Defining The Problem

I.

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

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

II.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FI: Refers to the Feminine Imperative.

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

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

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

SMV: Stands for Sexual Market Value

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

SMP: Stands for Sexual Marketplace.

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

MMV: Stands for Marriage Market Value.

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

MMP: Stands for Marriage Marketplace.

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

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

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

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

Some Things Never Change

Leane, who runs the most excellent blog  Finer Femininity (a recent addition to my blogroll), wrote a post a few days back titled Girls: Faults and Ideals. Within she quoted from a book of the same name by J.R. Miller. He was a Christian writer who lived from 1840 to 1912. So a man from a very different era.

Yet despite the great span of time between now and when he wrote the book “Girls: Faults and Ideals,” much of what he wrote then still rings true today. In the section that Leane quotes from, J.R. Miller provides answers from two questions that he asked of young (presumably) Christian men at the time. Here are the questions:

1. “What are some of the most common faults in young women of your
acquaintance?”

2. “What are some of the essential elements of character in your ideal
of true young womanhood?”

There are two responses in particular that I want to address with this post, although I encourage those who follow this blog to read the whole thing. The first response that I want to address, which covers faults, is this:

“Frivolity, arising from want of purpose in life,” one names, “even the most sacred duties and relations being marred by this frivolousness. The best years of life are wasted in small talk and still smaller reading, tears and sighs being wasted over a novelist’s creations, while God’s creatures die for want of a word of sympathy.”

My first thought when reading this was Wow. If you were to add “pursuing an education and a career” into the second sentence, it would be a perfect descriptor of much of what passes for modern Christian Churchian womanhood. What this tells us is that the problems we see in women in church these days are not new at all. They existed well over a century ago, and probably for far longer.

One line in particular that really struck me was how “[t]he best years of life are wasted” by women. Something I have pointed out on this blog before, and will continue to point out, is that the general desire that most women exhibit to avoid commitment to a man is nothing new. Most women want to delay (true) commitment for as long as they possibly can. I cannot find the source at the moment, but I do remember reading a book written in the 1800s which talked of how older female relatives would often have to push young women to marry. Without that push many would continue to wait and wait, and in the process rebuff the courtship efforts of many would-be suitors, and before long would get to be an age where the stream of suitors would dry up.

Women’s natural sexual strategy is serial monogamy, not “hard monogamy” (lifetime marriage). When this strategy is retrained by a moral order, such as Christian teaching and doctrine, it doesn’t make women suddenly switch over to prefer “hard monogamy.” If anything it intensifies their natural hypergamy and causes them to be extremely “picky” in their choice of commitment. Hence it is very important for a young Christian woman’s family raise her to recognize this instinct and help her overcome it. [The finer details of this are for another post, if not other blogs, to examine.]

Also worth mentioning is that last line about “God’s creatures die for want of a word of sympathy.” Clearly many women back then were no kinder to most men in church than they are today. This is another thing which needs to be taught to young women, and is among the traits that older women are to teach younger women listed in Titus 2:4-5.

Then we move to the second response:

Another puts it down as “A want of firm decision in character and action,” and says that too often, in times “when they ought to stand like a rock, they yield and fall;” and adds: “The young ladies of our land have power to mold the lives of the young men for good or for evil.”

The last sentence is what interests me most. Women have a lot of “soft power” available to them, and can use this power to exert a great deal of influence over men. In my view, this power is perhaps greatest when it comes to young women acting as an incentive for young men. Men are willing to do an awful lot in order to win the affections of a woman, including task both dangerous and tedious. But if men know that such tasks will lead them on a path towards marriage to a desirable young women, nearly all will leap at that chance.

But of course, all of that hinges on three different factors. The first is that desirable young women are available for young men to marry. The second is young that men don’t have plentiful and convenient options for female affection without marriage. The third is that marriage isn’t a legal trap for men. While the third is determined by law and civil society with only indirect influence by young women (not enough are installed in elected or bureaucratic office as of yet, and  overall they represent a small part of the electorate), young women directly control the first two factors.

If young women are not taking the steps to get ready to marry, or if they decide to not marry young, then the first factor will fall in its face. Likewise if women do things which render them unfit for marriage, or even questionable as marriage material. If they pursue a path which takes them out of the marriage market (either temporarily or permanently), then men won’t see an incentive to be found in marriage and will adapt. At the same time, if men have access to loose women and won’t suffer serious sanctions for consorting with them, their desire for marriage will drop dramatically. Here women must exercise restraint and act in a chaste manner- the supply of unchaste women has a direct relationship with the desire men have for marriage. When women are willing to sleep with men without marriage, only the most righteous of men will seek marriage (or at least, approach marriage with the proper attitude)- and there are few such men out there. Restraints on female sexuality are as much for modifying male behavior, as they are for female behavior. Both are inextricably linked together.

Which links back up to how “[t]he young ladies of our land have power to mold the lives of the young men for good or for evil.” Women, by their actions, can influence men to act one way or another. All of this used to be understood. Women were pushed to marry young, and to be chaste, because it not only benefited them, but young men as well, and through them, all of society. This soft power is easy to overlook, but is more potent that many a law.

So when we look at the problems among young women in the Church, and that of the young men, and ponder what went wrong, let us not deceive ourselves into thinking this is a new travail that we face. For Scripture reminds us thus:

Is there a thing of which it is said,
    “See, this is new”?
It has been already,
    in the ages before us.

(Ecclesiastes 1:10)

Object of Contention

I.

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

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

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

[Emphasis mine]

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

II.

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

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

What would I tell George?

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

III.

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

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

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

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

IV.

In summary:

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

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

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

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

Unbalanced Equation

When I wrote my post Victory or Defeat I was expecting that there would be some strong disagreement with a few of the arguments that I made. In particular I was expecting opposition to this statement of mine:

The “Women Against Feminism” are, despite thinking otherwise, still actually feminists. They just don’t realize it. They are rebelling against the more visible and extreme “strains” of feminism right now, but fail to realize that they are still believers in the older, less virulent strains.

However, there was far less disagreement than I expected. Commenter Denise went the furthest with this comment, but even that was more of a round about attack on some assumptions I was (apparently) making. I suspect the lack of disagreement is because my blog is a low-traffic one that collects relatively few trolls or individuals opposed to my views.

But enough of that. I wanted to expect on a relatively short but important comment left by Lovelyleblanc7, who is clearly wiser than her years would suggest. Here is what she said in response to a comment of mine:

WAF, MRAs, and feminists are all the same. They shoot themselves in the foot. These days, MRAs are starting to become worse than feminists, which is saying a lot.

The part in bold is what it important to understand. More than important, vital, to understand what is going on and why our culture is in its present condition. LLB7 has correctly diagnosed that (radical) feminists, WAF and MRAs are all essentially the same, although they may not realize it. They are just different flavors of the same thing. You see, they are all proponents of the same societal outcome, despite being, on paper, vehemently opposed to one other.

MRAs and WAFs are Egalitarians- they argue for equal treatment of men and women by society.

Radical feminists (as opposed to the more mundane types) are Female Supremacists- they argue for superior treatment of women by society (although they sometimes try and disguise that fact).

Totally different, right? Wrong. Here is the catch: Egalitarianism inevitably leads towards the outcome of Female Supremacy. Egalitarian philosophy, when applied to society and culture, creates conditions that will naturally push society towards the outcomes and views espoused by radical feminists.

Egalitarians argue for a society where everything is balanced. Where men and women have equal power and rights. In their minds a society organized this way is the fairest, most stable and the most likely to succeed. WAFs and MRAs oppose radical feminism because they see it as unbalanced, and unfair to men. They oppose patriarchy because they see it as unbalanced, and unfair to women. It is their earnest belief that an Egalitarian society is one that is best for everyone. Here is what a graphical representation of it might look like:

The equality point is balanced, and hence, optimal. Power is distributed in society equally between men and women. Society is stable and everyone benefits. Feminism and Patriarchy, on the other hand, are unbalanced. When a society reaches those states it quickly slides into oppression of one sex or the other. Hence the need for the balance point of Egalitarianism- it keeps that oppression from happening.

This is a nice, neat picture. Everything has a place, and it shows that Egalitarians are smart, reasonable people with the best interests of everyone in mind. Too bad this picture is misleading. And not just misleading, but flat out wrong.

It is wrong because the balance point, the optimal distribution of power between men and women is not at the center point, the point of equality. Rather, the balance point is off to the right, towards the male side of power distribution. Here is a graphical representation of how civilizational stability really works:

This graphic demonstrates why Egalitarianism will ultimately, and always, lead towards the radical feminist position. You see, at the point of equality society the slope of social progression is already turned downwards. A society that reaches this point is already on the slide towards the oppression of men and social instability. Egalitarianism is just a stop on the path towards radical feminism and the oppression of men.

Why is the balance point towards the right side of the equation? The Feminine Imperative, of course. For those not quite sure what that is, here is my attempt to define it:

A biological impulse within all human beings which causes us to favor female interests over male interests within the overall social group.

The FI is not all powerful. Social condition, aka Culture, can override it to some degree. Individual men can be especially selfish and oppose efforts to divert resources towards women. But even when there are forces acting to suppress it, the FI yet remains, always pushing, always asserting itself. Unless active efforts are put in place to restrain it, it will insert itself into all aspects of human endeavors.

Now, the Feminine Imperative is not an evil thing. It has served a valuable biological purpose in the early stages of human history, by ensuring that resources and protection were afforded to women to the degree necessary to ensure the survival of the species. But outside that context of day-to-day survival, the Feminine Imperative is dangerous, as it unbalances the overall equation. Favoring female interests over male interests on a massive, organized scale, which is what civilization is all about, means that you will get a system where men are marginalized and ultimately oppressed. Kind of like the present system.

Only by having the overall distribution of power favor men can you ensure that the Feminine Imperative be sufficiently restrained that it won’t lead civilization into oblivion. A number of bloggers have addressed this before. Here is one piece by Free Northerner. What he, and many others, refer to as patriarchy is merely a balanced equation- a system where the distribution of power favors men so that the FI is restrained, yet women are protected from abuse and oppression at the hands of men.

The WAF don’t realize this. They think that they are being fair, reasonable and just women. Sadly, they don’t realize that their push for “equality” is a well-intentioned but misguided effort to keep in place a system which will, if not checked, bring about the very things they claim to be against. Those who oppose “setting back the clock” because they don’t want to give up what they’ve gained from feminism and Egalitarianism don’t appreciate that they cannot keep those powers and yet have a harmonious society. Culture and societies are dynamic, not static. They are ever moving. Either they give up those rights, privileges and powers and restore balance, or they accept that our culture and society will continue to slide towards a despotism of the petticoat.

For those of my readers who are Christians, you should be able to make the connection between this graphic and [accurate, proper] Christian teaching and doctrine. Various powers granted to men but not to women aim to stifle the worst of the Feminine Imperative, as well as other negative aspects of female behavior.  Various protections and guarantees granted to women mean to protect them from the worst aspects of male behavior.

Oh, and for those women (or even men) who don’t care if men suffer as a result of women’s new-found power… understand that the new gravy train is of a limited duration. Once a civilization veers too far from the balance point and ends up in oppressive territory, it starts to collapse. The Balance point is also the point of the greatest stability for a civilization. The further away you get from it, the less stable a civilization becomes. Where does it all lead? Just ask Thomas Hobbes:

In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”

[I lost some of what I wrote on this post. I’ve recovered what I can for now, but I know I’m still missing a few things. I’m uploading this post as is, but expect it to be altered and updated when/if I remember what was lost.]

Complex and Reflected

I.

One of the subjects that has interested me for a while is the so-called “Madonna/Whore Complex.” A number of male bloggers have covered it in the past, including me, in large part because it connects with a number of “red pill truths.” Several recent discussions that I’ve had with a few “red pill” aware individuals has made me wonder about its origins or source, and if it has a female counter-part. Some further discussions has led me to believe that there is indeed a female counter-part, and it is surprisingly similar in its origin to the male equivalent. Before I talk about the female version of the complex, I will explain some thoughts on how men develop it.

II.

One of the striking things about the Madonna whore complex is how it strictly divides women into two camps: one sexualized and one de-sexualized. It is striking in that there isn’t really any room for a grey area- women are mentally forced into one category or the other. I think this binary division is connected to the natural male filter for determining the investment quality of a woman.

Men have an innate instinct to divide (attractive) women into two groups: (attractive) women who are worthy of long-term investment, and (attractive) women who aren’t. Now, neither group is de-sexualized in either way- rather, it is that the women in the second group, while regarded as possible sexual partners, are not considered worth investing time or resources in. To use the vernacular of the modern day Pick-Up Artist, they are only good for a “pump’n’dump.” For men, sex may be cheap, but investment/commitment is not. Hence the need for an ability and inclination to assess women as being commitment worthy or not.

What I theorize, and others may have done the same before me, is that the Madonna/Whore complex involves a corruption of this natural filter. Whereas the normal filter includes women who are possible sexual partners on both sides, the filter is distorted so that you get sexual women who aren’t worthy of commitment on one side, and non-sexual women who are worthy of commitment on the other. I believe that this complex develops as a result of environmental triggers, specifically involving a man’s interaction with women. The Madonna/Whore complex seems to develop the most frequently amongst cultures and environments where men spend a long time unmarried and around loose women. It can occur in other situations, but that seems to be the most common.

What I think happens is that men who spend a long time with loose women come to associate female sexuality with unworthiness of commitment. This is because slutty behavior is one of the hallmark indicators that a woman isn’t worthy of commitment. Over time, men will be conditioned to associate them together, and eventually they will become inseparable. Since loose women tend to be fast paced and “exciting”, this association is intensified and exacerbated because of the strong emotions that men will develop during their time with such women. Men will have a fun, exciting time, and yet the filter doesn’t go away. It will be sending constant messages to these men that the women they are with are unworthy of commitment. For men, this manifests in a feeling of disgust and repulsion hinders the development of any lasting emotional bond. Over time, this disgust and repulsion will probably take on moral qualities, and so men will see loose women as disgusting (and maybe even evil) harlots.

Commitment worthy women, on the other hand, will be mentally associated with the opposite kind of emotions and sentiments. They, not being harlots, will be good and pure and wholesome. Men will instinctively assign to them all the positive traits that loose women lack, and none of the negative traits that loose women have. The problem for such women is that men will instinctively de-sexualize them. Partly this is because “good women” don’t act the same way as loose women do, and so don’t generate the same kind of excitement and “fun” that men with the complex associate with loose, and thereby sexual, women. The other part of it is that men instinctively recoil against thinking of “good women,” Or “Madonna’s,” as sexual. This is because their minds associate female sexuality with a whole host of traits that make women unworthy of commitment. So when a man considers a good women in a sexual way, it threatens to shake his mental image of her as a good or commitment worthy woman. Since he know she isn’t like that, he is apt to react by rejecting any sexual behavior or attitudes on her part. In fact, it is likely that if she acts that way he will react forcefully, in an angry or possibly even violent manner. His own sense of security and order and mental image of the woman in question would demand as much.

III.

This brings us to the female counter-part. I think that the basis is much the same, although the mechanic is a bit different. This is because women don’t divide men into the categories of commitment worthy and non-commitment worthy. Of course, women don’t give commitment in the way that a man does (via resources/time), but rather receive those. Instead, female commitment is expressed by having a man’s children. The primary characteristic women use to assess a man as a mate is whether a man is attractive or not, not whether she will give commitment, or even receive it from him. In fact women seem to be inclined to try and receive as much investment from as many men as possible (sensible in terms of helping her offspring survive). Certainly any man who she considers attractive is one that she would want to receive commitment from. This would seem to suggest that women wouldn’t fall into their own version of the complex.

Things get somewhat complicated, though, when we consider the phenomenon known as “Alpha F—s, Beta Bucks”, or AFBB. This seems, at first glance, to be a female behavior wherein women will sleep with one sort of man and seek commitment from another. However, this isn’t a full picture of what AFBB is. AFBB is a strategy that women adopt as a result of male behaviorisms; it is reactive in nature. It isn’t what women really want, at least, not as their first choice. What they want is commitment from the guys that they sleep with (and want to sleep with). However, the simple fact of the matter is that  without significant social pressures the most attractive male members of a social group (“Alpha’s”) will not offer exclusive commitment to a woman. Instead, because of the copious attention they receive from women, such men have the power position in any relationship and will offer little to no commitment to women.  Thus women, if they want to have a relationship with such men (which they do), have to comply with their rules. However, women still need male commitment in order to support themselves (especially during pregnancy) and their offspring. So they will seek out men who are more likely to offer commitment (“Beta’s”), and offer a relationship with them in exchange for commitment in return. Such relationships are merely a matter of convenience, though, on the part of women.

AFBB is a coping mechanism, if it were. I think the fact that it is reactive, and not active like the male binary perception of women means that it has less of an impact on female behavior. However, the same kind of environmental factors which might precipitate a man acquiring the Madonna/whore complex might also create a similar effect in women, even without that kind of base.

For example, take women who spend a lot of time in the company of exciting, handsome men, with whom they have sexual relationships. Have this last a number of years, the length of which is determined by how well the women age and what their relative beauty is. Over time, their minds will associate positive (as in desirable) male sexuality with men who display those traits. These impressions will be very potent, because the female brain is more emotionally connected than the male brain. With enough time and conditioning, women will only be able to associate male sexuality in a positive way coming from these kinds of men. Less exciting, “safer” men won’t generate the same kind of emotional responses in women with this kind of background, and so women will de-sexualize them. And if the men do act sexual, then because it isn’t associated with a positive form of male sexuality, women will see it in a negative light, which we around these parts refer to as “creepy.”

I was originally planning on calling this the Bad Boy/Nice Guy complex, but that isn’t really accurate. After all, it isn’t a binary division because the men who aren’t Bad Boys fall into two groups themselves: sexual and therefore creepy, and non-sexual and therefore safe. The latter are basically resource dispensers in the eyes of affected women, sad to say. So its more of a Stud/Creep/Drone complex than anything else. Not a great name, I know. If someone can think of a better one please feel free to mention it.

 IV.

I’m curious what some of my readers think of this theorizing on my part. Taken together, both versions of this problem stem from prolonged lifestyles that are hedonistic and promiscuous. Over time the brain is re-wired to the point where healthy long-term relationships become difficult, if not impossible.

Something I didn’t talk about in this post, but am curious about, is the reaction that people have to those who live these kinds of lives. What kind of impact is there on good women and nice guys living in a system where this is commonplace?

One thing that I am sure of is that this kind of sickness in society is what we can expect when sexual immorality is the norm.  Now, if only we have some kind of guide-book which would help us as a society to avoid perils like this….

Charting Out Your Life

I.

Starting over a month ago Rollo Tomassi over at The Rational Male began a series of posts he called “Preventive Medicine.” The series revolved around understanding how hypergamy and other aspects of female behavior manifested themselves during different parts of a woman’s life. His goal was to educate men about how women acted during different parts of their life, and how to respond accordingly. As he explained in the first post in the series:

What I’ve constructed is a loose and generalized chronology of how women effect their hypergamy over the course of typical woman’s life between the ages of 15 and 50. I’m fully prepared for the same outcries of generalizations and NAWALT that the infamous SMV graph inspired, but understand this, before any woman or femen comes up with those predictable objections, this is an outline; variables like culture, ethnicity, moralism, socio-economic status and outlying circumstance are all factors to consider when evaluating the motivations of any woman. This timeline however is intended as a roadmap to follow to get a better understanding of what motivates women at particular phases of their lives and hopefully help men to better prepare themselves for the strategies women will use to optimize hypergamy during those phases.

You can find the individual posts through the following links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

To help his readers understand his posts Rollo created a new chart or outline which provides a visualization of the different stages/concepts that he explains throughout the posts.  I’ve always been a big fan of Rollo’s various charts, most especially his famous/infamous SMV graph which I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with:

His new chart is also valuable, especially when paired with the SMV chart above. Here is is:

I suggest that my readers open it in a separate window so they can read it clearly, as it is quite detailed. In my opinion it is the most valuable contribution he provides in his series, although I suspect many readers will find some value in the other parts as well. In line with this, most of my post today will focus on this chart and the ideas its presents. The next section will include some of my observations of the chart and its surrounding subjects, along with some critiques and suggestions. The third and final section will cover ideas and thoughts that derive from the chart, Rollo’s posts and what I’ve commented on.

II.

Overall I tend to think that Rollo was spot-on in terms of assigning the various stages to the proper age points for women.

One suggestion that I would make is that there should be a marker at the beginning of the “Teen Stage”, as there is a major transition point (at least in the US) when women enter high school. Its been many years since I was at high school, but I can still remember the effect entering HS had on women. This would also suggest an expansion of the teen bracket from 15-18 to 14-18, which encompasses the high school years.

Also, I would slightly tweak the “Break” bracket. First off, I think it is a bit long. Two years is probably too much, from what I observed it was closer to one year. For those entering college the “freshness” of it all usually didn’t even last one year, often it was just the first semester/quarter, but for the sake of generality lets keep it at one year.

Perhaps my biggest disagreement with Rollo centers around the various attributes or factors that women focus on during their lives. That is the lower part of the chart. Rollo has women begin by being drawn to Physicality at first. Then, starting at age 25 or so, they include Status as something they consider. Finally, starting around age 30, Affluence and Provisioning start to enter their matrix. Translating these terms into my APE or LAMPS/PSALM analysis, you get Looks and Appearance first, then Status, and then Money. Power/Personality is not factored into Rollo’s chart (or is assumed, impossible to tell which).

While I would agree that certain factors might become more or less important over a woman’s life, I don’t think that they develop in the manner that this chart indicates. I maintain that the LAMPS/PSALM attributes are always “present” and important. This is something that I believe can be observed in women even in the beginning stages of this chart.

For example, take Status. Even in high school those young men who had higher status usually had better success with women. That might be limited to being captain of the football team, but it gave them something of an extra edge. The reason why it isn’t noticed as much, and why Appearance seems to override is because in high school most Status markers are also associated with Athleticism. This continues onward into college as well, where athletics is still higher status than nearly any other endeavor. However, once outside of the (undergraduate) college context, other Status markers start to come into play, like in the workplace or social circles that develop. In addition, as women get older, and leave the college context, they come into more contact with men whose primary attractive attribute is Status. This time period happens to match when Status becomes a factor on Rollo’s chart.

For those uncertain about my arguments above, keep in mind how young women are drawn to famous stars, especially music stars. While movie stars often have Looks, the same isn’t always true for musicians. Often they will have only Status going for them- as more than a few are anything but handsome. And yet they are incredibly attractive to women, even young ones. Hence, Status always matters.

Rollo merges Affluence and Provisioning together, which is an interesting choice. In a way they are a breakdown of the Money trait into two components: the wealth someone has on hand now, and their ability to provide in the future. Either way though, I think that Rollo is incorrect to consider it only relevant at the 30 year mark or so. Women do care about wealth before then, and wealthy men are definitely more attractive than their otherwise identical counterparts. The thing is that they rarely encounter such men when younger. But even then you can still see Money as something women find attractive. I can recall even back in high school that the handful of guys with wealthy parents always had a bit of an edge. It also was present in college, although got mixed up with Status because they were often part of the same frats or other circles.

I do think that Rollo was on the right track by separating Money into Affluence and Provisioning though. This is because when you consider it Affluence is of greater value/influence when a woman is younger, and Provisioning more important when she is older. A younger woman, who is less likely to have children, or, in this culture anyways, feel the immediate need for them, will probably be more entranced by the pull of immediately available capital. It means more fun. But for a woman with children, or a somewhat older woman who feels the urge of biology pressing down upon her, well, the ability of a man to provide resources in the future has some pull. In this sense, Affluence is more likely the major driver of Money in the  LAMPS/PSALM model as an attraction component, while Provisioning is something else. It is more likely to be a “Beta” trait, or comfort trait, or something that women value as a desirable trait.

One suspicion that I have is that Money is the weakest of the LAMPS/PSALM attributes right now because of the overall affluence of our society. Here in the West, starvation is next to unheard of. Very few live in the abject poverty that was the norm for most of our history. Since resources aren’t scarce as they were before, women don’t feel compelled to seek them from a man like they have in the past. Hence, its overall lowered value.

III.

A.

Something that I had noted in one of Rollo’s posts was that a whole industry has seemingly developed to “support” women who follow this lifeplan. In fact, each “stage” has its own particular set of supporting cultural institutions. Think magazines, TV shows, websites, the works. Women start with magazines like 16 and move on up to Cosmo and the like. Shows on the Disney channel supporting “You Go Guuurrrrllll” messages are replaced by Girls which eventually are replaced by other shows. For example, the show Sex and the City seems to me to have been designed especially for women in the Development and Redevelopment stages of their life.

What I’m curious about is whether the development of this industry was a case of supply meeting demand, or whether the industry itself has helped shaped how this “life-cycle” has turned out. I suspect that there is a little bit of both at play. Also, if I had to guess, I would say that this cycle is also a logical manifestation of how various impulses and triggers play out in the female mind, all depending on age and station in life, in combination with the present environment. That would explain the universality of much of it. Of course, not everyone  follows this path, but enough do that it cannot be coincidence. I wonder if attacking/undermining that support structure would translate towards undermining this chronology. Part of me thinks it would have to help.

B.

Another one of the things that struck me about this timeline is that it applies, with only minor correction, to Christian women as well as secular ones. Or at least to Churchian women. I know because have seen, and see, it in action.  For the more virtuous ones, you can replace “Party Years” with Mission work, or the like. But many of the same behaviors or stages manifest themselves in most women (at least, American ones) irrespective of their beliefs. Just like their secular sisters, the wiser ones will pursue marriage quicker, but plenty will follow the script laid out by Rollo.

The only exceptions being those women from especially traditional/conservative backgrounds. I know a number of women growing up who didn’t follow this particular path, and pretty much all of them were religious. But they were a small minority, and none of them really came from one of those kind of backgrounds. In fact, most of those who married early (which seems the most obvious early break with this path) were those who had high-school sweethearts that they married right out of college. One thing I have noticed is that nearly all have put off having children, although I’m not sure if that is because of finances or because they want to be free to live their lives as much as possible.

It really is a sad state of affairs when the general life path of Christians isn’t any different from that of secular individuals or those who belong to other faiths. We are called to not conform to the world, but that is what nearly all of us have done these days. Our lives are little different from those who don’t share the faith, except perhaps for different schedules on Sunday. Now that I can see it all so clearly, it is incredibly disheartening.

C.

One last thing that interests me is what the male equivalent of this chart would be like. One difference I would foresee would be the replacing of the first Security stage with the Development stage, which would move up. The second Security stage would simply disappear. This is because men don’t have a need for security in the manner that women have it. Redevelopment would likely fold into the first Development. If anything, I think that there would be far more variation for men in how a chronology would work. A number of different factors would be responsible for this:

• The industry that is centered around reaffirming women in their life journey doesn’t exactly have a male counter-part. In many ways part of the industry is geared towards suppressing the male equivalent.
• Given the different percentages of men versus women who are considered attractive, whether a man has success with women or not would have a huge impact. Because of the nature of male SMV, some men might not have early Party Years, but gain them later. Others might never have them. And others could have them for a very long time indeed, like many PUAs seem inclined towards
• As alluded to above, because male SMV follows a different pattern, it gives (most) men more options later on in their lives than women experience. This, plus the experiences they have gained along the way will produce more divergences in outcome.

I suspect that any male chronology is heavily influenced by whatever the prevailing female model is like. Men are highly responsive to female behaviors, and will shift ours to adapt to any changes that women make. They aren’t always good shifts, but that is just how we act. Also worth pointing out is that the chronology for Christian men also tracks fairly close to that of secular men as well. Some of this is due to the female model for Christian women being nearly identical. But the same kind of pressures to conform are also present as well for Christian men.

IV.

And that concludes this post.  Given the direction shift in my blog, I’m not sure when this new chart will show up next here. Until then, I think it is another valuable tool that can help men understand how most women act, depending on what stage of their life they are on. To echo Rollo, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so best to know this all beforehand.

Why Does My Boyfriend Pressure Me For Sex?

[Note to my regular readers: the first part of this post is aimed for newcomers. The second section will contain material aimed more towards my regulars.]

The short answer to the above question: Because most women these days will give it up when pressured, or even without being pressured.

The first part of this post is aimed at young women interested in marriage (and primarily Christian women, although it is still valuable to non-Christians) who have asked that question before or are frustrated by the constant pressure for sex by most men in the dating scene. The long answer to that question, which follows this paragraph, is more complete and provides an explanation of why things are like this right now. I’ve broken it into segments for ease of understanding. The first segment deals with men, the second with women, and the third ties it all together. The second part of this post is designed for my regular readers, although it might interest newcomers at well. It covers some of the implications and wider impact of this paradigm, plus personal anecdotes. Expect to see some “insider language” in the post and in some of the discussion to follow. If you have questions feel free to ask in the comments below. Now, on to the long answer:

I. The Long Answer.

A. Men

While trying to fit people into neat categories is usually problematic at best, it can really help with a general understanding of people’s motivations. Towards that end, I think it is helpful to break men into five different categories based on their attitude towards sex and marriage in order to understand male behavior in the dating environment.

1) Men who aren’t interested in marriage

2) Men who are interested in marriage but won’t marry a woman they haven’t slept with

3) Men who are interested in marriage and will push for sex before marriage but won’t insist on it

4) Men who are interested in marriage and won’t push for sex before marriage but will happily accept it if offered

5) Men who are interested in marriage and won’t push for sex before marriage and will not accept it if offered

Before I talk about the different categories, it is essential that female readers of this post understand how powerful the male sex drive is. Even at the peak of their cycle and with all of the right environmental factors in play, the female sex drive never gets to be as powerful as the male sex drive. To put it another way for the women reading this: Think of when you were the most sexual excited, the most aroused in your entire life. Then realize that feeling doesn’t come near to what men experience every minute of every day from the time they hit puberty until the time they die of old age. While it isn’t the only thing that men look for in women, sex is by far the most important need that women can meet for men.

For the purposes of this post, the men in category 1 are mostly irrelevant. They aren’t interested in marriage, only in sex. The problem they represent in the dating system is that it isn’t always easy to distinguish between them and men who are interested in marriage but push for sex.  Before “dating” became the norm such men were both less common and easier to spot because their attention was directed primarily at prostitutes and “loose” women. They are more common now than in the past for a variety of reasons. Among them are changes in the family law system, the diminished respect for marriage and husbands/fathers in society and the greater availability of of sex outside of wedlock.

The next two categories, 2 and 3, are both very similar. The only difference is that men in category 2 insist on a “try before you buy” model of dating. I suspect, though cannot prove, that they are far, far less common than men in category 3. The most important thing to understand is that the overwhelming majority of men fall into category 3 2 [In the past category 3 was the most common, but with talk in the culture of “sexual compatibility, and concerns of frigidity, category 2 is probably the most common now]. And this has almost certainly always been the case.  These men want sex and marriage, but they want sex more than marriage. If they can get sex without marriage, then great. Otherwise, if they have no choice, they will marry.

Categories 4 and 5 are, for the practical purposes of this post, nearly the same. The only difference is that only the men in category 5 are truly chaste (which is as much about thought as deed). Understand that the men in category 5 are the rarest by far, and this has probably always been so. Men in category 4 are  more common, but not by a whole lot. At least, not these days.

With all of this in mind, it is important to understand that the majority of “Christian” men fall into category 3 as well. Despite clear commands in the Bible against fornication, most Christian men see no problem in ignoring them. When it comes to sex, men are very capable of rationalizing away nearly anything. And most men exercise this ability as often as they can.

Now on to women.

B. Women

These days the vast majority of women are willing, and often more than willing, to have sex prior to securing commitment from a man. But this wasn’t always the case. Before the “sexual revolution” (which actually started decades before the 60’s), most women were far more circumspect in their sexual activity. As a general rule women wouldn’t have sex with a man prior to his committing to her. This was because of the high cost of sex at that time. In an age before effective contraceptives and wide scale use of abortion, sex could easily lead to an “inescapable” pregnancy, which if it happened out of wedlock was social death for a woman. Even if pregnancy didn’t result, the social costs to a woman were still significant if it was discovered that she was having sex out of wedlock. The major effects of these costs was to severely curtail a woman’s chances of marrying, much less marrying well. Considering the limited work opportunities available to women back then, this meant a abysmal standard of living for all but the highest class women.

Because of this, most women (outside of the lowest classes) insisted that a man commit to her before she would have sex with him. I say commit and not marry for two reasons. The first is that in the past there were a large numbers of “shotgun” weddings, perhaps even a majority of marriages involved the first child being born before nine months had passed since the wedding. As for the second reason, in the past engagement actually was a form of commitment on the man’s part. A man who broke an engagement with a woman was potentially subject to a civil action known as Breach of Promise to Marry. Couple that potential financial liability with a social penalty to a man who unjustifiably broke an engagement, and most men really were committed when they became engaged. This protection is largely gone now, as the social penalties are pretty much non-existent and Breach of Promise only exists in a handful of jurisdictions these days. The only kind of secure commitment that exists now is found in marriage itself.

With the above in mind, you can see that the reluctance of women to sleep with men prior to commitment was mostly based on self-interest. Some women might have been influenced by morality or religion to not have sex until marriage, but not all given the common occurrence of shotgun weddings. Certainly it wasn’t because women didn’t want sex; they do, provided it is with the right man. It is just that women wanted commitment, and the security that went with it, more than sex. All of this has changed. Women have far more job opportunities than they did in the past, and can rely on government support to cover what they cannot meet themselves. The social costs of sex out of wedlock and even children born out of wedlock are pretty much gone at this point. Not to mention contraception and the widespread availability of abortion further reduces the costs to women of sex.

C. Then Versus Now

Now to combine all of this together.

In the past, men, just like now, wanted sex. A lot. And so they pressured women for it. But most women would not give in until they secured commitment from the man. Essentially men demanded sex and women demanded commitment. The category 3 men were thus faced with a choice: either accept the woman’s terms and propose to her, or “dump” her and court (there was no “dating” back then) another woman. However, the odds were not in his favor, because most women would make the same demands. Thanks in large part to this solidarity amongst women those men who pushed for sex had to play by the rules women set. Since men valued sex more than they valued withholding their commitment the women won out.

This brings us to today. Men are the same as ever. But the vast majority of women have changed. They no longer insist on commitment before sex. Or at least, real commitment. They still want attention and validation and material resources if they can get them. But their security is not tied up to commitment like it was before, and so they are far freer to indulge their passions. And men know this. When a man from category 3  faces a woman who won’t sleep with him until they are married, he faces the same choice as before: accept her terms or move on. But the math is different this time; unlike before, the majority of women are more than willing to sleep with him before securing commitment. This means the odds are in his favor now. If he leaves the woman holding out, the odds are good that the next woman he dates will give him what he wants, without making him commit first. Because the old solidarity amongst women no longer exists, men no longer have to play by the rules that women set.

This brings us back to the question which started it all: why does my boyfriend pressure me for sex? The long answer is that he not only wants sex more than anything, but he expects to get it. Personal experience and/or the culture has told him that most women will sleep with men before they marry. Men want sex more than pretty much anything. They want it now. And nearly all don’t want to have to pay for it with commitment if they can help it. Truth is, most men have always pressured women for sex, and they always will. What has changed is how women act.  So long as the majority of women are willing to give men what they want without demanding commitment first, men will pressure women for sex and leave if they don’t get it.

If you are looking to blame anyone for this present situation ladies, don’t blame the men. Blame the women who are empowering them.

II. Further Thoughts

This section is aimed at my regular readers. For those curious as to why I wrote the part above, and why I did it in that manner, I had a couple of reasons. The first is that I wanted to create a post that I could link in the future to provide female newcomers to the ‘sphere when they had a question along this vein. Over time expect to see more of these types of posts. The second reason is because I wanted to reply to one female commenter over at Peaceful Single Girl who asked this question in this thread. As for the title, I have seen it pop up on search inquiries that lead people to my blog in the past, so it seemed appropriate. While the answer itself seems obvious, I thought that there was some depth worth exploring there, plus it might help out younger women trying to come to grips with the SMP/MMP.

A. The Good Guys

There are a number of commenters in the ‘sphere who insist that there are a lot of “Good Christian Men” out there whom women ignore. That if only women would give those men a chance then they would find someone to respect them and treat them right. However, the truth is that a large number of these Christian “nice guys” fall into category 3. They are not chaste, and would gladly leap at an opportunity for fornication if it should become available. It is not a stretch to realize that if Christian women engage with them romantically then these “Good Christian Men” are just as prone to pushing them for sex as the bad boys are.

I know this because I know men like this. Guys who aren’t even nominal Christians, but seem to take their faith seriously. Except when it comes to sex. In that one particular field they are no different than their secular counterparts. Let me back this up with a personal anecdote.

When I was younger I went on a road trip with a friend of mine back from high school. He was an Evangelical Christian, and was more fervent in his faith than I was at that point. We arrived at one of our stops, which happened to be a rather fancy hotel that we got a great deal for. Basically a mini-resort kind of place. Well, after we check in and drop our bags inside our room we find out the hotel has an attached night club. We investigate and find out that it is a “happening” place most nights because there aren’t any other spots like it nearby (the hotel was kind of out of the way). Upon discovering this, my friend turns to me and tells me that if he lucks out that night I would be sleeping in the car. I was so surprised by this all I could respond with was a hesitant ok, while my mind tried to wrap itself around my friend’s words. Here was a guy who had “found Jesus” during high school and was very active in Christian activities, and yet had no qualms with the sin of fornication. Though the memory faded in significance over time, I never really forgot it.

And so when I read accounts from female readers of my blog via e-mail, and read comments by Christian women on various blogs all talking about how most Christian men don’t respect their desire for chastity, I didn’t dismiss them out of hand. The story I mentioned above, and others like it (and yes, I have more like it), all remind me that male chastity is a rare thing, perhaps even rarer than female chastity. Good Christian Men swim in the same sewer of modern culture that women do, and pick up the same messages about sex. And they are still men, with the corresponding male sex drive. While the female Rationalization Hamster is more active than the male version, men have a Hamster too. And sex is the one thing guaranteed to get the male Hamster spinning that wheel at full power. The truth is that only a handful of men have the discipline and the devotion to pursue a chaste life.

B. Looking In From The Other Side

I feel a lot of sympathy for chaste women out there who are trying to make their way through this mess of a Sexual Market Place. They don’t even want to be there in the first place, but the Marriage Market Place and Sexual Market Place are both basically existing in the same space. Chaste  women are as much losers in this present system as are men who are looking for a chaste/virgin wife. For women, if they stick to their values there is a very good chance that most men they date will leave them and look elsewhere. It can take a very long time to find a man willing to respect their chastity. For men, we can spend a very long time looking for a woman who has been chaste and not find her. Or even if we do, we find that we are incompatible in some way.

The only way to turn this system around is to make the cost of sex significant again for women. Going after men won’t work for a variety of reasons, but the past has proven that if you convince women that being promiscuous is against their best interests then most women won’t be promiscuous. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to convince other people, even (or maybe especially) Christians of the importance of punishing promiscuity in women. Here is a quick story to help explain why.

I was talking with a female Christian acquaintance a few weeks back and mentioned the impact that other women’s behavior has on Christian women who desire to maintain their chastity. When I explained to her how I knew women who had trouble finding a husband because the men they dated kept on dumping them when they refused to have sex, she was flabbergasted. She had trouble believing this, not understanding how a man could fail to appreciate them. What she couldn’t grasp is that women with Marriage Market Values close to average (either just above or just below) don’t have the kind of value to keep a man around if they won’t put out. The woman I was speaking with did have a high MMV, on the other hand. Very few women match her value, and most any man who thought about dumping her because she wouldn’t sleep with him prior to marriage had to know that he really couldn’t do any better for a wife. But other women, women aren’t aren’t as good looking and don’t necessarily have all the other traits that make for a high MMV, they can’t rely on that. There are plenty of other women out there just like them, and they know it and men know it. The lower the woman’s MMV, the worse this system is for her.

As this story indicates, men and women with very high MMVs are less affected by the present MMP/SMP. Their value gives them the leverage they need to either find a chaste wife or to maintain their chastity. They don’t really feel the effects of the overall dysfunction. And because of this they don’t feel the same pressing need to change the system. Those from more protected backgrounds are probably the same way, because they never felt the full effects of the SMP/MMP they don’t see it as a problem worthy of what they are apt to call extreme measures. All of this makes it difficult to convince even those who should support a change culture to endorse the methods necessary to bring about change.

[I may include a part C here at some point if I can somehow collect my thoughts.]

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?

The Dreaded “List” Again

Rollo Tomassi left the following link at Sunshine Mary’s blog so that she could use it as source material for a post, but since she is busy right now I decided to snag it for my own use: The Husband List: 12 Non-Negotiables. The website itself is a real piece of work, one of the most puffed up examples of Princess syndrome (of the EAP variety) run amok that I have ever seen. A sample:

Every woman you meet may seem one way at first. But as you peel the layers by taking the time to talk with her, you realize she is much more than meets the eye. One by one, she is discovered to be more than enough. She has been uniquely gifted in order to carry out a purpose. Her value is rare and precious. The problem is, there is an epidemic of women who do not believe in themselves. Due to the exposure of various negative forces, young women are selling out and settling every day. They have bought into the lie that they are not worthy of a joyous, peaceful and bold life.

Part of me wants to believe that this is a parody site, because it seems too good to be true. I mean, it almost reads like something that Deti would write. Alas, this is no parody. Women really do believe such nonsense, and peddle it all the same. Surprisingly, the “husband list” itself is not nearly so bad. In fact, much of it is quite good. I will reprint it below, with some editing (mostly of scripture) for brevity’s sake:

1. He is a practicing believer.
Issues and conflict are bound to rise in marriage, so it is crucial that there is a common foundation on which to hold the marriage accountable. The last thing you want to be fighting about is your faith, whether or not to pray and your viewpoints on religion. Believe me, I’ve been there before. It is exhausting.

2. God is the center of his life.
He seeks God’s wisdom in all the decisions he makes.

3. He has integrity and does not put himself in tempting situations.
He guards you against harm and protects the relationship.

4. Seeks mentorship and counsel.
It is important that your man is wise in realizing he can’t carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. When he is surrounded by men who are older than him who can offer advice, prayer and mentorship, he can be a better husband to you.

5. He is slow to anger.
There is peace in knowing your man holds an even temperament even when he is provoked. A man who allows his feelings, emotions and anger to determine his actions typically has tarnished relationships and is not a healthy place for you or a family.

6. He holds strong conviction on the sacredness of fidelity.
A man is wise when he understand that infidelity and looking for pleasure outside of the marriage only brings strife. God actually calls him to rejoice over you all of his days.

7. He is honorable of your heart and emotional well-being.
I hated when a guy I was dating exposed my embarrassing moments or the private matters of our relationship with his friends. Picking on you may seem cute and funny at first, but it will get old after a while. You should feel honored and safe knowing you can always trust your husband to cover and speak well of you.

8. He is disciplined in living a life of integrity.
Watch how he handles temptation or sticky situations that test his character. Does he choose to do what’s right even when no one is watching? It is imperative to observe these things because it will indicate if you can trust his decision making. When you’re married, almost all of his decisions impact you.

9. Has solid work ethic.

10. He pursues and loves you passionately.
The man you marry should make you feel loved like you’ve never felt before. Safe, accepted, desired, nurtured, protected and comforted. Jesus loves us deeply, he loves us so fiercely, that he willingly gave up his life to save us.

11. Romances you.
I know women who feel guilty or wrong for desiring romance in their relationship, as if they don’t deserve it. But God desires for your heart to be romanced, just as He longs to romance us.

12. He is humble and can admit when he is wrong.
There is nothing worse than a petty conflict blowing out of proportion because your partner refuses to admit they were wrong. Taking responsibility for his actions and apologizing for his mistakes is the sign of a real man.

Again, much of the list is not bad at all. Points 1, 2 and 3 are all rock solid, indeed, I would consider them essential criteria that a Christian woman should look for in a man. Points 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are also commendable as well. Problems arise with points 7, 10, 11 and 12, however. I will briefly address each in turn.

Point 7– While facially this appears sound, the fact that it covers feelings makes it suspect in my eyes. “Emotional well-being” is a fairly vague term, so without clarification this would be a potential problem area. Otherwise, any man must necessarily be a captive to the woman’s feelings, which would be disaster as many would tell you, especially Empath.

Point 10– Two problems here. The first is the comparison to Jesus. With the toxic hypergamy out there, this is just asking for trouble. No man can possibly compare to Jesus, much less His love. Bringing up that kind of comparison invites men to always fail. Second, all of those feelings are inherently tied into the attractiveness of the man in the woman’s eyes. No matter his other qualities, an unattractive man cannot generate them. And an extremely attractive man full of flaws will provide those same feelings regardless. This point could just as well have been replaced with “Attractive”, and the result would be the same.

Point 11– The real problem with this point is the second sentence. But the first is essentially another version of Point 10, aka, attention from an attractive man. I guess this one could be expanded to include that the man have “Beta” traits in addition to “Alpha” traits (see here for more). As for the second sentence, this is Churchian nonsense (perhaps even to the point of heresy). God does not “romance” us. “Romance” implies Eros, which is fine in the context of marriage, but the love that God holds for us is Agape.

Point 12– Again, on its face not necessarily bad. But when combined with the kinds of attitude displayed at the website, it hints at a desire for a man to debase himself in front of the woman. Not exactly a great thing if you want a healthy relationship.

So, that  is the list. I’ve seen worse, but then again, I’ve seen better. What I think is more troublesome than a list like this is the attitude behind it. Reading through this website, you get a sense of entitlement and expectation which is not healthy and will probably ensure a lifetime of misery for most women. The author of the list might have been able to get away with it, but not every woman looks like this. We, men and women both, must temper our expectations and keep in mind that we are not perfect. So we cannot expect perfection in turn. As for anything further, I will leave that to my married readers to fill in.

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…