Category Archives: Sexual Strategies

Some Scattered Thoughts

Today’s post is a short one, owing to a lack of time and imagination on my part. There are a few posts around the ‘sphere that I want to comment on or highlight for my readers.

To begin with, Beefy Livinson critiques the liberal “distinction” between “Rule of Law” and “Rule of Men.”  As he explains it,

Government simply is authoritative discrimination in favor of one alternative instead of others.

Worth a read, especially for those with a political bent.

Deep Strength has a couple of posts up that are interesting. His most recent covers his first meeting with “her father.” I think it is well worth the read, especially for those single men looking to marry among my readers. He made a number of unforced errors, and hopefully others can learn from his experiences. Like some of the other readers, I thought that the father’s actions were also doubtful at parts. At the same time, it is evident that he truly cares about his daughter, which is a rarity these days. I think it is worth pointing out that the father may not have any prior support to help him in his own vetting process. Christian fathers are often as bereft of knowledge these days as young Christian men looking to marry. Past generations dropped the ball for everyone.

Additionally, Deep Strength examined the matter of vetting and the risk of divorce. Lots of good analysis there. I want to take a stab at answering the questions that Deep Strength posed at the end of the post. In particular, I want to offer an additional theory: the “Feminine Mystique.” Women like to maintain the air that the female of the species is ultimately unknowable. In the context of DS’s post that means unpredictable. I know Rollo has a post or two on the subject, but as I see it women like to keep men in the dark about how they really are as it benefits them for men (or most of them) to be ignorant. Ignorant men cannot catch on to strategies like AF/BB, for example. Also, it helps women filter for male attractiveness- those rare men who do “get them” are more likely to be successful with women, and thus probably superior genetic stock. There are probably other reasons, but I think I’ve established enough for what it is. It is also worth mentioning that much of it might be unconscious on the part of women- almost reflexive, as it were. But not all, of course.

Cane Caldo has made some dramatic life choices recently. The first post is here. The second is here, and the third here. A point he brings up is that patriarchy, as far as daughters are concerned, is heavily focused on protecting and guarding them. The same can be said of sons as well, in an indirect fashion. By ensuring that women are raised right, fathers in a patriarchy can ensure that their sons have access to decent pool of marriageable women. Without the protection of Patriarchy, such a pool will dry up quickly. See the present day for reference.

Zippy is back, at least for one post. Once again he covers the lies inherent in a democratic form of government. What surprised me is that he predicts our present system has as many as 50 years left in it. I wouldn’t have given it that long, but unfortunately he might be right. Ours has proven to be a surprisingly robust socio-political system, and inertia can have a profound effect.

Finally, congratulations are in order to blogger Chad, who became recently engaged to the young woman he has been courting for some time.

16 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Civilization, Marriage, Marriage Market Place, Masculinity, Red Pill, Sexual Strategies, Women

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.

62 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Civilization, Femininity, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Serial Monogamy, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Sin, Temptation, Women

A Truce… or Victory?

In my post This Isn’t Revenge, I explained that what we are witnessing now is merely the latest phase in a long running war between the sexes. Novaseeker suggested that it might be more accurate to characterize this struggle as a competition:

it’s an endless competition to see who can outdo the other in terms of getting their genetic/sexual imperative vindicated.

While I agree that there is certainly competition here, I think that it is mostly an argument over semantics, as both war and competition are forms of struggle. And what we are seeing is certainly a struggle. Moreover, it is not just a struggle between men and women but also among men and among women. Men compete with one another for the best women, and women compete with one another for the best men. Novaseeker’s comment, which I linked earlier, really goes into depth on this and I suggest that everyone read it for a thorough explanation of this. In a way this struggle is the “war of all against all” that Hobbes warned about centuries ago.

A number of points were raised about the central argument of my post, and I want to use this thread to address two which are related to one another: the notion of a truce and what might constitute “victory.”

Commenter The Shadow Knight left the following comment, which is working examining :

Yes, this is a war, but look at the effort expended to make sure that neither side will be interested in a truce. How many women are miserably working a terrible job when they want to be a mother? How many men are numbing the pain with drink, women, or games because they are not going to take the risk of ending up an ex husband? The enemy has to scream and threaten to get both sides to reluctantly oppose one another. Conflict is inevitable, but so is equilibrium.

TSK is correct that the present state of the conflict is the result of a concentrated effort to exacerbate the situation. However, removing that ‘incitement’ does not meat that both sides will be interested in a truce. If the incitement was removed, the conflict would still exist. That is the central premise of the first post. It might be more of a subtle conflict, with most of the “fighting” less visible, but the conflict will persist. Another thing to consider is that the incitement is a natural outgrowth of the conflict itself. Rather than being the cause, it is an effect. Our own preferences might drive some individuals to “stir up the pot” in order to benefit their own part of this struggle.

And besides, what kind of truce would be agreed upon? We had something of a truce before, and that didn’t last. When I mentioned a social order in which both sexes would “lose,” Stingray asked the following:

Given that men give up polygamy and women give up serial monogamy, I would think (traditional) marriage would fall into this category. What am I missing?

Stingray didn’t miss anything. Traditional marriage (not the modern day “traditional marriage” variety either) was a compromise, a truce of sorts. The thing is, neither side wants a compromise. Men and women want a system which supports their preferred sexual strategy. Equilibrium, at least, a static form of it, is not something that can last. In fact, it was TSK who pointed out that the destruction of Traditional Marrage “was a joint effort, because they both thought that they could get an advantage.” Both men and women will always want to push the boundaries.

Something more likely than a truce is a withdrawal or retreat of sorts. What I mean is that members of one “side” decide to stop fighting and just remove themselves from the conflict as much as they can. The MGTOW movement is an example of this in action. Rather than compete, they merely try and survive. Of course, they cannot fully escape, thanks to taxes and such. But in so far as they can, they try to not get involved in the conflict. This is something I think will become more prominent in the future, at least among men. It is also possible we might see women start to do this as well- they are likely to be affected by a drop in male desirability just as men have been affected by a drop in female desirability.

Any sort of truce, which would have to be founded on a compromise, couldn’t last unless it was enforced somehow. And that brings me to this comment by Cane Caldo:

These “base strategies” that are “hard-wired” have been revealed from the beginning as fundamentally untrue. They only feel true because the hard-wiring has been shot through with 1.21 gigawatts of sin. The receptors are fried, man.

Cane is correct that what I referred to as “base” or “natural” impulses of men and women are something Christians should understand to be the product of the Fall. I put “lose” in quotes in my first post because I wanted to indicate that what we think is a loss might not necessarily be so. After all, what we want is not necessarily what is good for us. Usually it isn’t. Sin blinds us, and directs our hearts (and other organs) in the wrong direction more often than not.

Once we understand this, we can finally see how victory is possible. You see, “victory” in the “war between the sexes” can come about only when we realize that this war is one which was stirred up by the Evil One. It is a war whose origins date back to the Fall, when the serpent pit man and woman against one another, and against God, for the first time (this was the first instance of someone playing “lets you and him fight”).  This war can be won by recognizing that it is a war we shouldn’t be fighting in the first place. “The only winning move is not to play.” Instead of men and women fighting one another, they we,  need to cooperate and fight against sin, which is the real enemy deserving of our attention.

This, I think, is where the real break between the secular and Christian “Red Pill” community is to be found. The secular PR community aims to equip men with the tools they need so they can get the best possible deal for themselves. In other words, to arm them with the best weapons possible to wage war against women, so they can score as many big victories as possible (however each individual man chooses to define victory). However, that strategy cannot bring the war to the end. It only seeks to give men the best odds possible and make them the temporary “winners.” The Christian RP community should recognize that this is not a winning strategy. Men who pursue this course are still puppets being controlled by the ruler of this world. Their “victories” are illusory. Keeping in line with the “red pill”, they are still in the Matrix, as they are still slaves to their sin- they only think that they have escaped.

When I spoke of the natural in my first post, it was because I wanted to emphasize the necessity of the supernatural to overcome our base or worldly nature. By ourselves we cannot hope to overcome our sinfulness. It is only through God’s Grace that we can achieve this. God has also provided us with the template of how a lasting “truce” between the sexes can be arranged, through the sacrament of marriage. There is no need to invent something new to get out us of the trench we find ourselves in. We have the tools, in fact we were given them a long time ago. We only need to remember that we have them, and to use them again as they were meant to be used. This will require that we set aside the notion that we know better than God. It will require humility, and patience, and lots of prayer. However, there is no other way. And it is certainly better than the alternative- an endless war that cannot be won.

One commenter asked in the previous post:

Am I supposed to take comfort in the fact that it is not revenge [driving this situation], but rather WAR?

If it is the war between the sexes, no, there is no comfort to be found. But the war against sin? That is another matter. It is a war in which ultimate victory has already been assured. We just need to win the individual holding actions in which we find ourselves. I cannot think of any better way to conclude this post than with this advice from St. Paul:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 above all taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

(Ephesians 6:10-17)

 

82 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Christianity, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sexual Strategies, Sin, Women

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.

39 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Men, Polygamy, Red Pill, Serial Monogamy, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Sin, Women

Random Musings and Links- #7

Its been quite a while since I last wrote one of these posts, and thus it is long overdue. I’m going to cover some important links, relate a few of my thoughts and preview a few possible post ideas in the future.

To begin with, I wanted to give my readers a heads up that I am going to refrain from commenting at other blogs for the near future. I have not been pleased with my comments for a while. None have been good, much less great, and many were sub-par. Given the trouble that a few have caused me, I’m going to hold off with them for the moment, although I will still comment here. Part of my problem is that when I comment I usually write in haste, which does not lend itself well to careful thought or careful writing. So expect to see very little of me around for the time being.

Deep Strength has written a post exploring how AWALT and how NAWALT. There are three things he has as “questionable” that I wanted to briefly address:

  • Do women have the ability to agape love their husbands? There are no commands for women to agape love their husbands but to philea love them (Titus 2).

  • Do women have full moral agency?

  • Are women able to act as their own agent outside of men: what about the fact that women were under their fathers in the OT, and confirmed through 1 Cor 7 to also be under the authority of their fathers prior to marriage?

While others have provided good commentary, there are a few things I wanted to note. First, just because scripture doesn’t command it doesn’t meant that women don’t have the ability to agape love their husbands. Scripture contains what is essential, surely, but it doesn’t contain everything- it cannot, in fact. That is why Jesus gave us the Church, after all- for continued wisdom and guidance. Second, concerning moral agency, I think Deep Strength is conflating moral agency- the ability to choose between right and wrong- with [edit: potential or alleged] female susceptibility to deception. They are not incompatible. Women can choose to do the right thing, just as they can choose to do the wrong thing. Deception merely makes it more difficult to discriminate between the two. Third, women are indeed able to operate as agents outside of the authority of men. Scripture mentions ta number of instances of it, in both the OT and NT. However, that doesn’t mean it is necessarily for the best, at least, all the time. This ties again to the susceptibility of deception- protecting women from deception probably had a large part to do with that. There might be more, of course, and this could be a subject worth exploring in a further post.

Elspeth has closed up shop, although she might comment from time to time. So has Mrs. ktc. Both are going to be moved to my inactive section shortly.

Empath talks about the subtle power of examples.

Stingray has a new blog focused on religious discussions.

Ballista provides yet another example of how conservatives either don’t get it, or pretend not to get it when it comes to marriage.

Bonald has an interesting post, among a great many, which discusses inter-species romance. I mention this one specifically because James T. Kirk is involved.

Free Northerner explores the potential Selection Effects of War.

I agree with Beefy Levinson that enemies are easy to deal with, it is your treacherous friends that are the problem.

Related: Rebellion at a Catholic High School. I hope the admin stands firm.

Mrs. C. had an interesting post on St. Patrick’s day which discussed welcoming sinners. I encourage my readers to read it, because I want to comment on it briefly. There is an interesting tension that the Church has endured since its creation between welcoming sinners, on one hand, and turning a blind eye to sin, on the other. Sometimes the Church has gone too far one way, and sometimes too far the other. I think that a major determinant of how the Church should act with regards to any given individual is determined by that person’s background. The way I see it, there are four sorts of backgrounds someone might have: 1) someone who was born to the faith and never left the church (although they might have strayed), 2) someone who wasn’t born to the faith but converted and is present still in the Church, 3) someone who was born to the faith but then left (prodigal son/daughter?) and 4) someone who wasn’t born to the faith and hasn’t converted before. Each needs to be treated somewhat differently. In brief, I would accord more leniency to persons from the latter backgrounds. The danger of too much leniency (or mercy) towards the former is that it might establish in the minds of the faithful the notion that eschewing sin is not an important or vital part of the faith. In other words, it acts as a stumbling block. This is less of an issue for someone who is coming to the Church for the first time, either ever or for a long time.

Vox brings a story of how Little girls need fathers.

As I was writing this post Rollo put up a new post of his own, where he delves into the subject of “Betas in Waiting.” His efforts in examining the different “stages” of the life of most modern women have provided me with a lot of insights. Some of them will come into play in a future post of mine examining male and female “Sexual Strategies”, and how they interact with one another.

44 Comments

Filed under Beta, Blue Pill, Christianity, Churchianity, Marriage Market Place, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Sin, The Church, Tradition, Women

Analyzing Attraction- Part 5

The latest in my long running series is here. The first post can be found here, and the fourth here. Today’s post is going to be less focused than the last.

“Guypergamy”

One of the infamous commenters who occasionally frequents these parts has accused men of acting in a manner entirely similar to women when it comes to mate maximization. Her argument is that men are just as picky and choosey  as women are, and that only the “hottest” women will get asked out/dated/married by men. She calls this “Guypergamy.”

Setting aside the ridiculous name, there is an element of truth to this. As most who frequent this blog are aware, lifetime monogamy is not natural to the human condition- neither men nor women are naturally monogamous. Women are inclined to serial monogamy, while men are inclined to polygamy.

The natural male response when a man comes across a woman he wants is to add her to his existing “harem.” If he runs across two at the same time, he takes both rather than choose between the two. Or as the old joke goes: If you ask a man whether he prefers a blonde, brunette or redhead, his answer will be “yes please.” You can see this especially with David and Solomon in the Old Testament. Although Jacob is another good example. When he got Leah rather than Rachel at first, he didn’t discard Leah when he later got Rachel. Essentially, the male instinct isn’t to replace an existing woman with a new one when a man run across her. When a woman is “discarded”, it is usually due to her age or a lack of resources on the man’s part (prioritizing them for himself and the women he prefers).

This dynamic changes dramatically when men are forced into hard monogamy- aka, lifetime marriage. When men are confronted with “one and done,” their behavior shifts. They start to become a lot pickier. Far more picky, in fact, then they are normally. However, I don’t think that men are ever quite as picky as women tend to be. But it can be close.

And that is just in a “hard monogamy” marriage market. Things become even more complicated when the market is as distorted as it is now. When lifetime marriage and the MMP is distorted, two different forces are at work. On the one hand, the lack of viable product (marriageable women) forces men to lower their  standards or go without. And on the other hand, the instability of marriage and easy dissolution of marriage makes men even more cautious and choosier. This leads to… interesting results.

The most likely result is that men simply leave the market. They give up and go home. But another result, the one more applicable to this neck of the woods, is a little more complicated. These are men who we might call R&D men- Resigned & Discriminatory. While they haven’t given up on marriage, they are resigned to the fact that they probably won’t marry. And they are highly discriminatory about who they will actually marry. They have strict standards and will generally stick to them. I strongly suspect that most Christian men in the future will fall into this category. Not that there will be necessarily be a large number of such men- I see a strong contraction in the numbers of the faithful ahead in the future.

As for how choosey these men will be, I predict fairly choosey. Knowing the odds, they will insist on getting a good deal in the marriage market, or they will simply walk. This means a number of things will be part of their “list”: lots of feminine traits, a high degree of devotion, chastity, minimal feminist/worldly beliefs, youth and good looks. The latter is what drew the ire of the aforementioned commenter. She (and others) disliked that men would only pay attention to the “hawt” girls.

I understand and sympathize a bit with her perspective. But only so much. It is unfair, certainly, as she and other “good” women aren’t responsible for this mess. But a mess is what has been left to us. And men are finally starting to adapt to it. From a male perspective, here is what is going on in our heads:

If we are going to take the risk of marrying in the present environment, then we are going to insist we get the best possible deal out of it. In other words, we want a reward on equal footing with the risk. And that means, in large part, youth and beauty (which often go together). Beauty I will explain in the next section, but youth is also important to such men.

One of the rewards that men in this category are apt to seek is a large family. Not all, of course. But many will have that desire. The younger a woman, the more she brings to the table when it comes to fertility. This will increase her perceived “reward” value. And that is the conscious factor. Men are unconsciously drawn to youth in women. It has an appeal that we never really lose, as evidenced by various “studies” which show that the ideal age range of women for men is around 20-21.

Now, for a while men have been accepting older and older women as their brides. The general increase in median age of marriage demonstrates this. However, I suspect that men are going to be increasingly wary of marrying older women. This was tolerated at times in the past, but I don’t think that toleration will hold in the current broken market.  Desperation will still affect many, to be sure. There will always be “thirsty” men. But as more R&D men emerge, or put another way, as they become a larger share of the marriage market, I expect that women will have a harder time marrying later.

Those are just a few of my thoughts on the subject. I invite my male readers who might fall into that category to offer their own.

The Holy Lampstand

One constant in my various discussions of attraction is that someone shows up and says that Christians shouldn’t be taking attractiveness into account when marriage is concerned. Most often it is directed only at men, and not women. One such person, going by the moniker Corvinus, showed up recently at this thread over at Dalrock’s to make that same, old, tired argument. He, assuming it was a he, basically stated was that all matters was for a woman to be a Christian. Her attractiveness doesn’t matter. Fortunately a number of commenters there, including Feminine But Not Feminist, quickly took him(?) to task over his(?) foolhardy arguments. The following hypothetical from FBNF pretty effectively shut him down (as evidenced by the fact he hasn’t responded to it):

If a Christian woman were to show interest in marrying you (if you’re a man; if you’re a woman then just say so), but you had absolutely zero attraction to her to the point that the idea of having sex with her is repulsive to you, had trouble keeping up a conversation because you just don’t “click”, and she is so crazy and unkind to you that you don’t even like being in her presence at all, but she still said she would be interested in marrying you… would YOU PERSONALLY be willing to marry this woman that you flat-out don’t want, just because she “is Christian”? If “yes” then please back it up with something from Scripture that clearly shows that men are obligated to marry such a woman simply because she is Christian (good luck finding that). If “no” then please explain why you wouldn’t do so but are telling every other man here that they should.

 The thing is, you could remove the part about “clicking” and personality/craziness and it would still work. Marrying a woman whom you are not attracted to is a recipe for disaster. Even more so if she repulses you. The only exception might be for those men who have no sex drive. But they probably should marry at all, as St. Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 7. And that passage also highlights the importance of being being inflamed with passion towards your spouse. Because if you aren’t towards her, than you will be towards someone else. And that leads to ruin, as the Book of Proverbs makes abundantly clear several times. Proverbs also makes it clear that the way to cool your passion is through your wife:

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
    flowing water from your own well.
16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,
    streams of water in the streets?
17 Let them be for yourself alone,
    and not for strangers with you.
18 Let your fountain be blessed,
    and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
19     a lovely hind, a graceful doe.
Let her affection fill you at all times with delight,
    be infatuated always with her love.

(Proverbs 5:15-19)

It is kind of hard to rejoice in her if you never felt that “spark” in the first place. But even with that in mind, the notion that men should not or cannot consider a woman’s beauty has no scriptural basis. Far from it- in fact Scripture speaks to quite the opposite:

17 Like the shining lamp on the holy lampstand,
    so is a beautiful face on a stately figure.
18 Like pillars of gold on a base of silver,
    so are beautiful feet with a steadfast heart

(Sirach 26:17-18)

22 A woman’s beauty gladdens the countenance,
    and surpasses every human desire.

(Sirach 36:22)

And then of course there is the entire Song of Songs, which extols female beauty (along with the handsomeness of the man). When you point this out (admittedly, a little harder for Protestants who have tossed aside the Book of Sirach) those who argue against considering attractiveness always like to trot out Proverbs 31:30. When you point out that Proverbs 31 didn’t say to ignore or set aside beauty, but to remember it is fleeting, and that the rest of Proverbs warns about letting it bedazzle you, most usually huff and leave.

The thing is- life isn’t fair. Some win and some lose when it comes to good looks and attractiveness. That doesn’t sit well with a number of folks, but that is how the world is. As unfair as it is, men just like beauty. We do. There is something inherently pleasing and uplifting about it. Even when not in a direct sexual context, it “gladdens the countenance.” I don’t think women really understand just how powerful this can be. Telling men to set beauty aside will be no more successful in the long run than telling women they should be drawn to supplicating and weak men.

That is not to say that men cannot prioritize other features of a woman above her looks. We can, and many do. But it isn’t easy. And we never really set it aside- instead, we make a conscious decision to accept less of it in the hopes of gaining something else (hopefully) more valuable instead. At least, that is the case for those with options. For those without options, then it is less determination and discrimination at work, and more desperation.

The key point, as always, is that a man should never marry a beautiful woman just because she is beautiful. That is a plus, certainly. But since looks fade over time it is a passing pleasure. So ground your decision on traits that don’t fade like that. In the end, they are far more valuable to your enjoyment of your marriage, and life as a whole. Not to mention much safer for your soul. That said, there is no reason why, all things being equal, a man shouldn’t marry the better looking of two women.

What Is In A Name?

In my previous post of this series, which examined Hypergamy, I ended up deciding that I didn’t like the word as applied. I suggested that a new word or phrase was needed to explain the phenomena that it was used to describe. So I invite my readers to give it their best shot. Think of a new and more accurate name to describe the phenomena described and commented on in my last post in this series.

That brings this post to a conclusion.

69 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Hypergamy, LAMPS, Marriage, Men, Polygamy, Red Pill, Sexual Strategies, State of Nature, Temptation

Analyzing Attraction- Part 1

This is the first in a series of new posts on the subject of attraction. My life is quite busy at the moment, and I’m deliberately restricting the time I spend online right now as a result. So most of the posts in this series will be shorter rather than longer. Today’s post is mostly review.

I. Back to Basics

Attraction was a principal focus of this blog in the beginning, with a special focus on male attractiveness. Even before this blog was created I wrote a guest post for Sunshine Mary wherein I set out what I perceived to be the different categories that women evaluated men for in terms of their attractiveness. And by attractiveness, I mean sexual attractiveness. More about this clarification later. This was my original LAMPS formula:

  • Looks
  • Athleticism
  • Money
  • Power
  • Status

As I noted in that original post, not all categories (which I called vectors then) are equal. Some were valued more highly than others by most women, and individual women could vary in their preferences as well. In terms of overall importance, they are (in descending order of importance) Power, Status, Athleticism, Looks and Money. This is sometimes referenced as PSALM. I often refer to them together as LAMPS/PSALM. A man with a high LAMPS/PSALM score is attractive to most women, and a man

I later clarified this theory bit by discussing the overall categories that women look at: Appearance, Personality and Externalities (also known as APE). The LAMPS factors all fold into that system, which is even simpler and pretty much catches everything there is to catch.

One of the major components of my LAMPS/PSALM theory and model was that it focused purely on sexual attraction. I deliberately excluded any “comfort” traits from it, because those ultimately have no bearing on female sexual attractiveness for all or nearly all women (possible exceptions to be discussed in a later post). I sometimes reference their effect on women as “creating Desire.” Desirable traits or “Retention” traits influence women in so far as elevating some attractive men over others. But unless a man meets a woman’s high threshold for sexual attractiveness (thank you Hypergamy), they don’t help a man.

Or do they?

II. Attraction v. Arousal

Rollo Tomassi has written plenty about his own views on attraction. So far as I can tell he hasn’t formulated a system or model as specific as mine. What he has done is use different terminology and approach attraction from a different light. Rollo uses the terms arousal and attraction to describe what I call attraction and comfort/security. Here is a sample of his use of those those terms from his post Alpha Tells:

In a social environment where men are conditioned to believe that women are as equal, rational agents as men, the belief men put their faith into is that women will appreciate their intrinsic qualities and base their sexual selectivity upon a man’s virtue, bearing, intelligence, humor, and any number of attractive intrinsic qualities. However, the truth of what women base their sexual selectivity upon (arousal) is far more evident in their instinctual, unconditioned behavior when around Alpha men – as well as men’s instinctual sensitivity to that behavior.

While Rollo uses the term arousal, and I use attraction, I believe that they both get to the heart of the same thing: female sexual affinity for a man. Essentially, a primal urge to want him sexually and to mate with him. Where Rollo and I perhaps differ is Rollo’s use of attractive to describe what I call desirable traits. Rollo gives them far more credit than I do in terms of generating female attention. As I understand his thinking, women are affected by two forms of attraction: sexual (what he calls arousal) and comfort/security (what he refers to when he mentions attraction). What happens is that women start out mostly driven by sexual attraction/arousal. As they get older, comfort/security attraction start to take precedence. This switch roughly coincides with a woman’s Epiphany phase- the point when her SMV starts to drop enough that both she and the men around her notice it, and react accordingly.

What Rollo has argued, and what is different from my original take on comfort/security/desirable traits, is that women are actively attracted to these traits. Women notice them and will seek men out based on them. And they will do so even if a man is not sexually attractive.

My own take on desirable traits was that they didn’t grab attention from women. Women aren’t drawn to them and they were only considered after a woman found a man to be sufficiently sexually attractive.

Having seen Rollo further develop his Epiphany line of thought through his Preventative Medicine series, I am now inclined to agree with his view on comfort/security traits. Women can and do appreciate them irrespective of a man’s sexual attractiveness. However, whether a woman does such a thing is heavily influenced by where she is on her “life script.”

Rollo’s female SMV timeline

Unfortunately, women being attracted to these traits doesn’t really help marriage-minded men much at all. This is because most of the women who are focused more on attraction rather than arousal are looking to settle. They are older and are desperate to cash in what remains of their SMV. This might make them appealing to PUAs and others of their ilk who can use this desperation for their own sexual gratification, but not to men looking to marry. Such women are not apt to make good wives. They are more likely than not to be or to become frigid during marriage. Also, they have lost much of their fertility already. Finally, it should be noted that their looks will have started to deteriorate, else they would still be in their Party Years phase.

So where am I going with all of this? That is for the next post to explain.

52 Comments

Filed under APE, Attraction, Beta, Desire, LAMPS, Masculinity, Red Pill, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Women

Driving The Delay

Dalrock, who has always been very good about using charts and data sources to support some of his arguments, has a couple of new posts that track marriage data. Both are worth reading. You can find them here:

Fewer Men are working, and marriage is dying

and

More remarriage rate charts

The charts that Dalrock uses in those posts point out a couple of things. The one that I’m going to talk about with this post is that women are delaying marriage, even if men aren’t (and I don’t think that they really are). Cail Corishev talks about that subject in his post Who’s Dragging Those Heels? I largely agree with his reasoning, and encourage everyone to read the whole post. But a key part is this:

The truth is, men have always delayed marriage.  In other words, men have never particularly wanted to marry; they’ve been willing to marry when that was the way to get what men really want: exclusive sex and procreation with a woman of their choice.  That’s why the trope is of a woman dragging her man to the altar, and not the other way around.  So while men may be delaying (“avoiding” would be a better word) marriage, men have always avoided marriage, so that doesn’t account for the changes we’re seeing.

The change is in women, in two closely related areas: how long women delay marriage, and how women have detached sex from marriage.

This brings me to how women are delaying marriage. There are a couple of important graphs that I’m going to steal from Dalrock, as well as commenter davidvs, who has been pondering similar paths as I. The first graph is the median age of marriage in the US over time:

Note the separation between male and female ages of first marriage and how relatively even they are. Now observe two charts which detail preferred ages for a partner in men and women:

These graphs point out a couple of things.

The first is that men are relatively fixed about their preferences in terms of age and attractiveness- it is about 21 or so. Women, however, are not so fixed. They prefer older at first and then eventually younger men.

This moves to the second point, namely that Rollo’s SMV chart really is pretty darn accurate. If anything he might have female peak SMV be a little too older, but it is still very close. Men prefer early 20s women, and women prefer men around 38-39 or so.

The third thing that this graph points out is that women are driving the delay in marriage. Or at the very least, for themselves. We know from the charts above what men want- young women. That doesn’t change no matter how old a man gets. Yet we can see that the median age of marriage for both men and women has increased over the last 50 years or so. Now, we might surmise from the data that men are delaying marriage- they are having fun in their 20’s and only later decide to settle down. But that doesn’t affect women. They can still choose to marry young. Its not like men will turn them down when they are younger.

Even if men want to marry when they are older, they will still want younger wives. So if women don’t want to delay marriage, they don’t have to. Men will be there to marry them. But that isn’t what is happening. Instead both men and women are marrying later. And the spread between them has remained fairly constant. And fascinatingly enough, that spread is awfully similar to the preferred age spread for women in their twenties. What is going on here is that women are delaying marriage. And they are delaying it deliberately. I see a few possible reasons for this.

The first, what the manosphere generally talks about, is that women are delaying marriage for as long as possible so they can do everything else in the interim. Whether that is travel the world, acquire degrees, work on a career, or rack up a frightening N-count, women are giving marriage a very low priority in their lives. And keep in mind that men, even if they want to marry, are trapped by this. Marrying older women who want to marry is not a wise or a realistic option for them. No, men are forced to go along with women, no matter what they wish.

Another possibility relies on men delaying marriage. The idea is that women want to marry when they are young, but the men their age don’t want to. If they want to find a large enough pool of men who will marry, they need to look to older men. However, those older men are outside their preferred age ranges in men. So rather than marry them, and despite that being an option, women wait. And they wait. And they wait. Until eventually, women are now old enough that their age filters have changed, and the men who want to marry are now in that preferred age range. And boom, they start marrying.

My readers are of course free to offer their own thoughts on the subject. But I think that at this point that there can be no doubt that women clearly have a hand on the wheel when it comes to delaying marriage.

Update: Another possibility is tied to the second scenario I raised. This one relies on women delaying marriage because the men their age aren’t seen, in their eyes, as worthy mates. Since women have fairly set age preferences, they will not “date up” to the men who are more likely to be attractive. It is only when the men become more attractive as a whole that women start getting serious about marriage.

20 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Courtship, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Strategies, Women

Shutting Their Eyes

Modern society shuts its eyes easily and willingly. We don’t want to see evil, or trouble ahead. And even for those that do, it must always be in measured amounts. They will squint, so that only some of the light comes through, leaving them with an incomplete picture.

Mrs. ktc clued me in to an example of this, found in this article by Camille Paglia- The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil. A few choice excerpts:

Wildly overblown claims about an epidemic of sexual assaults on American campuses are obscuring the true danger to young women, too often distracted by cellphones or iPods in public places: the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. Despite hysterical propaganda about our “rape culture,” the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides.

There is a ritualistic symbolism at work in sex crime that most women do not grasp and therefore cannot arm themselves against. It is well-established that the visual faculties play a bigger role in male sexuality, which accounts for the greater male interest in pornography. The sexual stalker, who is often an alienated loser consumed with his own failures, is motivated by an atavistic hunting reflex. He is called a predator precisely because he turns his victims into prey.

Misled by the naive optimism and “You go, girl!” boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature.

Ms. Paglia is able to notice the animal eyes which glow in the dark. She can see the male predators out there. What she fails to see [or at least, acknowledge], however, are the predators in her midst.

You see, those women whom Ms. Paglia describes as naive are, in their own respect, just as feral as the men that she warns about. As a society we are quick to decry feral men, the male predators lurking in the dark. But we ignore the female predators who walk among us. We are quick to point out the evil in men, but balk at doing the same in women.

Someone like Ms. Paglia sees “bared flesh and sexy clothes” and worries about “messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic.” Her time, and society, would be better served by thinking [and talking] about what messages are intentionally sent with “bared flesh and sexy clothes” and how they are correctly read.

It is no accident that young women dress that way. Naivete has nothing to do with it. Women know, instinctively, the power their bodies have over men, and they use that power to get what they want: male attention and validation. Young women who dress that way are tempting men, they are provoking a sexual response in the deepest recess of the male psyche. Do men want this? For the most part, yes. Men like viewing attractive female flesh as much as attractive females like showing it. But that doesn’t change the nature of what these women are doing- they are tempting men, setting stumbling blocks before them. And even worse, they deny all the while that they are doing any of that. They claim empowerment as their rationale- as obvious a lie as any ever told.

Much is said by a few around these parts about how men push young women for sex in relationships (or push for sex instead of relationships). Yet in the present environment women push for it too (only they will deny it later if confronted). Don’t believe me? Go ask Ballista, he will have a story or two for you. I’m sure that Chad and Martel have similar tales to tell of women who pushed for sex right away. If you have been paying attention to the news lately (especially about female teachers sleeping with their students), you will know that women can be sexual predators too. Yet all together we as a society will ignore or downplay the dark side of female sexuality. We refuse to acknowledge that evil inherent in unrestrained female sexuality.

Message to Camille Paglia:

It isn’t just the modern campus that cannot comprehend evil- it is the whole of society. You see only that evil which you want to see, and nothing more.

Update: In case it wasn’t clear, the main thrust of this post was that we only recognize certain kinds of evil these days. Overt violence being the prime example. But other, subtler evils are not recognized or called out. I wanted to point out that Ms. Paglia was making much the same error that she was accusing college campuses of making.

Update 2: Sir Nemesis has questioned my criticism of Paglia. He argues that just because she hasn’t called out other evils, doesn’t means she doesn’t recognize them. Theoretically this might be true. However, I’m not familiar with her ever having done so. But focusing on what she specifically, has said or believes would be a mistake. This post is about more than just her. I’ve corrected the above post (with some additions and a strike-through), to try and make that more clear. The overall point, once again, was how some evils are recognized and acknowledged, and others aren’t. And there is a pattern to this which should be noticeable to those of us who give it careful thought.

14 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Femininity, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Sin, State of Nature, Temptation, Women

Appearances

[To begin with, apologies for the low level of activity here at this blog, and elsewhere. I am still catching up with comments here. Hopefully I will have time to respond to them today. The next few weeks will be very busy for me, and posting and commenting will be erratic, at best. So don’t be surprised if my weekend, religious themed posts are the only ones I make. Not sure how long this will continue, but into October at the very least.]

Short post today, following up with something I said in my most recent musings post. Therein I said the following:

Something that I want to address as well is the Looks/Athleticism versus Personality debate that seems to show up all the time in the comment section at The Rationale Male. A lot of folks there place too much stock in Looks, as compared to the other LAMPS/PSALM attributes. My suspicion is that the reason why is because Looks and Athleticism are obvious to everyone, whereas Personality/Power can be much more difficult to pick up. Not sure when I will get to writing it, but would love to finish it sometime this month.

To clarify, when I say Looks in that quote I meant the more general category of Appearance, which is used in the simpler alternative to my LAMPS/PSALM formula, APE, to encompass both Looks and Athleticism. I don’t think most of Rollo’s commenters distinguish between the two, so for the remainder of this post I will use Appearance, or A, in lieu of Looks and/or Athleticism.

To quickly summarize what many argue over at Rollo’s blog: Appearance matters more than anything. Good looking men get all the good looking women. Personality and “Game” only gets a man so far. If you aren’t born good-looking, you are just out of luck.

There’s more, but I think I got the heart of it. As for my response, well, I think that argument is bunk. Which should surprise no one, really, since I’ve argued for over a year that the most important part of male sexual attractiveness is a man’s masculinity and personality, which are both tied together. I think there are two reasons why many of the men there have come to that erroneous conclusion.

The first reason is that handsome, good-looking men are also more likely to be confidence and assertive, and those score stronger on their Personality/Power attribute. This comes about because Appearance is the easiest attribute to evaluate. You just need to look at a man to get a fairly accurate reading on where he falls on the scale of Appearance. Since women notice it so easily, they will often direct a lot of attention early on at handsome men, in order to evaluate them more fully (although they may not consciously realize this). Such attention will often, at least initially, be positive. Good-looking men who receive this kind of positive attention are likely to build their confidence more easily, as well as to hone their communication skills with women. This in turn will, over time, improve their Power/Personality scores as well.

So it isn’t simply that handsome men just have their looks going for them, they often will also have their confidence and interpersonal skills going for them as well. But those talents/skills aren’t as visible as a man’s looks. So those who observe the success of handsome men with women don’t realize that a lot more is going on beneath the surface than just looks. This is supported by reports from many in the ‘sphere of conventionally handsome men who were able to get initial attention from women but quickly lose it due to personality defects. Whether that is shyness or feminization leading to an emasculated personality, those men find themselves victims of the fact that Power/Personality is more important than Appearance to female sexual attraction.

The second reason for this disconnect is that women want it all. Women want a man who scores well on all the LAMPS/PSALM factors. If given the choice between a good-looking man “with Game” and an average-looking man “with Game”, women will choose the former (at least, in so far as attraction is concerned). Since good-looking men tend to be confident, they “have Game”, more often than not, it stands to reason that a good-looking man will simply be more attractive all around than a man who isn’t good-looking. Surmounting that hurdle is possible though. Strong External factors, such as social Status or Money, can give an average-looking man an edge. But relatively few men can have that kind of Status or Money. So in the present SMP good-looking men have a significant advantage over men who are only average (or below) in looks. This is only heightened by the fact that women can often achieve decent Status and Money values for themselves, thus raising the bar for men. Personality can compensate for a deficiency in Appearance, but it is very, very difficult to have  Power/Personality score that is high enough to beat out a man with a high Appearance score and a high Power/Personality score.

Taken together, those two factors- good-looking men also have a high Power/Personality score, and women wanting it all, explain the phenomenon that the commenters at Rollo’s blog have observed and described. Of course, my readers are free to disagree and voice that disagreement in the comments.

I should note that I also have another post on attraction which I want to work on, although I have no idea when I’ll have the time for it. I want to explore some alternate theories of attraction, including that which Rollo seems to advocate.

14 Comments

Filed under APE, Attraction, Desire, LAMPS, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Sexual Strategies, Women