Clarifying The Lesson

This post is a follow-up to my earlier post A Warning And A Lesson. There was some confusion about that post, which I’m hoping to clear up.

I am going to begin by addressing this comment from The Unreal Woman:

So a young woman’s family actually bothering to provide vetting in her process of finding a husband is now horribly wrong? Either you want courtship and the interference from the adults who know the young woman well that it will entail or you want to just do what you want without other people interfering.

To make it clear, I do not have a problem with someone’s family vetting a potential spouse. In fact, I am a major supporter of it. The lack of familial involvement in the marriage process in the last few generations has, in my opinion, been one of the major reasons why the marriage market is so messed up right now. I would be a hypocrite to support the Courtship Pledge if I opposed family involvement and interference in the courtship process.

At the same time I’ve received some e-mails from people who suggest that while I may not have a problem with parental input, there is a general consensus among men towards the opposite belief. I think that this view has merit, based on what I’ve seen and heard, especially talking to men around these parts. A lot of men are highly suspicious of parental involvement in the present marriage market, and frankly I have trouble blaming them. Most parents these days act only as a negative force when it comes to courtship. By that I mean that the only thing most of them ever do is exercise a form of veto power. Few if any will actually go to the trouble of helping their children (principally daughters) to find good, marriageable spouses. So its understandable if men are leery at this prospective system- the sum total of their experience with it has likely only been negative. When all you’ve ever heard is No its easy to suspect that you won’t ever hear a Yes.

[As a side note, a much better method exists that what these veto-parents utilize. Right now the general strategy is to wait for a daughter to bring a man to their attention, and then determine if he is suitable or not. Oftentimes this will be met with a rejection, which can be problematic if the woman has already got some feelings for him and/or thinks he would be a good husband. A superior method would be for parents to go out, screen men and then introduce the ones who are suitable to their daughter. That way, his approval is already “baked in.” I think daughters would also approve, as they would be the ones having the “final say” under this system.]

Another thing I want to clear up is the role of the example I provided. I included that story from stringtheory mostly to buttress my argument that encouraging men to marry young is of limited utility in the present age. I don’t know any of the players in that story. In legal terms it must be something like triple hearsay or something. That is to say I don’t know any of the background details. I don’t know if there were some perfectly valid reasons for the parents to reject that young man as a suitor. It might not have been his age at all, but something else, and they only used his age as an excuse. Or perhaps the parents didn’t think their daughter was ready for marriage, or that she would be suitable for him. The point is, I don’t know the full details. None of us do.

I will note that TSK was right in pointing out that the young man did respect the parent’s wishes. He didn’t try and elope with their daughter. Heck, he even respected the wishes of the elders of his church, despite their patently unbiblical perspective (which was apparent in later comments by stringtheory).

Something that surprised me about that post is that no one asked me what the warning was, and what the lesson was. I hope that means it was obvious, but in case it wasn’t: The lesson was about what I think young Christian men should be taught about women, and the warning was that encouraging and preparing men for young marriage wasn’t wise without also preparing them for the high probability that they won’t be able to marry (or at least, marry well).

Another thing I want to discuss is the intersection of maturity, delaying young marriage, and age gaps. I agree in principle that for some young women it would be best for them to wait a few years to marry. They might not have the maturity at, say 18 or 19, to marry, but would in a few years of continued development. But I think that such cases are not common, and instead quite rare. From my own experience and observations, women (very) rarely become more suited for marriage as they age. Either they were raised properly, or they weren’t. Adding more time to the clock won’t change that. Rather, women who are older tend to become less suitable for marriage- they pick up more bad habits, they are more cynical and jaded, they are more used to independent living, they are more influenced by the general culture, and so on. So parents need to be careful about advocating it.

Also, there seems to be a general consensus in traditionalist circles that marriage is good for maturing men and/or encouraging them to settle down- the old “a weighted truck drives more surely” line. Yet the counterpart- that marriage and family life is good for maturing young women and so on and so forth, doesn’t seem to get the same play. To be honest, this makes me suspicious. While I acknowledge that what works for men might not work for women, and vice-versa, I’m not sure this is the case here. Either one view or the other is likely equally applicable.

Lastly, I’ve had some people mention maturity and age gaps together. Frankly, this baffles me. Either someone is ready for marriage, or someone isn’t. I have yet to be convinced that an age-gap really changes the metrics or dynamics (or whatever you want to call it) of marriage by itself. Or at least, so far as personality or maturity issues are concerned. This is purely anecdotal of course, but speaking from personal experience one of the women with whom I have “clicked” best was significantly younger than me. Big age gap, yet we both got along much better than with those our own age (and we both acknowledged as much).

There’s more that can be said, but I think I’ll leave it for another post in the future if I believe it needs to be addressed.

[Update: Allamagoosa has written a post in response to this one, you can find it here.]

A Feature, Not A Bug

Over at the Femininity building blog Girls Being Girls, Jenny laments how There’s No Character In The Dating Scene Anymore:

Character isn’t very important in our dating scene anymore. It used to be you would know the girls a guy dated before he approached you. You would hear the stories of how he treated them. You would know if he’s worked since he was ten or if he plays basketball for hours every day after school. Our dating market has somehow managed to isolate dating from character.

Jenny may not have realized it, but she has hit on something of considerable significance. To use software engineer’s parlance, what she has discovered is a feature, not a bug. Only instead of being an excuse, this really is a feature. The “dating market” replaced the “marriage market” in large part so this very phenomenon could take place.

You see, under a courtship system or market there was a certain amount of knowledge that was known and expected about everyone involved. A man wouldn’t have found it easy to court a woman as an unknown factor- her family wouldn’t have tolerated it. Instead, he had to introduce himself, to build history and rapport with her family or be backed up by trusted individuals who vouched for him. Or even better, he was a known factor because he grew up in the same community and his history was known to all involved. On the flip side, a man who courted a woman would also have access to a lot of information about her. Perhaps he grew up with her in the same community. If not, he could observe her family and talk with them. In addition, he could talk with members of the community who knew her well.

The point being that under a courtship model no one could really be an unknown. Everyone had history. Which leads to this statement by Jenny:

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior

She is absolutely correct in this. Past behavior does give us a strong idea on what someone will do in the future. And that was a problem for a lot of people. For some their past behavior haunted them and acted as a huge handicap in the courtship/marriage market. For others it served as an obstacle, limiting what they could get away with. Yet others disliked marriage in general. All of them worked together to undermine the courtship model and to bring about something altogether new: The “dating scene”, which is in reality a sexual marketplace (“SMP”), because sex, not marriage, is the main goal now of most of its members. This new SMP has as its cornerstones mobility (provided through changes to the economy as well as new technology) and a lack of connectivity and history, which might perhaps be labeled “system memory.”

The first cornerstone, mobility, is all about the ability to move about to new locations, to new “markets.” If one particular area dries up, or you build a bad reputation there, you can always move to a new, fresh location.  In other words, you can escape your past behavior.

The second cornerstone, a lack of history and connectivity, means that most people in the dating scene don’t really know each other. Perhaps they have some similar friends or connections (otherwise how would they meet?), but those connections are far more tenuous than they would have been in the past. Outside of these potential sparse connections, those in the dating scene have little in the way of methods to learn about someone, apart from what that person reveals themselves.

Taken together, these two core components of the “dating scene” mean that you can always “start over.” This is especially easy if you are wise enough to avoid social media, and not let yourself build up an online presence (ironically the internet and social media in particular undermine this new system, hence the push to allow people to erase their internet history). Just move to a new location and you can begin anew. It is the perfect system for cads and harlots to ply their trade and largely escape the consequences of it.

This didn’t all happen overnight though. It took time for the SMP to replace the Marriage Marketplace. But as Jenny has  realized, that transformation is now complete. What little bit was left of the old courtship or marriage market is now gone. All that remains is “dating”, with all of its ugliness still intact. Again, this was not accident. It didn’t “just happen.” Isolating “dating from character” is the whole point of dating in the first place. If character still really mattered we wouldn’t even be talking about dating, we would be talking about courting. Boyfriend and Girlfriend wouldn’t exist as words, instead we would still use suitor. If you are lamenting how the “dating scene” looks now, understand this: what you are seeing now is not failure. It is success.

[Cross-posted at The Courtship Pledge]

Recommended Reading:

The Boyfriend Invention

 

A Warning And A Lesson

Today’s post is inspired by the comments of this post over at Dalrock’s. It will be divided into two parts, the first of which responds to a comment by “Bee”, while the second features some of my thoughts and commentary concerning a comment left by “stringtheory.”

I.

Here is part of what commenter Bee said in response to Deti talking about the incorrect, inaccurate and often outright deceptive teaching in church on the nature of men and women:

What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?

Would you encourage the young men to marry young?

(Link to comment here)

I’m going to address them in order, starting with the question of “What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?”

Well, the first thing I would do is advise that they read the Wisdom Books in the Bible. Proverbs, Sirach and Song of Songs especially. I know that most Protestant Bibles don’t have the Book of Sirach, which I think is a tragic loss for those who have never read it. Fortunately there are plenty of online resources where Sirach can be read in several different translations. So if you don’t want to buy a new Bible that would be a viable alternative. Both Sirach and Proverbs mesh well together in terms of explaining positive and negative traits in women. They warn men about the consequences of choosing a wife poorly and can help keep women off a pedestal. Song of Songs is useful for disabusing men of the notion that women are asexual creatures, which can again help keep away the pedestalization. All of that makes for a good, solid foundation.

Other passages in the Bible provide good lessons as well. Genesis has valuable insights of course. Potiphar’s wife’s advances on Joseph provide stark warning about female nature. Samson provides all kinds of object lessons. Both the story of David and Solomon have great value as well. All of these will tie in to what will be taught later about female nature.

Before going any further, I would tell these young Christian men that male sexuality is not inherently evil or twisted or anything of that sort. God created us as sexual creatures (save perhaps those with St. Paul’s gift), and that is a good thing. Teach them that sex is both proper and good inside of marriage- for it unites man and woman together as one flesh and is the avenue by which offspring come about- which is what God desires.

With that taken care of, I would explain to those teenage men what women find attractive in men. Help them understand the differences between Attraction traits and Desirability traits. Then I would explain to them why women find those traits attractive. Make it clear to them that most people out there, Christian or non-Christian, don’t understand this. Consequently, they will need to be suspicious of anything else they’ve been taught before which clashes with this. Inform them that there is a lot of bad teaching out there, and they need to be able to distinguish the truth from lies.

Then I would move on to explain other aspects of female nature. Some important examples include:

• Hypergamy
• The Good Genes/Good Provider dichotomy and how that plays out
• Fitness Tests
• The impact of a woman’s sexual history on marital stability
• The inability to negotiate desire
• The differences in how women communicate as compared to men

The Feminine Imperative (an ephemeral concept if there ever was one) would also be something that would need to be explained to them. While difficult to describe, it has a huge impact on nearly all aspects of our culture, and learning it is critical for men to understand why the present culture (within and without the Church) is what it is.

By the end of all these lessons, these young men should be able to see women for what they are: fallen, sinful creatures… just like men. This brings us to the second question- “Would you encourage the young men to marry young?”

The short answer to this is yes, I would. I’ve explained before why young marriage is a good thing. Young marriage would (or to be more accurate, could) help these young men avoid sexual immorality. However, that would be an incomplete answer. Because at the same time I would also encourage the young men to prepare for marrying young. That means getting serious about their life right away. If they pursue an education, don’t waste time on needless classes. Take what they need, and only what they need. Finish as swiftly as possible, so as to minimize debt and get into the workforce as soon as possible. Consider trade school if not looking at college or university. Also consider community college combined with a full or part-time job.

At the same time, it would also be necessary to encourage the parents of the young men to support their sons marrying young. Most Christians these days, parents especially are opposed to young marriage, on a variety of grounds- none of them really good. Expect a lot of resistance here. And that leads into the real problem with all of this. You see, encouraging young men to marry young is rather pointless unless you can encourage young women to marry young. Right now that isn’t happening, in fact it is the exact opposite. This provides the perfect lead-up to part two-

II.

Commenter Stringtheory left the following comments:

On a recent camping trip, one of the guys was telling us about how his 28 year old son had started taking antidepressants. His son has never suffered from depression but told his dad he was able to say the right things and get a prescription. He’s taking them to try and kill his sex drive because he’s simply tired of pursing women with no success. The dad is upset and angry. His son is reasonably attractive, a working professional with a decent income, but all the girls he asks out turn him down, or if he does go out they want to have sex right away and his son wants to wait until marriage. So instead of being tempted with porn or fornication he’s cutting out the source of his temptation. We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?

(Link here)

I should correct my above statement. The question wasn’t “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?” but rather to avoid immorality. I want to make clear that my friend’s son wants to get married, but he simply can’t find any non-virgins and doesn’t think his prospects are going to get better any time soon. About six months ago he did strike up a friendship with an 19 year old who was (presumably) a virgin and things seemed to be moving along but it got quashed by the girl’s parents and church elders who thought that his interest was inappropriate given the age difference. After that he had had enough and started down the chemically eunuch route.

(Link here)

Most of my regular readers will likely understand why I sympathize with that young man. He sounds like a slightly younger version of myself, trying to clear much the same hurdles. Before answering stringtheory’s question, I want to continue where I left off- how young women are not encouraged to marry young.

I don’t recall if it was Novaseeker or Cail Corishev who once said something along the lines that there are few things that Christians fear these days so much as a young women with potential marrying young. Whether or not that accusation is true (I think it is for many),  stringtheory’s account, and that of other Christians in this part of the web, does demonstrate that many if not most Christians do not want young, attractive virgin women to marry good, virtuous men. They just don’t. If there was no age gap, as there was here, then another reason would have been given for why the relationship should not have been. As for why so many Christians act in this manner, there are two different forces working together here- one relating to women and one relating to men.

When it comes to women, most Christians oppose on principle the idea of a young, (attractive) virgin marrying. Of course, if one or more of those traits is not present, then the opposition tends to melt away. She’s no longer young? Why then, of course she should marry. She’s not attractive? Well, it won’t be such a loss if that man, older or not, marries her (although this is still not favored- its just tolerated more). She’s no longer a virgin? Well, it would be good for that men to marry her and “save her” from her past mistakes.  So for those young men that Bee was asking about… well, it really doesn’t matter if you encourage them to marry young or not. Because everyone else in church is encouraging the women the men want to marry (and should marry) to not marry. At least, not right away. Not until they get more “life experience” and other such nonsense. This really is one of the great tragedies of our age- the Christian women who should marry, and would make (all other things being equal) the best wives- those who are young and virgins, are for the large part essentially commanded that they shouldn’t marry until they are no longer young.

This brings us to the men. Based on what I have seen, and what others have relayed to me, it appears as though many Christians don’t want good, virtuous Christian men to marry well. Oh, they would never admit to it and would instead deny the accusation vociferously. They would protest and say that of course they want those nice men to marry well. But the women they want to marry, those young (hopefully attractive) virgins from the paragraph before, are basically off-limits to them. As for what women they are “allowed” to marry, that is, to court without scandal or reprisal? Yeah….  Honestly, 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. If you continue to follow stringtheory’s comments in that thread he basically describes that exact phenomenon in action. Undoubtedly it is one of the major reasons why so many men are leaving the church right now. These men are essentially being punished for their virtue, which sure doesn’t help encourage it any, as incentives matter.

Before I close I also want to address the question of “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid [sexual] immorality?” I know that I have read some of the works of the early Church Fathers who discussed physical castration, and they made it clear that it was a sin. One’s body is holy, a gift from God, and is not to be disfigured. I think that the same reasoning would apply to chemical castration as well. Your brain is part of your body, and using chemicals to alter your brain chemistry to suppress, hinder or eliminate certain brain functions is harmful. Yes, the intent might be good, but the action itself is not just or ordered. Jesus was not being literal when he said we should cut off our hand if it caused us to be sin- he was applying a metaphor, as per his usual style. However, reasonable minds might differ and I am curious what my readers think about the subject. Is is acceptable to use chemicals to suppress one’s sex drive so as to avoid sexual immorality? Let me know in the comments.

Random Musings- #1

This brief post is a short collection of some random thoughts that I’ve had lately. Reader input is encouraged.

Balance

One thing that I have noticed in myself is a tendency to favor “balance” in certain situations.  One of the more common ones is when I am writing something critical of women- I instinctively think of something to include which is critical of men in order to balance it out. Having noticed this tendency, I am doing my best to quash it, but it has proven remarkably difficult to suppress. Still, the fact that I know its a problem is probably the biggest step in its correction, because most men don’t even realize that they have this problem.

This leads to an interesting point- are most Churchian leaders aware of this particular flaw? I believe it qualifies as a flaw because it often serves to detract or undermine any point they are making. Such leaders are quite prone to this; they will criticize men whenever they criticize women, and they will praise women whenever they praise men. My belief is that some of them know full well what they are doing- they are protecting their interests by not angering the most vocal and involved members of their “flock.” Others, however, I think are so deluded and conditioned that they don’t realize what they are doing. Whether it is a desire to be fair or non-judgmental or whatever, they have made it a habit to seek “balance” whenever women are concerned.

Anyone else have this tendency?

[This segment was motivated by this post by Cail Corishev.]

Being a King

For some time I have been trying to perfect the following phrase:

I will treat you like a Queen… so long as you recognize that I am your King.

It is a pet project of mine- a ready-made quip when dealing with a woman I’m investigating for marriage potential who shows signs of being a “princess.”  The idea being that I would ask her if she would expect to be treated like a queen when we marry. If she says yes, I would mention this. It could also apply if her parents said something similar as well.

So far it doesn’t seem quite perfect, but I haven’t been able to tweak it to that Goldilocks level of “just right.” Perhaps some of my readers would feel like adding their thoughts.

Removing the Mask

Rollo’s most recent post, Controlling Interests, got me thinking about two different things. The first is how brazen many women now are when it comes to living their lives they way they want to. And the second is how a fight is likely brewing between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

The basic strategy which many (most?) women employ right now, which is regularly known as AF/BB (see Rollo’s post for more), is one that requires two distinct elements to pull off: deceit and desperation. Many, if not most, men would not be content to marry a woman whom they realize is choosing to marry them solely as a meal ticket, and effectively a sperm donor as well. It should surprise no one that men don’t like to be used in that way, and will balk at it if they realize that is what is happening. Hence the importance of hiding what is going on from them.

On the other hand, this repulsion at being used is mitigated/countered by a sense of desperation in many men in the West. Owing to the nature of the SMP, they have limited options when it comes to female companionship. Naturally, this makes them desperate, and they are willing to take on women they wouldn’t otherwise if it gets them at least some measure of opportunity with them.

What seems to be happening is that many women are now certain that male desperation in the future will be greater than any sense of male self-respect, and so they can do whatever they want and not have to hide it. Part of me wonders if women see the ability to be open about their intentions/strategy as a status symbol- a woman who can act that way is a woman of value, and therefore a woman to be envied. The problem with this strategy, though, is that it relies on male desperation not having any limits. I suspect this to be a grave mistake. This is because the average quality of women in the West has been dropping fast, perhaps even faster than male desperation has been rising. If that is the case, we will soon reach a point where most men will simply not accept the (Western) women who are available, no matter how desperate they might have become.

All of this plays into part of this subject- the looming fight between women. Women at the margins of “value” will start to feel the pinch first. The “where have all the good men gone?” articles out there seem to indicate that this has already begun. It will only increase in tempo over time as more and more women drop below the acceptable rate for most men. Combine this with many men being burned or realizing what a danger most Western women are, and you get a huge disparity in outcome between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

What I am uncertain of, and curious about, is what shape this fight will take. Women are already starting to question the dominant paradigm in numerous ways, one example being the delaying of childbirth. Perhaps a similar reaction will take place, where women attack their brazen sisters from the margins, discouraging them from “painting women in a bad light”, or some such. Or they could always latch onto the tried-and-true method of “fixing” the problem by attacking men as insecure pigs.

So, what do my readers think of this matter? Will women “price themselves out of the market” faster than male desperation can compensate for? And how will women on the margins react to more and more men becoming aware of the con that is being pulled on them?

 

Confessions of a “Good Christian Girl”

The following story was originally left as a comment on my post concerning Moral Agency in Women. The author of the comment asked that I take it down, but later graciously allowed me to use it in a post. My thoughts will come after the story, which is a tragic one:

I think that you could set up a confessional…

Recently discovering the “manosphere”, I quickly became fascinated by it if only because I sensed that I could learn something not only about men, but about myself as well. Suffice it to say that this blogpost in its entirety is *truth* and has been borne out in my experience. Let’s see:

–made it into my mid-20s without so much as a kiss; I was often approached by men, but I accomplished this by not entertaining unsuitable men and not being alone with men. Had made the “true love waits” pledge while quite young and 100% believed that’s what I would do.
–found myself by happenstance in the middle of nowhere for a school assignment–middle of nowhere meaning that even a Wal-Mart was an hour’s drive away. No friends, family or church around.
–before leaving on the trip, experienced frustration and disappointment from a man I was interested in –> emotional vulnerability
–Limited housing meant I had to stay in an apartment with other students–young men. I was initially uncomfortable with it, but it was clear to me that nothing whatsoever would ever happen between me and those 2 guys (beta and lower beta). Nothing did.
–One fine day, Lower Beta says his friend is going to join us for the summer. He does, and when I meet him I immediately start praying for an “out” to this situation…every alarm bell is ringing within me. Tall, muscular, immodestly cocky; and Alpha is clearly interested. I mostly avoid him.
–One night, Alpha wants to play cards and chat. Seems friendly enough. He quickly hones in on my relationship history, and then, surprise surprise, sexual history. In my naivete, I admit to being a virgin and inexperienced in even *other* forms of sexual play. Like a shark smelling blood, his flirtation becomes more overt and the evening ends with a kiss. He wants to come to my room. “No.” Yet, my curiosity and his boldness together produce a very heady and honestly exhilarating feeling. I know all the more that I have to get out of there.
– Prayer answered! Someone in the community offers me alternate housing. I pack and leave with a quickness the next day. Alpha asks for a proper date. I say OK. [I should not have done this. I think this is the part where self-deception started kicking in. I mean, really, I knew what he wanted–so why would I be going out with him?]
–We spend more time; he acts and talks as if he’s genuinely interested, though I tell him I don’t think we really have anything in common. I’m not falling for him, but am highly attracted. He pushes physical boundaries in ways I am not prepared for—never had to resist at all before (avoidance method), nevertheless resist with such forcefulness. But curiosity again, attraction, boldness, the feeling of being desired, and buttons being pushed that were never pushed before—I’m drunk on all the feelings and my mind races to take it all in. My attempts to talk to him about not going too far ring hollow even to myself.
–He takes no pains to hide his intent to seduce me and truly goes all out in doing so. He succeeds. For a period of time as this “relationship” continues, I recognize within myself that I cannot process what is happening between us on a rational level. My actions are other than what I think I should do. I find myself acting without intention.
–It’s not romance, and it’s not friendship. I don’t believe it’s love, but now I have to try to “make good” on virginity lost. So I attempt to play out a relationship with Alpha (he asked, not me) though in my right mind I still doubt any longterm compatibility. It doesn’t work and fizzles. I’m not heartbroken, but disillusioned with myself.

I shared all of this because I think it lays out step-by-step with a very real example exactly how “good Chrisitan girls” can end up compromising. And I hope that other Chrisitian women can avoid the same. I think it also shows how women do respond differently to alphas than betas (for instance, living with the betas was inappropriate to me, but not at all a temptation). *And to the point of your post in general, I 100% agree that the temptation we are to flee is to be in the situation in the first place.* I do not believe that we can reliably count on being able to resist once those instinctual physiological responses start kicking in. I completely agree that this is why most societies in human history have prevented unrelated men and women from being alone together. I do think that such avoidance is really the only guarantee of chastity when it comes to pre/extra-marital sex.

There are some women and couples who claim that resisting sexual temptation really isn’t that difficult for them. Prior to that experience, I (pridefully) thought that I would never do something like that, that saying no should be so easy. God *did* provide my way of escape. But I chose to go back—and choosing to go back to the place of temptation was the first sin that made way for the second. I told myself that I could enjoy the thrill of being around Alpha without anything else happening. Many women either do not have high enough libidos for sex to be a great temptation at all, or they are mainly experienced with men who are easy to brush off and have just not encountered the type of man (Alpha) that really sets things off in them.

This unfortunate story supports the general trust of the theory I advanced in that post. After a certain point, women do lose their ability to resist an Alpha Male’s advances. That is not to say that they don’t have moral agency, but their agency is not without its limits. Or stated another way, they make their moral decision much sooner than they (or most people) realize. As I explained in the comments:

What I am arguing is not that women can’t resist temptation, but that the temptation comes sooner than we might think in the process of seduction by an alpha male. The temptation comes not when the alpha male is making his final moves. Rather, the temptation to be resisted by the woman is to place herself in an isolated place, without additional moral support, with the alpha male. That is where the temptation is to be found. And that is where she can resist. My theory is that if she gives into that temptation, it is past the point of no return. She knows, deep down inside, what it really means, and has decided to follow that path nonetheless.

Stories like this sadly show that I am on the right track. I wish I wasn’t, but we deal with the world as it is, not how we want it to be. Seeing as I haven’t addressed Moral Agency in a while, I think its time that I address it again. Expect a post in the next week or two on the subject.

The Shrinking Gap- The Conundrum of Female SMV and Marriage

My latest post, which examined how male attractiveness increasing with age is thwarted by the current nature of the marriage market, prompted a female reader of mine to contact me. She agreed with my assessment of the state of the MMP for men, and then offered her thoughts on how things worked for women. I thought they were excellent points, and she graciously allowed me to integrate them into a post. The first part of this post will be quotes from the two of us, mostly hers, with some of my replies. The second part will be an analysis and summary of the points raised earlier.

I.

My reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, said this:

[As a woman it] may be, or rather, it is simple enough to attract a man in your age bracket that displays good overall LAMPS simply by being young and in shape while dressing and acting in a feminine manner. But that only gets my foot in the door. Once the serious talks begin, then there is a completely different set of things that I have to consider.

I think one of the more common situations I have encountered is a man who, nearing or in his early 30s, is ready to settle down with a woman younger than himself. But similarly to situations Red Pill men encounter with various women, he has already “lived his life,” so to speak. He has had numerous “relationships,” ONS’s and everything in between with various women usually starting from high school moving forward and he may have been heavy into the party/club scene which typically means he was also probably heavy into drugs/alcohol. Add a kid or two to put the icing on the cake. Then finally at some point in his late 20s/early 30s he “grows out of that phase” and wants to settle down and take his life and faith seriously. Now keep in mind, these are men in the age bracket to which I am directed to open my search. This search can continue well into my mid to late 20s where by then, my overall [SMV] and fertility are beginning their decline.

When I remarked that she was one of the few women who seemed as cautious of a man’s history as (aware) men tend to be of a woman’s history, she added this:

It’s common Red Pill knowledge what a fast lifestyle in ones twenties can do to woman, ranging from poor overall health, an inability to bond to one man, an overall jaded worldview and the list goes on. But I view it as more of a general thing: one’s past, man or woman, effects your future for better or worse. And speaking from a strictly Christian perspective, I’d be mistaken to attempt to hitch my wagon to a man that had his share of pump and dumps before deciding to settle down in the same way a man would avoid a woman with the same history. A lot can be said for forgiveness and repentance, but a man’s past still counts. At least for me, anyway. That goes equally for sinful misconduct outside the sexual arena, as well. These things can often times be clear markers of different character or personality flaws that may show up further down the road and should I be married to such a man and these patterns or behaviors rear their ugly heads… what can I do?

I responded with these observations:

You make a great point that there are really two different searches someone is conducting. The first is to search for someone who wants to marry, and the second is to search among those who want to marry for someone worth marrying.

…

I suspect that the reason why the kind of men you describe are common is because those men who never engaged in the party or hook-up have “checked out.” They eschew dating in general, most likely because they were burned one too many times by women.

…

It seems to be a general conundrum that both men and women face: those who are willing to marry are not worthy, and those who are worthy don’t want to marry.

Those were the most relevant parts of our conversation. This brings us to part 2.

II.

In my previous post, I explained the dilemma that men faced:

The older we get, the more attractive we become to women, but at the same time, there are less marriageable women available to us.

Women face a different situation, one that on its face seems quite a bit worse: Their SMV decreases over time, and there aren’t necessarily any more marriageable men available to them over time.

Women have the advantage of starting off in a better position than men, and that is a considerable advantage, to be sure. But in the current MMP it isn’t so much of an advantage as it could/should be. Younger women who want to marry young find that men their age don’t tend to want to marry. At least, that is what I have heard from my younger female readers, including the one who inspired this post. In this sense, younger men and women are alike; both eschew marriage for the time being. This is unfortunate for young women looking to marry, because younger men tend to have less baggage (just as younger women tend to have less baggage). Those younger men who do want to marry tend to be less attractive, and often are poor choices in other ways as well.

Once you start to look at the older cohort of men you find that they are more attractive, and more eager to marry. On the flip side, they oftentimes have a lot of baggage from their wild and crazy years. While most men don’t build up the same amount of baggage that women do on the carousel, it can and will affect them nonetheless. Most of the men who don’t have baggage fall into two camps: those who chose not to accumulate baggage, and those who couldn‘t accumulate baggage. The first group is a small percentage of the population, and hard to find (at least, that is what I’ve heard from my female readers). The second group are often poor choices for marriage, because their lack of baggage is largely a result of deficiencies on their part. Also, many of them might not be interested in marriage to begin with, and the absence of baggage arose from the fact that they have left the field and no longer play the game (think MGTOW).

So all in all, for a woman looking for a good man without baggage to be her husband, the pickings look slim indeed. Much the same as it is for men. To repeat myself, those who are willing to marry are usually not worthy, and those who are worthy usually don’t want to marry. And this seems to be the case for men and women.

Thus we get the conundrum that marriage minded women face in the present age: They start out near the peak of their attractiveness, but are in a race against the clock to find marriageable men before their attractiveness fades so much they no longer interest those men.

 

Update: In case it wasn’t clear enough in the main post, this post is written from the perspective of some of my female readers. I don’t necessarily think that all of the observations are correct, but I assumed them to be true for the sake of argument in this post. It was either that, or call them liars. Despite that, I think the ultimate conclusion is still accurate.

Mind the Gap- The Conundrum of Male SMV and Marriage

Over the course of my time blogging here in the manosphere I have noticed what seems like a pattern whenever I mention my age and growing older. Fairly consistently, whenever I express alarm at my age and how it will impact my ability to marry well, a Red Pill aware woman will speak up and say that I’m needlessly worrying. She will point out that my SMV is increasing over time and that I have yet to hit my peak. I’ve seen the same directed towards other men as well.

Now, none of what these women said was incorrect. According to Rollo‘s interpretation of SMV, I  am getting more attractive over time. And my personal observations certainly match up with this, although I don’t know if that is simply because I am getting older or because I have unlearned a whole slew of unattractive behaviors. All of that is besides the point, however, because these women are confusing an increase in SMV, which corresponds to the Sexual Marketplace, with the ability to marry well, an entirely different matter.

Before I continue in depth I think it best to re-post the graphic representation that Roll made of male and female SMV, interposed:

…

While I have some minor disagreements with it, I think that Rollo has managed to aptly convey how male and female SMV develop over time. There are a couple of key things to take away from his graph:

1) The numbers that Rollo provides on the side are better understood as a percentage, specifically of the maximum level of attractiveness that an individual man or woman can achieve.

2) Under this assessment women “peak” at 23, and men at 38. That creates a gap of about 15 years.

3) The critical point, where male and female SMV achieve rough “parity”, is at the age of 30. This age, interestingly enough, roughly corresponds with the point where women start to hit The Wall.

With these observations in mind, lets turn back to the intersection of age, male SMV and marriage. The key flaw in the thinking of those Red Pill women is that they confuse the Sexual Marketplace and the Marriage Marketplace.

In the SMP, the only thing that really matters is SMV, or attractiveness. If your only intention is to establish a sexual relationship, then its a game of competing with your peers for the most attractive members of the opposite sex available. The higher your SMV, the higher the SMV you can get in the opposite sex. In this sense, things are definitely looking up for me. My ability to “pull” women for the purpose of sex is only getting better over time. But this isn’t what men like myself are looking for.

In the MMP, there are a large number of factors which determine relationships other than SMV. Attractiveness does play a role, of course, but must compete with other criteria. Age is one of these. It doesn’t matter in the SMP, because most relationships are temporary things, sometimes not even lasting a single night. But marriage is (supposed to be) a long term, for life endeavor, and so a potential spouse’s age makes a huge difference. For men in my position, the central problem is that the closer we get to our “peak”, the greater the age gap between us and the women we want (who are at their peak or before it). And this age gap matters because women these days aren’t necessarily going to marry a man significantly older than themselves.

They might be concerned about being widowed early, and having to take care of children by themselves. Or even widowed late in life, but still having to face a decade or more alone. Also, they could be concerned about the criticism they might face from friends and family from marrying a man significantly older than themselves.  In addition, there is also the significant, perhaps overriding fact that many women these days don’t want to marry when they are young. So marrying a woman near her prime is difficult enough.

If you think I might be off base here, I suggest you ask yourself this question: How many 18-23 year old women do you know who want to marry as soon as possible?

Follow that up with this question: How many 18-23 year old women do you know who want to marry and would be willing to marry a man in, say, his early to mid thirties?

The answer to both questions is precious few. And this small pool of women becomes even smaller when you factor in other criteria to decide if such women are marriageable. I’ve explained my criteria before about what I look for in a potential wife, and I image most other men in a similar position have similar criteria.

When taken together, every day that passes takes men in my age group further and further away from the ideal age range of women that we want to marry. Giving up on younger women and focusing on those closer to our age isn’t a terribly great strategy either. As you look at progressively older age groups of women, fewer and fewer women in each age bracket meet our criteria for marriage (mine already rules out the majority of women by the time they turn 18).

Thus we get the conundrum that marriage minded men face in the present age: The older we get, the more attractive we become to women, but at the same time, there are less marriageable women available to us.

Exploring Ideas and Questioning Myself- Episode 3

This is the third post in a series where I ask my readers about their thoughts and opinions concerning some subjects that have been on my mind as of late.

Saved by the Bell(curve)

One mistake that I see a lot of folks making is to assume that female attractiveness follows a perfect bell curve. More than that, they assume that the curve is centered around 5. I disagree on both accounts, but will address the later first.

From my experience, when women are eating healthy and keeping fit, the “average” young woman is a not a “five”, but closer to a “six”. Some people seem to associate an “average girl” with a “plain girl”, and I think this is a mistake. Now, each man’s own “1-10 scale” is different, and so trying to gauge a woman’s average beauty is difficult and of little utility. But from what I can tell, men base each “number” or rank in absolute terms. That is, they assign each number based on what they have seen the range of female attractiveness to vary from, with “1” being the absolute worst to “10” being the absolute best. Men don’t “curve” this ranking so that the majority of women fall into the “5” category, instead they assign women to the “5” ranking because they are in the middle of the ranges of female beauty they are familiar with.

In addition, I don’t believe that female beauty follows a perfect distribution. In fact, I would argue that there are more women who are attractive than there are women who are ugly, at least, when take factor in obesity skewing results. Assuming that “6” is the average, I think that there are at least as many “7”s as there are “5”s, and as many “8”s as “4”s. And while “9”s and “10”s are rare, I think there are as many women in those two categories as there are natural “3”s, “2”s and “1”s (the latter is exceptionally rare indeed).  Here is my attempt to create a graphical representation of this:So, agree/disagree? Am I way off base here?

Free Will and Justice

Christians often have a difficult time reconciling our understanding that God is just with the fact that most sinners seem to “get away” with their sins. As a result, many of us question our faith and wonder if God is really out there, and if so, if He really cares about us or what we do. In dark times such as these, I think we are more apt to engage in such inquiries. Lest we become too troubled, however, we should remember that this seeming disparity/inequity is an age old problem. The book of Job, which is essentially a single parable covering many topics, addresses the prosperity of the wicked:

⁷ Why do the wicked live,
reach old age, and grow mighty in power?
⁸ Their offspring are established in their presence,
and their descendants before their eyes.
⁹ Their houses are safe from fear,
and no rod of God is upon them.
¹⁰ Their bull breeds without fail;
their cow calves and does not miscarry.
¹¹ They send out their little boys like a flock,
and their children dance.
¹² They sing to the tambourine and the lyre
and rejoice to the sound of the pipe.
¹³ They spend their days in prosperity,
and in peace they go down to Sheol.
¹⁴ They say to God, ‘Depart from us!
We do not desire the knowledge of your ways.
¹⁵ What is the Almighty, that we should serve him?
And what profit do we get if we pray to him?’
¹⁶ Behold, is not their prosperity in their hand?
The counsel of the wicked is far from me.

¹⁷ “How often is it that the lamp of the wicked is put out?
That their calamity comes upon them?
That God distributes pains in his anger?
¹⁸ That they are like straw before the wind,
and like chaff that the storm carries away?
¹⁹ You say, ‘God stores up their iniquity for their children.’
Let him pay it out to them, that they may know it.
²⁰ Let their own eyes see their destruction,
and let them drink of the wrath of the Almighty.
²¹ For what do they care for their houses after them,
when the number of their months is cut off?
²² Will any teach God knowledge,
seeing that he judges those who are on high?
²³ One dies in his full vigor,
being wholly at ease and secure,
²⁴ his pails full of milk
and the marrow of his bones moist.
²⁵ Another dies in bitterness of soul,
never having tasted of prosperity.
²⁶ They lie down alike in the dust,
and the worms cover them.

²⁷ “Behold, I know your thoughts
and your schemes to wrong me.
²⁸ For you say, ‘Where is the house of the prince?
Where is the tent in which the wicked lived?’
²⁹ Have you not asked those who travel the roads,
and do you not accept their testimony
³⁰ that the evil man is spared in the day of calamity,
that he is rescued in the day of wrath?
³¹ Who declares his way to his face,
and who repays him for what he has done?
³² When he is carried to the grave,
watch is kept over his tomb.
³³ The clods of the valley are sweet to him;
all mankind follows after him,
and those who go before him are innumerable.

Job’s lament is an entirely human one that we are all likely to ask at least one point in our life. There are really two questions here, both related but distinct.

The first question is: why does God let this happen? The answer is easy enough: Free Will. God has given us free will, that we might choose to do good or evil. If God were to intervene whenever someone acts wickedly, then it would nullify our free will. Free will is an exercise in causality, of cause and effect. If you remove the effect, then the cause is meaningless and free will along with it. In essence, unless free will can lead to negative consequences, whether to ourselves or others, it might as well not exist because our choices lose any semblance of being different from one another.

The second question is: how does this comport with God being just? The answer is provided by Jesus:

²⁴ He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, ²⁵ but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. ²⁶ So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. ²⁷ And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ ²⁸ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ ²⁹ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. ³⁰ Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

God is biding his time. At the end of the Age, the weeds, that is, the Wicked, are destined for the fire. Yes, they may “get away with it” for a time. But they will not escape justice in the end.

Stand Up and Be Heard

Over at Haley’s Halo there has been a rather heated and long conversation going on involving the apparent drop off of interest in dating among Christians. The discussion is long, and there is too much to cover in a single, short post. Perhaps the most interesting facet of that post is the appearance of a newcomer to the manosphere, a woman who goes by the moniker FeminineButNotFeminist. She used the thread as a place to ask a lot of questions, many of which are quite good. Amongst her many comments was something that I thought worthy of exploring:

When we see guys (mainly non-christian) practically trip over each other to go after the easy girls while making fun of those who don’t give it up so easily (calling us prudes and acting disgusted by that) we come to believe that “if I’m willing to have sex with a guy he will want me, if I’m not willing he will be disgusted by me. Therefore the logical thing to do to get a guy is to have sex with him”. You may say “it’s the other way around!”, but unfortunately not enough christian men are making their views known to us to make us think twice about it. Like I said in another post, I was totally unaware of this until I came across this blog a few days ago, and my head is still spinning from this revelation.

FBNF, as I will call her from now on, doesn’t seem to understand why Christian men don’t make their preferences for chaste women clear. Other comments of hers express the same thing to different degrees, but she is genuinely perplexed by this reticence on the part of Christian men. Here is how I replied:

[A]ddressing your desire to see Christian men speak up about their preferences in female behavior…

That can be difficult for men to carry out in many instances. The feminization of the Church in recent years has created an especially hostile environment for men in some churches. It is so bad that in some churches men cannot speak up about what they really believe/feel without getting kicked out.

This is no accident. The increased power of women and the cowardice of male church leaders who bow to female whims was designed, in part, to achieve this end: silence men. At least, that is my running theory. Others hold to it as well, I believe.

To expand on this a bit, one of the many motivations of the feminization of society has been to curtail the ability of men to exercise their preferences. Men and women are in something of a constant competition between one another over how society should be organized. For a long time men were “winning”, but the actual results where fairly balanced in terms of what men and women received under social systems.

Male and female sexual strategies are at odds, and have always been so. Men prefer polygamy, whereas women prefer serial monogamy. However, polgyamy benefits only a few men at the expense of the rest, and so is not a terribly stable system. In the West, and many other places, this was dealt with by enforcing “hard” or lifetime monogamy, which we would understand as marriage in its original form. This system had the best results for women and men both. However, men are often very particular about what kind of women they are willing to commit to. Chastity, in the form of a woman being a virgin until marriage (or being a virgin until sleeping with the man whom she eventually marries), was a huge component of this. For men, female sexual history matters (although in some cultures it is less important, but I suspect that this sentiment is still there in some form), in that men prefer a number of partners as low as possible. Women, however, are not at all concerned with male sexual history, and if they are, they are looking for a man with a higher number. Which effectively puts male and female desires at odds with one another.

What does this mean? It means that women in some ways benefit from a society that encourages promiscuity, because their own sexual history has less of an impact on their marriage prospects, plus they are better able to screen for more attractive men (who will have more sexual partners). In short, the present SMP is good for non-virtuous women. And I suspect that many of them know this.

So where does this play into men making their preferences heard? Simple. A man who actively expresses his preferences for female chastity is threatening the female preferred SMP. His expression of preferences is a challenge to the current model, as they are incompatible. The only way for his to become reality is for the present system to fall. Many, even most, women do not want this. They like the present system. And so they will do whatever it takes to preserve the existing system. That means exercising their group influence to try and silence men who speak up about their preferences. They will confront Church leaders and force them to choose between angering most of the church’s women, or cracking down on a single man. Which do you think church leadership will do? Any man who sticks his head out by speaking up is making himself a target.

It Makes Me Tremble, Tremble

Elspeth has been wondering why the fear of the Lord has left the church. I offered one suggestion in the comments to that post, but would like to offer another:

Very few people, Christian or Jew, have ever truly feared the Lord. Wickedness is the norm in human/biblical history, and those of us who keep the faith all too easily forget it. The Israelites had hardly escaped the Egyptians at the Red Sea, saved only by divine intervention, before they began to worship a golden calf.

Most “moral” behaviors were only followed in the past because society enforced some form of punishment for their transgression. Whether it was murder, adultery, fornication or theft, there was a price to be paid for violating moral laws which were also Christian tenets. Sometimes the punishment was criminal, while at other times it was only social. Either way, it was the fear of immediate, worldly punishment that kept most people in line. Those who could get away with it, or thought they could, would often ignore those laws.

The reason why so many “Christians” flagrantly and repeatedly violate Christian teaching nowadays is because they are no longer punished in a worldly fashion. They can, in effect, “get away with it”, to steal a line from above. You see, they don’t really believe. Oh, they may say they do. But you know a tree by its fruits. Few really take Christianity to heart, especially from a young age. Usually it requires a “Come to Jesus” moment, inspired by worldly hardship, before most Christians will actually embrace the faith.

So, to answer Elspeth’s question, fear of the Lord never left the church. It was never there to begin with.

Does this comport with other people’s perceptions of the Church? Am I off my rocker to think that “Churchianity” is the norm, and has been throughout history?

A Must Read Story

A woman going by the name of Eva has found her way to Dalrock’s blog, drawn by his post Advice to a woman in her 30’s looking to marry (Warning, 1000+ comments, so it can present loading problems). She left her story there, which can be found here. It is worth reading in its entirety.

I’m late to the discussion, but I found this blog today and after reading it and all the comments, I wish I could apologize to the “beta orbiters” I had for how I treated them when I was younger. I’m 4 months into being 30, but I’ve been aware of my impending expiry date as a marriageable woman, partly because of my mother’s training. She got married around 23 to my biological father in their home country, moved to America with him and had me and my younger brother, then divorced and was able to snare another younger man (she being 32, my stepfather 29 at the time) to marry and take care of us all. I grew up envisioning that by the time I was 25 I’d find someone like my wonderful beta stepfather, not because of any sordid incestuous attraction – but because he was a great provider, worked as an educator, and he was a great leader and father). My fantasy husband and I would raise 5(!) children together. Go ahead and laugh, but I’m a hopeless romantic, a 2nd-gen immigrant with ‘old world’ tastes, and I really love and get along with kids! I thought my fantasy was definitely attainable because I’d watched my mother get the same deal with her beauty and agelessness (today she’s 55 but routinely gets mistaken for 35), plus I felt I had the ‘advantage’ of growing up Westernized, being educated, having my youth and her genes, and being much more ‘likable’ than my mother. My mother suffers from narcissism and is quite abusive, even and especially when she’s being worshiped like she demands.

I discovered that it was ‘easy’ for me to attract boys starting in middle school. My stepfather treated me like his own daughter, though, and he was very protective of my virtue – my first date was my senior prom! I was insecure because my mother was constantly belittling me (telling me I was ugly, a closet lesbian, too nerdy), but when I got to college and had to beat the male attention off with a stick, my ego ballooned. I was convinced that I was better than the betas that I used to get along well with in high school, and could get myself an alpha to marry instead of the boys who wanted to discuss Mortal Kombat and Dark Avengers all day. Yet I felt no one would ask me out but the hopelessly-optimistic betas who persisted despite the fact that my stepfather taught at the university I attended, and was around more than ever to guard my every move. I spent/wasted a lot of time flirting and less time caring about the opportunity my stepfather gave me (free tuition). I used to be studious, but dropped my scholarly interests to be one of the popular girls, and stopped taking life seriously – instead hitting up every party and social on campus, playing a game with myself to see which alpha I could get to ‘fall in love’ with me next. My stepfather had connections to help me get summer jobs, as well, and I screwed those up because I didn’t do the work. I’d avoid being at home because my parents were constantly fighting, and I didn’t want to be a housemaiden, taking care of my new 2 young stepsiblings and doing chores, basically being responsible in any way when I felt I was entitled to ‘the college experience’ and had earned it by being a jailed-up late bloomer.

My stepfather was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and it changed my whole college experience. My mother wasn’t willing to give up her job to be a housewife and look after anybody either, my brother had already moved out to escape my mother’s abuse, and I didn’t want my stepfather to have be both father and mother as he was dying, so I dropped out of college and stayed home to help in any way I could. I think my stepsiblings saw me more as a mother than their sister during that period, because I babysat, fixed their meals, made sure they caught the school bus, helped with homework, tried to keep them from understanding how badly their father was doing. My stepfather finally passed away when I was 23, and shortly after the university gave him a funeral (and my stepfather’s will went into effect), my mother kicked me out because she wanted to get married again, and I would be a tip-off to any potential suitors/suckers that she wasn’t as young as she looked. I went out into the world for the first time without ‘Dad’ to help me, and I had no job, no formal education (only some college), no skills, just my looks. I latched onto the first male who would have me, moved in with him, and gave away my virginity at age 24. Then when that guy got tired of me, it was on to another one, an alpha who knew me from college. My third live-in boyfriend raped me at age 27, and again there was another psychological shift. I wasn’t able to get a criminal conviction against the man (charges were filed but dropped by prosecution for ‘insufficient evidence’), but I’m in the middle of a civil lawsuit against him and the church I joined where I met him, since that church actively tried to cover up that he had assaulted me. I feel like ever since I lost my dad, I’ve been wandering in a haze of life where the mist keeps getting thicker as I age and wonder if I’m salvageable.

My thing is – it will sound insane to most people, but I think some my horrible experiences were necessary in some way because they’ve forced me to see that I was no ‘catch’ in my 20s, and I have to race against time if I’m going to have a shot at giving away the love I know I have in me. I realize now that I was entitled, spoiled, and insecure growing up partly because I had nothing to work for or earn on my own. I was so selfish until my father dying while my mother acted like she was being deprived of life made me see that I didn’t want to be like her, but that was where I was going to end up because I was on the path. I spent every dime I touched because I knew my parents would bail me out of trouble when I needed it, and now I’m on my own trying to fix my credit history. I used to get As in school, now I’m uneducated and working as a housekeeper to keep myself afloat, but in a way I appreciate it because it’s reinforcing the ‘old world’ teachings I had growing up that I tried to escape – that a woman should know how to keep house. I’d like to go back to school, but I’m hoping that that can be a part-time thing I’ll do from home while I raise children. I want to be a stay-at-home mother – to this day I get a lot of happiness from checking in on and visiting my younger stepsiblings and bolstering them up as much as I can, especially when my mother decides she ‘quits’ for weeks at a time and drops the children off at my apartment. I’m not suited for alpha males. It has nothing to do with my looks or that I still get mistaken for being an 18-year-old by complete strangers, but rather that I want a man of substance … if that man will have me.

A lot of comments upthread asked the woman to evaluate what she can bring to the table for a man. Hmm … debt? Working-class income? One thing that I think I have going for me is that my experiences haven’t broken me. I believe in and really try to self-improve – reading, researching, praying, etc. to get better at life. I probably do have some psychological work to do still, but I don’t think I’m resentful or angry. I’m always being complimented on my smile, if that means anything – I can’t help that I smile even when I’m talking (most of the time). I’m grateful that in spite of her faults, I had a mother who modeled hygiene, health, and feminine dress and presentation very well, and I keep myself up to look sweet without being slutty. I can cook any dish from my parents’ home country, a lot of American dishes, and I love to experiment with my own recipes. I can make clothing. I’ve learned to show that I’m a giving person and not just convince myself that I’m so, or that because I’m soft-spoken and rather shy it means I’m submissive, when my actions should show that to be the case. My N is 3, and I’m determined to keep it there until I (hopefully) marry – not to be crass, but if my sexual desires get that intense, masturbation is a lot less headache than the guilt I feel after cheating my future husband out of myself little by little. I don’t smoke, drink, do any recreational drugs, have any prescriptions to worry about, I’m 5’3″ and 115 llbs,, no illness in my family that I know of, keep myself healthy. No tattoos. I speak 3 languages. I don’t have a religious affiliation, I was raised Catholic but I think I lean more towards Judaism in my personal beliefs – I read from the Tanakh/’Old Testament’ daily but don’t believe in the writings of the New Testament? (I forget the rest of the list!)

All this goes to say that to read the comments where men trash certain women for being 30+ older unmarried really cut to my heart, but I know no one would be saying anything if there were no problems to speak of. I understand that nobody wants to be anyone’s consolation prize in marriage. It’s a huge step for a man to choose any single woman and say ‘lets do this forever’, much less to choose a woman who gave him the cold shoulder back when she thought she had ‘better options’ than commitment, security, stability, and a purpose for living and loving.

I am sure that everyone here is familiar with the story of the Prodigal Son; if not then you can read it here. The story has many themes: repentance and redemption, the power of forgiveness, a Father’s love for his child, and the importance of embracing those who went astray but have returned. But there is another lesson in the story, one that is sometimes easy to forget in the reassurance of God’s boundless love for us. That lesson is a reminder that the prodigal son lost his inheritance, and doesn’t recover it. It is lost to him. While his Father does bestow some measure of kinds and riches on him, they pale in comparison to what is gone forever. And yet, what is really gone?

The inheritance that is mentioned in Luke’s gospel is not a material inheritance, just as the father here isn’t simply a rich landowner (this is a parable, after all!). Instead, the inheritance which the younger brother squandered is the measure of contentment and happiness that we enjoy in this world as a result of living a holy life. Although it is difficult for us to see when we are younger, following our Father’s commands ensures that we keep our inheritance and avoid the real hardships in life: Guilt, Remorse, Regret and Unfulfilled Dreams. Yes, living in sin is a blast… for a while. But eventually, unless we correct ourselves, we spend all of our inheritance, that is, use up the protections from the misery resulting from sin that we were allotted in life. Some have more protection, and some less. But eventually it is all gone, and the full measure of our sin weighs down upon us. At which point, enduring the burdens of a sinful life,  some will return to their Father, and seek forgiveness. Some wiser ones return before all is squandered. Thankfully, our God is merciful and compassionate, and will forgive us our transgressions.

However, our slate is only wiped clean in our next life, not this one. While we live we must still deal with the consequences of our past actions. The knowledge of God’s forgiveness can ease these burdens for a while (like a certain robe, ring and fatted calf), but that is only temporary relief.

Eva represents an instance of a prodigal daughter, a woman who fell far and has slowly pulled herself back. She has yet to fully return to her Father, and sadly may never complete this journey. But even if she does she will not return as she left. She squandered much of her inheritance, and what is left might not be enough for what she hoped to use it for. She may never find a man who is willing to make her into his wife, and even if she does, it is doubtful that he would be anywhere near the quality of man whom she could have married 10 years before.

Her story is one that should be told to all women are who coming of age, as a lesson to be etched deep in their hearts. They need to be taught that their inheritance is their youth, their beauty, and their virtue. If they squander that inheritance, what they are left with in the end might not be enough to buy them the happiness and contentment they seek.

Philosophical Ramblings

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

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

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

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

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

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