within.

While this book is not an exhaustive treatise on everything a Christian man should do or know, it does serve as an effective primer and “wake-up call” for the average Christian man. It provides a good, basic explanation of socio-sexual behavior that will be helpful to nearly anyone. So I strongly recommend it to those who are new to this part of the web or who haven’t ever heard this kind of message before.

For those interested in a paper copy as a gift, it is sold via Amazon.

Defining The Problem

I.

The purpose of this post is provide a single space where I define the terms that I use across my blog in ways that might be different in meaning from the common understanding. It is meant to serve as a reference in later posts, and as a place to direct inquiries made via comments or e-mail. I will be updating it over time to add more terms and to clarify and flesh out older terms. This will not be a static post. One thing I should make clear is that these are the terms/words as I used them. My commenters and other blogs might use them differently.

I’ve been meaning to write a post like this for a long time now, but never got around to it. A number of my posts, including my recent post “What qualities should a man look for in a wife?” have involved confusion and misunderstanding because readers and commenters didn’t understand what I meant by certain terms. Having a frame of reference would have helped there. Also, Deep Strength’s recent post, “Attraction, desire, chemistry, arousal and marriage” was another major catalyst in finally getting around to it. Keep in mind that he and I agree on a lot when it comes to definitions, but don’t agree on everything.

II.

So, without further ado, here are the terms I would like to define:

Attractive: When I use this word it generally is in reference to sexual attractiveness. An attractive woman is a woman who is sexually attractive to men, and an attractive man is a man who is sexually attractive to women.  It does not refer to traits which might be valuable in men or women, but do not affect their sexual attractiveness in any way.

Attractive/Attraction Traits: An attractive trait on someone is a feature that is sexually attractive- it generates sexual attraction in men or women. It is not something that might be desirable because it has positive ramifications, but doesn’t affect how sexually attractive he or she is. An example of an attraction trait is a man or woman’s facial structure- this is something that will affect how sexually attractive a man or woman is.

Attraction: When someone wants someone because he or she is sexually attractive to that person.

Desirable: When I use this word it is generally in reference to reasons to be drawn to a person for non-sexual reasons. It applies to those things someone might want in a man or woman, but do not impact their overall sexual attractiveness. Generally come into play only in long-term relationships. A desirable woman is a woman who has many traits that do not make her sexually attractive but otherwise raise her value as a potential long-term partner. A desirable man is a man who has many traits that do not make him sexually attractive but otherwise raise his value as a potential long-term partner.

Desirable/Desirability traits: Those traits which men or women want in the opposite sex that don’t affect sexual attraction but are otherwise valuable to have. Loyalty is an example of a desirable trait- it doesn’t affect sexual attractiveness but is valuable in a potential long-term partner.

Desire: Refers to when someone wants someone else because he or she finds the other person sexually attractive and because that person has a number of positive traits which them them a good long-term partner. Example- If I desire a woman it means that I find her attractive and she has those traits which I value in a potential wife, so I want to make her mine.

AWALT: All Women Are Like That. Often used in conjunction with a broad statement about female nature. Generally means that nearly all women meet whatever standard or possess whatever behavior is being asserted, so it can be treated as though all women are like that.

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Often used to reject a statement that claims AWALT or implicates as much. Asserts that there are always outliers and exceptions to general female behaviors and actions.

FI: Refers to the Feminine Imperative.

Feminine Imperative: A concept (to the best of my knowledge) first advanced by blogger Rollo Tomassi at The Rational Male. A somewhat difficult concept to explain, I use it to refer to hardwired human biological conditioning which generally favors abstract female interests over abstract male interests in the social group. The general idea is that the FI manifests itself in those policies and rules which favor women over men, even when those rules/policies are illogical or run counter to other policies or beliefs (such as equality under the law). Unless consciously accounted and compensated for, any system over time will be overtaken by the FI and morph into one that favors women at the expense of men.

EAP: Stands for Entitled American Princess most of the time. Occasionally used to refer to an Evangelical American Princess. Both however are essentially the same thing as I used them, with the latter merely being more specific.

Entitled American Princess: Refers to an American woman (usually unmarried) with a massive entitlement complex who earnestly believes that all men should treat her as a real, live princess. That is, defer to her interests at all times. Such women see the overwhelming majority of men as mere tools to be used.

SMV: Stands for Sexual Market Value

Sexual Market Value: Refers to how sexually attractive someone is in the overall environment that they find themselves in. For women, this tends to be objective- a woman is not more or less attractive depending on how attractive the women near her are. Female SMV is usually rated on a 1-10 scale. Male attractiveness is partially subjective- how attractive a man is can be impacted by how attractive the other men in the environment (“market”) are.

SMP: Stands for Sexual Marketplace.

Sexual Marketplace: Refers to the overall “dating” scene between men and women in which both sexes compete with their own sex for the attentions/affections of the opposite sex. Recognizes that attractiveness is the primary driving force in the overall “value” someone has in this system. The primary purposes of this environment, this “market” is sex and sexual gratification, and not long-term relationships or marriage.

MMV: Stands for Marriage Market Value.

Marriage Market Value: Refers to the overall “value” someone has when looking for a potential spouse in the overall environment that they find themselves in. Tends to be correlated with, but not necessarily match, SMV. MMV is a mix of objective factors, such as loyalty, and subjective factors, such as overall place in the job market. Both attraction and desirability traits determine MMV.

MMP: Stands for Marriage Marketplace.

Marriage Marketplace: Refers to overall collection of people seeking marriage in the present environment. At the moment the Sexual Marketplace is dominant, and thus the Marriage Marketplace is forced to operate within it. This creates a great many problems. Based on the understanding that some men and women make (or would make) better husbands or wives, and that men and women therefore compete with one another to get the best possible spouse.

Hypergamy: Refers to the female reproductive impulse which drives female behavior more than anything else. As used here, hypergamy is the female inclination to seek out the highest value (that is the most attractive) man available  and to attempt to secure that male as a mate. Essentially, women are driven to have the best when it comes to men. If a better man comes along, they will want him instead. If a woman feels that she can do better than her present man, it will greatly reduce her attraction to him and her relationship with him may die. Hypergamy doesn’t care- it doesn’t care what a man has done in the past for a woman, it doesn’t care what promises she might have made or what oaths she might have sworn and it doesn’t care who might be hurt so long as it gets its way. However, women are not robots- they can overcame their hypergamous instincts and not be ruled by them… if they chose to.

Churchianity: Refers to a perverted, corrupted form of Christianity which is no longer consistent with basic Christian teaching and doctrine. Does not refer to sectarian splits, or arguments between faith traditions (i.e., Catholic v. Orthodox v. Protestant). Churchianity is heavily infected by modernism/liberalism, and would be unrecognizable to early Christians as representing the Christian faith. In many respects Churchianity is what happens when people attempt to reconcile their worldly views with Christianity. Rather than conforming to God, they conform to the world, and “adjust” their religious beliefs so that their faith is compatible with their worldly beliefs.

Churchian: Someone who practices Churchianity. A churchian is of the world, and not of God. Someone who does not accept that their faith requires rejecting the world and embracing the persecution which results from it.

Object of Contention

I.

Mrs. ktc over at To our bodies turn we then had a post some days back (found here) in which she linked over to a discussion at The Thinking Housewife in a post called Looking for a Wife.

The discussion starts thanks to a commenter named George- a frustrated mid-30’s Christian man who cannot find a wife. While there is a lot to dissect in his comment, and the ones that follow, I want to focus on one particular segment of his comment. Specifically, the parts in bold of his second to last paragraph:

This lack of goal fulfillment is most dispiriting when it comes to family formation, as I feel that if I cannot find and marry a mate within a few years that it will be too late from a practical perspective to achieve my goal of having a family. After 35 the single male is for better or worse seen as defective and a romantic discard, especially those who are shy and have had little experience in relationships. They are seen as losers and I have come to the conclusion that this is absolutely the correct way to view them. They are not up to their duties as men to procreate, provide, and protect and they have failed the game of life. This of course also means that I consider myself to be a loser. Is this the correct way to view such men? I understand that not all men want to marry or have families, that some men abstain for religious or other convictions, and that events in life sometimes lead to undesirable but uncontrollable outcomes. But I have had plenty of time to do the heavy lifting and have failed to do so, frankly out of cowardice and fear, and also because it is very difficult to find traditionally minded women out there.

[Emphasis mine]

Comments were closed there, so I couldn’t respond, which is a pity because I had a lot to say about this. This post is about objectification of men, and how it relates to George and to other men in Church. It will be in two parts- the first addresses George specifically, and the second men who find themselves in a position similar to George (somewhat older man who is moderately successful yet unmarried).

II.

My first, initial reaction was disgust. Here was a man who had completely, unreservedly accepted the feminist construction of man as an object designed to serve women. Under this view men exist only so far as they can provide for and protect women, and for a rare few, procreate with them. It is the ultimate objectification of men (unless someone can clue me in to one that is worse), turning them into mere tools for women. Ballista over at Society of Phineas has countless posts about this mindset. Plenty of other bloggers have addressed it as well, including Dalrock and Free Northerner, to name a few. And this guy had bought into it hook, line and sinker. His question “Is this the correct way to view such men?” is a meaningless formality, and not a serious inquiry, as one can tell by both the proceeding and following sentences.

George’s real problem is not his lack of a wife. That is a problem, true, but one that can wait. First he needs to recognize the poison that has infiltrated his mind and eject it, forcibly (much like removing snake venom from a wound). In its place he needs to accept that men (and women) exist to glorify God, first and foremost. Everything else comes second. To place anything about serving and glorifying God is Idolatry. And that is what George has (apparently unconsciously) done. Note how serving God never shows up in his comment in reference to himself. He is an idolater and doesn’t even realize it. Until George transforms his mind, until he reassess his worth and value, everything else he does is moot.

What would I tell George?

I would tell him that serving God needs to be the primary focus of his life. Perhaps that means doing so as a husband and father. Perhaps it doesn’t. Prayer and discernment are key- figure out your vocation, your calling so that you can do what God wants you to do. At the same time, recognize your value as a man doesn’t depend on how well you can “procreate, provide and protect.” Your value is based on how well you serve God. It is not based on how well you serve women. If society teaches something other than that, society should be ignored. Conform to God, not the world. Oh, and once that is done, remember you aren’t looking for a woman whom you will serve as your wife. You are looking for a helpmeet, a woman who will help you serve and glorify the Lord.

III.

This brings me to another point. Even after a man stops objectifying himself, he needs to watch out for other people, especially other Christians Churchians, who will objectify him. Now, I gather from George’s comment that he has relatively little, if any, sexual history. So what follows will be based in part on that assumption, as applied to him and to other single Christian with little to no sexual history.

I’ve written in the past that “sometimes I get the impression that a lot of Christians see good, virtuous men as janitors or sanitation workers who are expected to pick up the “trash” in church.” I believe that this phenomenon is largely a result of Christians Churchians having come to objectify men (aided along by the feminine imperative, of course). They view men as tools or resources that can be used to solve problems. This is especially prevalent among those in leadership positions, who have to confront those problems in church and find solutions for them. One such problem is the former carousel rider and/or single mother. Both are problems in their own way, especially the single mother, who is almost certainly a net resource drain on the church. What I think happens is that is that when someone in leadership looks at that situation, he sees a problem that needs solving. And what do you do when you have a problem that needs solving? You look for the right tool to fix it, of course. Enter the single Christian man looking for a wife- here is the solution to the Church’s problem! When he marries that washed up harlot single woman the man has the wife he was looking for, and the Church no longer has a drain on its resources. And if there were children, why they have a father now!

Of course, someone with that mindset is motivated by what is best for them, and best for the church as an organization. They do not have the best interest of single Christian men in mind. Certainly they never stop to consider what would make for a good wife for the somewhat older single Christian man with little to no sexual history. If they did they would realize that such women would certainly not be good wives for men in George’s position (Truth be told, they might not be good wives for men in any position-but that is another matter). Of course, those who have that mindset would never stop to consider what would make for a good wife for men like George. If they did, they would have to recognize that it would be women whom the church would be in short supply of, and the kind of women that most people in the church don’t want marrying anyways (devout, younger, not unattractive women with little to no sexual history).

I would say to George and to a man in a similar position the following: marry a woman because you want to marry her and because she is a good match for you and you are a good match for her, not because others want you to marry her. Unless God orders you to marry a harlot, you are under no obligation to wife one up. Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise. You have no duty to rescue a woman from her past mistakes errors by marrying her. You do not owe it to a child that is not yours to marry his or her mother just so that child has a “father.” You should take to wife a woman who is a good match for you (and vice versa), not someone that people in church are trying to offload on you. Marriage is meant to glorify God, through properly channeling human sexuality and rearing God-fearing children. It is not about reducing the monetary burden of a Church. Or for providing a happy, fairy-tale ending to all the women in Church. If anyone tries to press the issue, make it clear to them that you are a man, not a tool. You have inherent value and dignity. This means you aren’t obliged to marry an unsuitable woman*. And don’t hesitate to make that abundantly clear. If they don’t respect that position, then leave that church, shake the dust from your feet, and find a new community of actual Christians.

IV.

In summary:

Men, don’t objectify yourselves. You exist to serve and glorify God, not to serve and glorify women. Also, don’t let others objectify you, especially when it comes to a wife. Marry a woman who is a good match for you. If you don’t have much of a sexual history, ignore those who want you to marry a single mother or former carousel rider. If they don’t accept your decision, leave that church and find a better one.

* I should at this time emphasize that suitability is the most important thing here. A woman might have truly, earnestly repented of her past but that doesn’t automatically mean she would make for a good wife. I am working on a post (hopefully out by Friday) which will examine what men should look for in a wife, and it will delve into further detail on this. But some qualities, like sensibility and good judgment, are crucial for a woman to have to make a good wife, and a man needs to look for them in a potential bride. Women who have grievously sinned (especially sexually) knowing what they were doing have demonstrated a serious lack of such traits. Furthermore, they might never gain good sense or judgment, despite their repentance.

Of course, that covers only character. As readers of my blog are well aware there are other reasons why a woman’s past might not make her suitable as a bride, especially for a man with little to no sexual history. A woman whose innocence was stolen from her is not at fault for her past, but unfortunately that past can and usually does impact her marriage. A man must carefully discern whether such a woman is a suitable match for him, and also whether he is equipped to deal with the consequences of her tragic past. My suspicion is that few men with no sexual history are ready or capable of this. A similar reasoning applies to women who were not raised to see fornication as a sin- they are usually not a good match for such men.

The important thing is prayer and discernment. Don’t let anyone else manipulate you into what is likely to be a bad marriage. 

What We Mean By Marriage

Ballista has just written a post over at Society of Phineas where he attacks the modern counterfeit of marriage. His post, Defending the Lie That is Marriage, is worth reading in its entirety, and I suggest my readers head over there first before finishing up with my post.

His post, and the comments which spawned it over at Deep Strength’s blog, got me thinking about what we mean by “marriage.” Ballista likes to use the terms “Marriage 1.0” and “Marriage 2.0” to distinguish between marriage as it was, and marriage as it is now. Certainly for the purposes of discussion such terms are a vast improvement, as they help us keep in mind what is actually being talked about. However, I think that we can go yet further with them. More divisions of what marriage is, and marriage was, are possible. This extends even beyond a categorization based on time, because when we talk about the institution of marriage we are really talking about two different things- the religious institution of marriage, and the legal/civil institution of marriage. They are not the same thing, not by a long-shot. [Edit: As Christians, we should recognize that the State can call whatever it likes marriage, and that doesn’t actually mean that it is marriage. But while the object may not be marriage, the name is, and so it is important to distinguish between them. This post aims to explore that distinction.] So I’m going to use this post to try and break up the two of them, and then categorize them as well, so that when we talk about marriage, we can be as specific as possible.

I. The Religious Institution

Over the course of nearly two thousand years the Christian understanding and meaning of marriage has changed enormously. But most of that change has taken place in the last century or two. Prior to the last two centuries there was a general understanding of what Christian marriage was, and what it wasn’t. Below are my attempts to categorize what Christians (including both Churchians and actual, devout Christians) mean when they refer to marriage in a religious sense:

A. Classical Christian Marriage

This is Christian marriage as it originally existed. Some of its features included:

• A holy union between a man and a woman which is joined together by God, bound by him and their oaths
• The purpose of marriage is to serve God, avoid sexual immorality and to raise Godly Children
• A clear hierarchy in the marriage structure: husband->wife->children
• Binding for Life- the marriage lasted until one party died, with only rare exceptions
• Spouses may not deny each other their conjugal rights
• Contraception was a defilement of the marriage bed
• Clearly defined roles for husband and wife- both worked, although often in different capacities

I used past tense here because, as a general rule, Classical Christian Marriage doesn’t exist anymore- either as a practice or as what people have in mind when they think of marriage. Save perhaps for the most orthodox/conservative Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, where you might see it.  They are an exception, even among exceptions, however. Otherwise, this is not what Christians think of when they talk about marriage.

B. “Traditional” Christian Marriage

This is Christian marriage as it existed following the rise of modernism, but before the full manifestation of contemporary feminism. Its features include:

• A holy union between a man and a woman which is joined together by God, bound by their oaths to each other
• The purpose of marriage is to raise Godly children, as well as to civilize men and allow women to achieve their dreams of motherhood
• Recognition of the marital hierarchy, but often accompanied by exemptions and caveats
• Binding for Life- marriage is still supposed to be for life, but there are more “outs” available now
• Spouses are not supposed to deny each other their conjugal rights, but there are exceptions/exemptions
• Contraception is generally a bad thing, but sometimes may be necessary
• Clearly defined roles for husband and wife- the husband works and provides, and the wife raises the children and keeps the home.

When nearly all Christians talk about traditional marriage, or going back to what marriage “used to be”, this is what they mean. Not classical marriage, but rather the religious understanding of marriage that was affected by culture and politics in the modern era. I say politics because legal definitions of marriage started to become prevalent at this point, and influenced people’s understanding of what marriage was.

C. Contemporary “Conservative” Christian Marriage

This is Christian marriage as most “conservative” Christians think of it nowadays. It is thoroughly infected with modern feminist thought, even though its supporters may argue otherwise. It has been around for several generations now. Among its features you find:

• A holy union between a man and a woman who are in love, [DG: here is the newest addition] gay people should be able to get something similar so as to not discriminate
• The purpose of marriage is for the spouses to be happy
• Unclear notions of the marital hierarchy- there might be some nominal notions of submission and headship, but more likely than not marriage is treated as a partnership of equals, i.e. “Mutual Submission”
• Binding for Love- marriage is “supposed” to be for life, but if one of a dozen different things happens, all of which tied to one spouse’s happiness or falling out of love, the marriage can be ended by either party
• Spouses shouldn’t sexually deny each other, but both get a say on what is appropriate or not, and besides, marriage is about more than sex and caring about it too much is a sin
• Contraception is a personal thing between a married couple and God
• Clearly defined role for the husband- he works and provides for and protects the family; the wife however has the right to decide whether she wants to work or wants to stay at home and choose if she wants to raise the kids herself

For most “conservative” Christians this is what they understand by marriage. As one can see by comparing it to what came before, it bears little semblance to what marriage used to be, what marriage is supposed to be. Yet for most Christians they can’t understand how marriage could be anything different- in large part because they haven’t seen anything different themselves. As for another idea of marriage, something more traditional, well, that is something they just are ashamed to think of, much less be associated with.

D. Contemporary “Progressive” Christian Marriage

This is what “progressive” Christians think of when it comes to marriage. Incidentally, this is probably the future of marriage as most Christians understand it. After all, “conservative” marriage now used to be progressive Christian marriage back in the day.

• A union between two [DG: soon to be any number] people in love
• The purpose of marriage is for the spouses to be happy
• No marital hierarchy- marriage is supposed to be a partnership among equals
• Binding for Love- marriage lasts as long as both spouses are happy and in love, once that ceases either may end the marriage for any reason
• Spouses decide for themselves what kind of sex life they should have
• Contraception is a purely personal thing between the couple, and there is nothing wrong with it anyways
• No defined roles for spouses- the spouses do whatever they want with regards to work and children

Everything above is a short summary of what “progressive” Christians think marriage to be. Of course, this is increasingly what the mainstream, “conservative” Christians will come to believe constitutes marriage.

That covers the religious institution of marriage. Now on to the legal/civil side of it.

II. The Legal Institution

The legal “understanding” or “definition” of marriage has changed a great deal in a much shorter period of time than has the religious understanding. In large part this is because the State has played a minor (or even non-existent) role in marriage for most of Christian history. Only in the last few centuries has this changed- not coincidentally this happens to overlap with changes to the religious understanding of marriage as well. [Edit: Remember that we are talking about the State definition of “marriage”, not the institution/sacrament that God created.] Here are my attempts to categorize the legal institution over marriage over time:

A. Marriage v. 0.5

This represents the legal state of marriage before significant government involvement. For much, but not all, of the history of Christianity, this was the norm. The exceptions would be the present, modern age, as well as in the very beginning of the Church under Roman rule.  Some of its features:

• Minimal Government regulation- recognizing and regulating marriage was largely left up to the church, and not handled by the state
• Legal Separation- divorce, like marriage, was a private affair; there was generally no civil recognition of divorce, although legal separation of spouses, which handled property rights, was recognized
• Paternal Custody- the father gained custody of all legitimate children in the event of some sort of separation
• No wealth transfer- the state didn’t enforce monetary sanctions on a spouse, as it wasn’t involved in marriage; this means no alimony, property transfers or child support

As you can see, a pretty hands off approach. My basic understanding of history leads me to believe that this was the paradigm from the fall of Rome up to about the Reformation. After that, we saw the next legal stage of marriage develop.

B. Marriage v. 1.0

For a long time this was the classical legal understanding of marriage. It marked an era where government became involved in the field of marriage. The reasons for this are numerous- property disputes, dispute over custody, and moral concerns. Here are a few of its features:

• Government Regulation- government recognized and regulated marriage, marriage licenses were commonplace and were often necessary in conjunction with a Church wedding
• Fault-based Divorce- divorce was permitted in only a few circumstances, such as repeated adultery, abandonment or abuse
• Nature- marriage was a special contractual relationship between a man and a woman
• Paternal Custody- the father gained custody of all legitimate children in the event of some sort of separation; however, certain doctrines did give the mother limited custody, such as during the “tender years”
• Limited Wealth Transfers- In some instance, primarily/only when the husband was at fault, the wife was entitled to alimony payments; otherwise no child support or property transfers
• Coverture- husband and wife considered “one person” for many aspects of the law, with the husband in principal control of the marriage, although certain exceptions did develop towards the end of this regime
• Standing Consent- husband recognized as having the legal right to sex with his wife at any time, no such notion as “marital rape” is recognized, as they are both “one person” (you cannot rape yourself)

Up until the last century or so this was the standard legal understanding of marriage. However, starting with a number of exceptions and caveats developing in the late 1800s, this regime started to undergo a radical transformation. Partly this was due to cultural changes, but also legal changes that expanded upon existing exceptions and doctrines.

C. Marriage v. 2.0

Now we come to the vaunted “Marriage 2.0”, which was, until the last few years, the standard for a number of decades. Only the very oldest now living experienced a time before this legal regime was present. Its appearance was a result of the logical expansion of a number of doctrines, like the “tender years” doctrine, as well as the natural extension of concepts like “married woman’s property laws.” Below are a few of its features:

• Government Regulation- government recognized and regulated marriage, marriage licenses were standard and were often necessary in conjunction with a Church wedding
• Nature- marriage was a special contractual relationship between a man and a woman
• No-Fault based Divorce- divorce was permitted in all circumstances, without any party being “at fault”, essentially unilateral divorce
• Maternal Custody- the mother gained custody of all children in most instances of separation, usually only failing to do so when she was gravely at fault in some way, such as a drug addict
• Significant Wealth Transfers- Child Support is standard from the higher earning spouse, in addition alimony might also be required (usually of the husband), in addition property is split during divorce, with the nature of the split determined by the jurisdiction
• Egalitarianism- husband and wife are separate persons and “equals” before the law, and have equal rights in the marriage
• No Standing Consent- marital rape is recognized everywhere, spouses have no right to sex in marriage

Over the course of the last century Marriage 2.0 developed and flourished. For the longest of time it was the standard legal regime when marriage was concerned. While “No-Fault” divorce was a large part of it, it wasn’t the only component which made Marriage 2.0 what it is. In addition, even when fault was still required some courts still treated it as no-fault anyways. All of these components added up to what constituted Marriage 2.0. I am using past tense here because this regime is in the process of being replaced by a new “edition” or “version”, one which is still forming.

D. Marriage v. 3.0

At last we come to the newest legal version of marriage. Of course, it is still in “Beta”, and can be considered v. 2.5 if we want to get technical. So, what are the changes? Well, to begin with have the removal of any requirement that both parties to a marriage be a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is recognized under the new regime. Another possible change, one that I predict happening within 15 years, is acceptance of legal polygamy. So it will be a contractual relationship between “two or more” people. For the moment, at least, I think that the requirement of people will stick and animals or other objects won’t be included, but perhaps I’m being optimistic.

Of course, with same sex marriage certain doctrines no longer work. For example, “maternal custody” is likely to be set aside, because it won’t apply to gay couples. My suspicion is that new system for determining custody, based solely on availability and time spent with children, will be developed. Ironically, this might be to the advantage of some men. Otherwise, I don’t expect any significant shake-ups. It is, if anything, a logical development of what has gone before.

III. Interplay

What can be readily noticed is that Marriage 0.5 and Marriage 1.0 match up fairly well with both Classical and “traditional” Christian marriage. This is because the former was heavily influenced by the latter. Unfortunately, the development of “traditional” Christian marriage also influenced the legal aspects of marriage, leading to the slow expansion of Marriage 1.0. In fact, for a time there was probably a Marriage 1.5, mostly in the early part of the 20th century. But it was quickly swallowed up by Marriage 2.0. That in turn was also influenced by the “conservative” Christian take on marriage, and reciprocated by influencing “conservative” marriage in turn. Both fed off each others worst natures.

[Edit: Because there was such a strong similarity to what God intended to be marriage, and what the State called marriage, it was easy for most people to assume they were the same thing. In fact, most people still think that the State can determine what is, and isn’t marriage, and that includes most Christians. Zippy covered this subject before in a post here, I think most will find it worth a read, even if they aren’t Catholic.]

This brings us to the counterfeit that Ballista warned about. When most “Christian” leaders today talk about marriage, when they promote marriage, what they are really talking about/promoting is “conservative” Christian marriage under a Marriage 2.0/2.5 regime. Perhaps a few, a rare few, might even support “traditional” marriage. But that is still under the present legal regime. That is a far cry from what “marriage” was like a century ago, when it was either classical or “traditional” Christian marriage under a Marriage 1.0 regime. These conditions might share the same name of “marriage,” but in reality they are very different entities notions.

Setting aside even any legal considerations, the form of marriage that Christian leaders push today is still not classical Christian marriage. While it might superficially resemble marriage as it originally was for Christians, beneath the surface are found significant mutations that warp the purpose and nature of marriage. Alas, these mutations have been around for long enough that they are now associated with how marriage “traditionally” existed a long time ago. The deceit inherent in traditional marriage is dangerous to someone who think that they are entering a truly Christian marriage for two reasons. The first is that they are not in fact living a Christian marriage as God intended. The second is that the “flaws” in traditional marriage make it vulnerable to the pressures of contemporary culture and the present legal regime- there is plenty to encourage a spouse to change their mind about marriage and blow theirs up on a whim.

As I end this post, I would encourage my readers to offer their thoughts on the interplay between the religious and legal institutions of marriage, as well as my analysis of how marriage has changed over time. Let me know if I’m on the right track, or point out where I missed the mark.

Thoughts on Pair Bonding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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