Trajectories

How does society determine what we learn and do in our lives?  What are you aiming at?  What are you learning through your experiences in life?  What is it telling you about yourself?  Are these lessons teaching you the truth?  Are they leading you where you need to be?

Topic: This post covers both (1) learning trajectories, and (2) the resulting life trajectories.

Readership: This insight is specifically for younger men challenged with the task of finding/choosing a suitable spouse.  It may also be of interest to married couples or those interested in marriage or LTR’s.

Several comments from the previous discussions under the posts, A Response to Jason’s Comments (2020 February 21), and Probabilities (2020 February 24), have been extracted and adapted below in an easy-to-read format.

Introduction

Scott’s post, Probabilities (2020 February 24) and Jack’s addition in Opportunities (2020 February 26) have revealed two extremes of what men can learn (or not learn) through their life experiences (i.e. with women).  Sharkly’s catchy bon mot “Carpe Diem vs. Purity Culture” sums up the difference quite succinctly.

What we have here is basically a real life analogy of the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 11:15-32) where Scott is the profligate younger brother in the story, and Jack is the legalistic, indignant, and bitter older brother.

In the tale of two brothers, it should be noted that neither brother really loved their Father.  But what is important to the story is what the brothers learned through their experiences.  In this parable, the younger brother eventually came to appreciate the abundant love and grace of the father.  The older brother was forced to recognize his own desires, wants and needs, forgive his brother by taking responsibility for his shortcomings (via a reduced inheritance), and accept the father’s mercy with humility.

But as for men these days, whether they be younger brothers or elder brothers according to the archetype, are they really learning those things which would restore their relationship with the father (God)?

Learning through Feedback Loops

Scott is a man who has always received a steady stream of positive Indicators of Interest (IOI’s) from women.

Scott: What those experiences did for me is created what sociologists (and red-pill guys have latched onto) call an abundance mentality.  It never occurred to me to go looking because I just knew that something would land in my lap.  I just had to go about the business of whatever I was doing in the meantime.

What I mean is, feedback loops are real.  You get good reviews in the form of IOIs right out the puberty gate and they build on themselves to the point where you just expect more of the same.

Sharkly: It seems like Scott is saying that being approved of and validated by women leads a young man to have greater confidence in dealing with women, and that this is a positive thing that Scott is equating to a step in social development or a step towards maturity.

Jack: Comprehensively, [Scott’s talk in the video] does make that assertion, and I believe it’s true.  The process of maturing requires a social interaction with real-time choices, and it yields results or consequences that provide feedback.  Maturity (or growth) happens when one proactively engages in a spirit of trust, develops discernment, increases in self-awareness, and learns through the process.  Because of the learning curve, it’s better if this happens at a young age.

Jack: These experiences offer a man opportunities to learn how to interact with the opposite sex.  The learning takes time.  Making mistakes and missteps is a normal and unavoidable part of the process.  Men need to have learned these things before they can be ready for marriage.

People can learn even though they are unaware of the process.  In fact, too much cognitive analysis of the process may make one too self-conscious, and lead to doubt and distrust, which manifests as a lack of confidence.  This only slows down the learning process.

Jack: [However,] not all men have the opportunity to learn valid truth through the process.  Instead, some men learn to supplicate and placate women, instead of leading, managing, and caring for them.

Sharkly: I think I also see some poor men who don’t supplicate, but yet are torn.  They recognize that women are God’s gift to men, and they’d love a gift from God.  But God didn’t give them good looks or charisma, and women are flat evil to them, disrespecting and disparaging them, they find women to be selfish and uncaring, and downright rude.  Even “good Christian women” go out of their way to make sure these men know they have absolutely no chance, because, “they wouldn’t want to be cruel and lead them on”.  These men aren’t necessarily kissing women’s asses, they’re mad at women for failing to be the gift they should be, and mad at men who can’t understand their plight, and mad at God for their whole ordeal.

Jack: For the past few decades, men have been learning all the wrong things, especially when it comes to dealing with women and how to select a wife.  The circumstances of their lives aren’t teaching them the truth about God.  Instead, men are learning either one of two things: (1) that women and low SMV men are consumable commodities to be expended on one’s own amusement and pleasure, or (2) that they have to suck up to women in the vain hope of ever making any progress towards having sex, getting married, and forming a family.

On this latter point, Sharkly wrote: I think both men and women naturally cringe when a man relates subserviently towards women, like they are the palace eunuch and their job is to serve the women of the palace.  I think we know by nature that is disordered.  But Feminism has tried to do a lot to tell us that this unnatural arrangement is preferable, when it is not.

It is better for men to have confidence when relating to women, as one aware of his own God given superiority and general dominion over womankind, and specific God anointed lordship over his wife.

I can also see how that for the 10-20% of men whom women will, seemingly as a herd, validate, that it is far easier to then relate confidently towards them.  And that for those at the back of the line, it will be much harder to relate confidently, “like the prize”, towards women, in the face of constant rejection.

I however question whether those men who, through female validation, correctly relate as superior to women, are actually more mature or developed, themselves not knowing why they are superior, but chalking it up perhaps to good looks, height, or money, etc.

In essence they are mimicking the right behavior, confidence in their superiority, solely as a result of females having selected them and conditioned them to be confident.  Yes, their behavior is closer to what it should be, but that is the result of external conditioning, not some greater maturity that they now possess.  And by the same token, those hurting and humiliated men at the back of the line may be quick to react angrily to insinuations that their lack of female validation, and lack of the resulting confidence with others, is evidence of some immaturity or refusal to grow up on their part.

While men should relate to women as being under our care and dominion, I think men should relate to each other as follows:

“Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.” ~ Romans 12:10 (ESV)

The Trajectory of the Learning Curve

Ed Hurst: A signal element of Christian maturity is knowing the boundaries God sets for you (your domain).  That includes knowing that you’ll never please some people, even some very good servants of God.  It also means you know your mission and leave to others things that He hasn’t called you to investigate.  I’m really glad you made the point, Jack, that no one of us can perfectly match any of the hierarchical definitions, and that we all revert to something less than God intended for us at times.

Jack: Without first coming to terms with himself, a man is clueless about what he can reasonably expect of a wife and a marriage.  Without a mission in life and a clear purpose for living, a man is sailing through life on a random trajectory.

Ed Hurst: On the one hand, there are lots of HOWTOs out there on improving your social charisma.  There’s a lot of good teaching on what works with women.  And I can assure you that it the teaching and training is a whole lot better one-on-one; generalities only go so far.  However, you also have to realize that charisma [or Game] is like IQ in one way: You can maximize your personal potential, but you will eventually run up against limits.  It’s more than mere DNA; it’s the wider context of your life and all the wounds you’ve received and how you responded, etc.  God has plans for you, and despite what men might do ignoring Him, nothing in life will bring you more peace than committing yourself to discovering what God considers your best interest.

Jack: [Ed’s] sentence in bold is referring to what all a man has learned through his experiences in life (among other things), and how much he has matured in the process.

Jack: I took a big hit in terms of growing and learning when I chose to cling to a legalistic approach by being too finicky about women.  At the time, I had the idea that I was loving God by resisting the temptation of getting involved with certain women, with the notion that I was holding out for “God’s best” for my life.  But I didn’t know myself very well (I never thought this mattered), I didn’t know God very well (although I thought I did), and I didn’t understand how life is a process of learning and growing such that I might achieve what God considers to be my best interest.  This might be the male equivalent of how women refuse men who would make good husbands, but who don’t measure up to their various expectations.

The Trajectory of the Life Curve

Western culture has created a Socio-Sexual/Marriage Market which is extremely K-selective, favoring top dog males who pillage all the women and undercut all the other men.  Lower ranking men are preconditioned to be subservient to both alpha cads and women, resulting in soy boys and white knights, respectively.  Overall, this teaches men that it’s better to be a cad than a dad.  In addition, western culture is extremely gynocentric, favoring the Feminine Imperative in the selection of these top dogs.  This social condition is not a proverbial Red Pill “rabbit hole”, but rather a she-wolf den of thieves.

Deti: [In the west,] it is really all about this for male-female relationships.

• It is all about how sexually attracted she is to you at the very start of the relationship.  This one fact will determine the success or failure of the relationship.  Our entire society and the laws governing interpersonal relationships have been geared toward ensuring that the woman’s sexual attraction is absolutely paramount in determining her motivation to have sex and continue having sex.
• It wasn’t always like this.  Before, interpersonal relationships were governed by give and take, with each person giving something to get something.  Now, it is all based on the woman’s feelings.
• You must, MUST, find a woman who was very sexually attracted to you from the very beginning.  You ABSOLUTELY MUST hold out for this.  DO NOT get into any relationship with any woman where this is not present.
• If that sexual attraction was not there from the very first interactions, it will never be there, she will never feel it, and you will never be able to generate it.

This is important, and painful for most men to realize, but you need to read it:

Most men will never have the kind of marriage Scott has to Mychael.  Most men will never see their wives demonstrate that level of hard, visceral, sexual attraction for them.  Because most men do not inspire that kind of sexual attraction in most women.  Most men are not attractive enough to inspire it.

Jack: Scott’s message [in his post Probabilities] was to underscore the quality of the emotional dynamic as a crucial factor in determining the strength of bonding (in a marriage).  That means, even a low SMV man could find a low(er) SMV woman that would go crazy for him, and who would pose a viable opportunity for a marriage.

Deti: It’s time we all admitted this.  It’s time we all faced the facts.  It’s time we just acknowledge that the only way a marriage can get a man what he wants in 21^st century America is to find a woman who is head over heels for him, so viscerally sexually attracted to him she can’t see straight, wants to f&/2k him so badly she starts ripping his clothes off of him whenever she sees him.  And it’s time we admitted that most men just don’t inspire those kinds of feelings in most women.

It’s time we admitted that most men and most women are not getting what they want from their relationships with each other.  Most men can’t meet most women’s wants/needs today.  And most women don’t want to even try to meet their men’s wants/needs today.  And why should women try?  All of society encourages them NOT to.

It’s just not working now.  It just isn’t.  It’s time we admitted that.

Conclusions

The western Socio-Sexual/Marriage Marketplace (SS/MMP) is a terribly destructive school of hard knocks and should be revoked of it’s license.  It’s wrong because…

• It spoils women at a young age by teaching them to be promiscuous, proud, and entitled.
• It teaches high SMV men that they are entitled to lawless profligacy.
• It teaches low SMV men that they’re utterly worthless.
• It doesn’t allow men to learn those things which would coax them to become better men.
• It doesn’t allow successful courtship to take place.
• It postpones marriage until past prime, thereby despoiling it.

Consequently, aiming for a good marriage (however you define it) is like shooting across rugged terrain with an erratic wind speed at a distant moving target, and with the sun in your eyes!  Meanwhile, you’re receiving heavy incoming fire from the enemy.

Delta Bravo, adjust your sights to account for the wind speed and the terrain.

Don’t be like Jack (the older brother), who aimed too high, nor like Scott (the younger brother), who aimed too low.  In terms of physics, the maximum trajectory is achieved at a 45° angle (somewhere in between Jack and Scott) with a high initial velocity (learning more while young, and getting married earlier in life).

Derek’s example (a high-school courtship within a conservative community and getting married early in life) might be presented as an ideal model.  But under the present conditions faced by the majority of men, secure cooperative marriages like Derek’s are too rare to be counted on, save the force of divine or patrimonial intervention.

Within the context of the current sexual/marriage marketplace in the West, Scott and Deti’s assessment is what determines the initial trajectory of the learning curve.  That is, if a man wants a wife who supports his mission in life, he has to find/choose one who is “all in” from the beginning, including sexually, and who wants the man so badly that she eagerly follows him and willingly submits to him.

Until this ontology changes, young men who hope to ever have a lively marriage have to come to grips with this situation.

Related

• Christianity and Masculinity: The extent of attraction (2020 February 27)

Opportunities

Missing milestones seems pretty hard to overcome to me.

Readership: This insight is specifically for Christian men challenged with the task of choosing a suitable spouse.  It may also be of interest to married couples or those interested in marriage or LTR’s.

Author Information: The compilation of this post was a joint effort by Scott and Jack.

*       *       *       *       *

Scott made a video that is “sort of” a companion to the piece he posted on Monday, Probabilities (2020 February 24).

Have you ever had a Meet Cute?

Several comments about this video were extracted from the discussion under the post, A Response to Jason’s Comments (2020 February 21), and have been adapted below in an easy-to-read format.

To offer a heuristic comparison of the longitudinal results of a Meet Cute, based on how a man might react, Jack and Scott offer our accounts of how we responded, and how it turned out for us.

Scott’s Account of messing it up, but getting it right

I’m not exaggerating when I say I have never had to go more than about 2 weeks without an option placing herself in front of me.  And my developmental argument stands – that started at 16 and never let up until I was married the first time at 23.  My first wife (who eventually frivorced me) was absolutely crazy about me, and called off her engagement to another man the nanosecond she found out I was on the market again (after a breakup I had).  What those experiences did for me is created what sociologists (and red-pill guys have latched onto) call an abundance mentality.  It never occurred to me to go looking because I just knew that something would land in my lap.  I just had to go about the business of whatever I was doing in the meantime.

What I mean is, feedback loops are real.  You get good reviews in the form of IOIs right out the puberty gate and they build on themselves to the point where you just expect more of the same.

I don’t know what it is.  I am not super model attractive.  I am 6’1″ and I take care of myself, but I have the same insecurities and negative traits as just about anybody else.  I’m goofy, sometimes self-deprecating, and am very quiet in social settings.  I stand up straight, look people in the eye and speak in a pretty low, bass voice, but that’s about it. I just know my limitations and I am comfortable in my own skin.

All of this is why I am not tracking the “natural alpha” verses “learned alpha” stuff. I am a regular guy with what I assume are regular guy experiences. I win some and I lose some. I just never give up.

Jack’s Account of doing it right, but getting it wrong

After reading Scott’s post Probabilities (2020 February 24) and watching the video, I’ve done some reflection on my own experiences, and found similarities concerning the Meet Cute phenomenon.  If she was really loopy in love with me, then it was really hard for that relationship to go south – all other things notwithstanding.  Having sex with such a woman sets that in stone.  Female infatuation (or whatever you want to call it) can be so strong that it can endure eternally!  Even after I got married, a couple of my past lovers made it clear that they were only a phone call away.

As far as the man is concerned, as Scott and others have said before, there really isn’t anything he can do to create that initial attraction in a woman, and I’ll add that, according to my experience, there isn’t much he can do to destroy it either.  It’s either there, or it’s not.  The only thing he can do is to be wise in choosing a woman who joyfully flies in circles around him. This news is bound to be disheartening for most men.

In my case, I dismissed many of those relationships because they lacked certain other qualities that I believed were more important for a marriage.  (These qualities concerned things like age, race, virginity, past experiences, our agreement on political issues and religious beliefs, among others).  I also found her craziness (caused by being in love with me) to be embarrassing, obnoxious and troublesome.

I rejected these opportunities simply because (1) I didn’t see them as “marriage material” (according to the mental criterion I held at the time), and (2) I was afraid of fornicating with someone I couldn’t envision as a possible wife.

Now, 20-30 years later, I have many deep regrets about rejecting those relationships.  To be graphically honest, I wish I would have taken advantage of the blatant sexual invitations those women gave me.  But I chose not to do that because I believed it was wrong.  I never thought I would regret doing what I thought was the right thing, and I know I shouldn’t feel regretful about that, but I do.  I regret it to the point that the sudden recurrent memory of those moments startles me awake at night.  So it continues to grieve and trouble me, even to this day.

I’m not saying that I should have fornicated.  That’s not my point here.  I’m saying that my fear of fornicating prevented me from exploring and examining those relationships as viable candidates for marriage, and now I regret missing those opportunities.

In all, I think the reason I feel regretful is because I was too particular (critical of both her and myself, too legalistic, too fearful of messing up, and not truly appreciating the women God brought into my life for what they coaxed out of me, namely passion, trust (confidence), and humility.

I didn’t understand how a vibrant relationship can lead people to mature, grow, and change.  I didn’t fully understand what it meant to be “saved by grace”, and not by my righteousness under the Law.  (I think I had this conviction because of my strict upbringing, and my involvement in the Purity Movement.)

I should have at least explored the possibilities a little further, experienced God’s grace in the matter, and learned something more from the opportunity.  I am certain this would have contributed greatly to my confidence and maturity, even to this day.  But as it turned out, rejecting those relationships really delayed my emotional maturity and hurt my spiritual growth.

The Importance of Reading IOI’s in Mate Selection

Scott: Rollo has retweeted my video on twitter and asserts that my line of thinking is the basis for the black pill.  That is, I am telling men if you aren’t generating attraction right from the start, you might as well give up and “kill yourself” (His words).

I have spent an entire career trying to get men NOT to kill themselves, so that part was a little hyperbolic.  However, I do get where the rub comes from.  What I am wondering, out loud as I am apt to do, is can there be some focus on calibrating a man’s IOI detection apparatus?  That part I think is lacking in much of this discussion.

Jack: A man’s accurate discernment of womens’ IOI’s plays a crucial role in determining the outcome of his socio-sexual life story.  This subject is well worthy of a detailed analysis, and I expect it will not be a short one.  It will probably require a large number of posts to cover it adequately.

Scott: Novaseeker would respond “Scott has had IOIs from attractive women, or at least women who are attractive to him which is why this is so confusing for him.  And that’s fair enough too.  So I spitball and brainstorm for solutions.  Is the problem one of unrealistic assortive mating selection criteria?  Do only the ones that are invisible to you show IOIs so you do not reciprocate?  Or is it a little of both?  (Not noticing, and not wanting it from the ones who DO show interest?)

Jack’s Conclusions

I’ve come to see there’s an important, perhaps crucial element in courtship that I/we need to explore in future posts.  That is, that the woman’s level of attraction to the man is a key factor leading to a stable, satisfying, successful marriage – not Alpha confidence, Beta provision, low notch count, game proficiency, or any of the other qualities that have been presumed to correlate with positive relationship outcomes.  Of course these qualities play an important part, but they are not the “do all, end all” solutions to having a solid marriage.  There is something else going on.

In my past studies, I’ve gathered that the woman somehow holds the keys to relationship success, but I’ve not been able to nail it down.  I always assumed that the man had a more central role in choosing a mate, and that assigning too much selective discretion to the woman was a form of gynocentrism.  There’s a very ephemeral illusion surrounding our understanding of these matters, made even more confusing by the feminist Churchian environment, and this is what is tripping everyone up.

So far, I think Ed got the closest to nailing it down with this statement.

Ed Hurst: Very few men in our society are trained to think in terms of having a mission in life that would outlive you.  More to the point, they have no idea what it looks like in a woman, so they can’t identify a prospective wife who will be supportive of that mission far, far down the road.  How I learned it as a young man, I’m not sure I can explain, but it was a major criteria when I decided to marry.

Of note, Scott and Derek agreed that Ed’s assertion applies to their own marriages.

At this point, I am guessing that spiritual maturity (discernment and wisdom), and sexual purity would be critical factors in helping a man identify those women that might offer a relationship with greater potential.  Add to this, the man’s ability to read IOI’s and make a discriminating choice among these possible mates.

Scott’s Conclusions

My hypothesis is simple but is complicated by factors in the environment that may be difficult to investigate and control for.  I posit that one very significant factor associated with lifelong marital bliss is “how attracted was the woman to the man from the very start of the relationship?”  I would estimate that higher her initial infatuation, the less lifelong difficulty a couple will have, and the easier time they will have in recovering from adversity.

The present culture assesses “marital satisfaction” according to feminized ideals of what that might look like.  In the context of that culture, men are incentivized and may even sub-consciously self-sabotage accurate depictions of what a satisfying marriage looks like to them, in the service of what TRM calls “the feminine imperative”.  They are likely to make efforts on self report scales, for example intended to make them appear sensitive and capable of something “deeper” than sex.

Most modern men are not comfortable admitting that such a satisfying marriage necessarily includes regular, passionate, enthusiastic sexual access to their wives.  Doing so is to reinforce the negative stereotype of mens supposedly unsophisticated, selfish shallow inability to truly be intimate and express deep love.

Related

• Christianity and Masculinity: The extent of attraction (2020 February 27)

Probabilities

How much marital bliss can a married couple reasonably expect of themselves after being married for 8 years?

Readership: This insight is specifically for younger men challenged with the task of choosing a suitable spouse.  It may also be of interest to married couples or those interested in marriage or LTR’s.

Author Information: This article was written by Scott Klajic, a professional psychologist and happily married father.  In ye olde days of the Manosphere, he went by the name “American Dad”.

Scott’s professional website: Treasure State Psychological Services
His personal blog: Ljubomir Farms

*       *       *       *       *

I came across two related pieces of data this week by way of Rich Cooper and Rollo Tomassi.

The first one is in the APA Journal Review of General Psychology.  It is an article pointing to a very low probability of satisfaction in marriages beyond the eight year mark.  You can take a look at the article and make any critique you like about their methods and taxonomies.  But for the purposes of this blog post, I am going to say I am OK with how they measured this.  The article discusses “obsession,” which Rich Cooper then in turn re-labels “bliss” and then I will further refer to as “infatuation”.  I have my reasons for this, but whatever you call it, only about two percent of the respondents said they are still at that high level of being really, super into their spouses after eight years.  Only about thirteen percent said they were still “in love”.

The second link is to another bit of research about couples who post a lot of cutsie dyadic selfies on their social media pages.  I am aware that most men who hang around this part of the internet really hate social media and I understand why.  However, FB, instagram and twitter are here to stay, so it is my position that these things need to be infiltrated and understood if any progress toward rationality in this civilization is going to be achieved.  So, Mychael and I have a “joint” FB page.  You can look it up if you want.  “Scott N Mychael Klajic” is what we call it.

This particular article jumped out me because we post quite a bit of material on that FB page about each other, how much we love being married, how devoted we are to each other and so on.  Just yesterday, Mychael put this up: 

These posts, and others like them are the most popular ones we share.  31 people “liked” it since last night, which for us is a pretty popular post.  Our profile pic is one of us kissing.

The article draws some conclusions about the type of people who do a lot of this on social media.  First, they score high on anxious attachment style.  If you are not familiar with the three styles of attachment drawn from the attachment literature, they are anxious, avoidant and secure.  And, you might guess that they are pretty intuitively named.  Those with anxious attachment styles tend to be anxious about losing the object of their affection to some outside threat.  Be it infidelity or such things like death or separations outside of their control.  The same people who share a high volume of these posts tend to be very happy in their relationship and the posts, believe it or not are a relatively accurate reflection of the couples life together.  People who only know us from our FB page tend to be surprised when they meet us in person and find that yes, we are really like that.  We are like puppy-love struck teenagers at 48 and 46 years old, 4 kids and 13 years in.  We are the ones people roll their eyes at and say “you two should get a room”.  It’s not an act or social media lifestyle marketing.

They also score high on levels of jealousy.  This kind of makes sense too, right?  If you are fiercely protective of your spouse, time with him/her, and you do not take too kindly to things that interfere with that, you are likely to take preemptive measures to “mark” their territory (their social media page) with pictures like this.  Of course, ours is a joint page, so it confounds this phenomenon a little.

Finally, the article points out that this kind of social media preening over each other provides a real, tangible protection against the very things the subconscious is trying to prevent.  Namely, infidelity.  That is, when a potential threat (a person who wants to move in on your spouse) sees this, they think “he/she is clearly taken. I’m not even going to try”.  Also, people who post a lot of this type of material tend to give off a very loud “taken” vibe in public.

Moving backwards to the first article I shared–thirteen percent of married people are truly happy after eight years?  Really?  I have no reason to doubt this data, and it is truly depressing.  I think the most common way to approach this kind of abysmal marriage outlook data is through the lens of expectations.  This is what most people would do with this information and they probably aren’t wrong.  I work with a lot of men who are in these marriages and, if I am to believe their side of the story their wives are being unreasonable.  These men show up every day for the “fight”.  They do chores, they work hard at their jobs, they try to come home and be sweet and work on “communication”.  They aren’t violent.  They don’t drink a lot.  They are invested in what is going on at home, yet they cannot seem to make their wives happy.  Both people are miserable.  I sometimes ask “if you could wave a magic wand over your marriage and fix it, what would it look like?”  In most cases, they don’t really know.

If I spend a little time prodding, what they want is for it to be something like “the way it was when we were younger”, which includes a less serious, more playful stance towards each other.  More sex.  More just hanging out and enjoying each other’s company.  All of that sounds totally reasonable to me, so we get to work on it.  But usually, and I am just being honest here, the marriage has degraded to a point of no return and no amount of “game” or whatever is going to pull it out.  I try though.  I try to get them to improve on themselves.  Try to get them to reduce “beta” and “comfort” behaviors and try to increase more alpha, carefree, activities and behaviors that signal independence and strength.  The stuff she was attracted to in the first place.

And this leads me to a conclusion that I keep coming around to in my own “red-pill” awareness.  There are a couple of different types of relationship fails that present themselves in this sphere (on the coaching sites, blogs, etc.).  I think the red pill is most effective at helping really only one of them.  This is the marriage (or whatever LTR) where there was an initially very strong, visceral attraction from the woman to the man from the beginning.  In a case like that, understanding Rollo’s (and others) writings and comments about intersexual dynamics are a great way to get the spark back, because you are rekindling something that is smoldering, but not dead.  Any other relationship configuration is not likely to be helped from this standpoint.

Here is my axiom:

A woman will almost never become strongly attracted to a man if she was not already very attracted to him from the beginning.

Got that?  I can say, in 48 years I have never seen it happen.  Not once.  This is a painful piece of information to receive because it means that if you chose a wife who was not crazy, head over heels for you in the beginning, you are probably not going to get her to that point at some later stage in the relationship.  And I’ll be a little graphic here.  I am talking about the passion at the beginning of a relationship that Rollo calls, “hell yeah!”  At the start of a relationship like that, you are constantly having sex.  Every room in the house, any time of day, at parties sneaking off to the bathroom, all night, all day.  She takes days off from work or shirks other responsibilities to be with you.  Leaving social events early so you can go home and get naked.  Both of you clawing at each other for it as if you cannot scratch the itch.  Was yours like that at the beginning?  If not, I am sorry.  It’s going to be an uphill battle to whatever your ideal relationship looks like in your mind.  I don’t think a woman can “fake” that kind of intensity for more than a few days or maybe weeks on the long end. *

So here’s my personal experience with it.  When I look at my behaviors — even right now — I sometimes behave in very cringe-worthy, blue-pill conditioned, “beta” ways around my wife, and yet, she still acts like a teenager with a new boyfriend around me.  I talk to her about stuff I am not supposed to (according to red pill lore).  I show vulnerability to her.  You name it, if its “beta” and a signal of “low value”, I do it.  Not all the time, but sometimes.  What explains this?  My guess is she fell so hard for me at the start that it really doesn’t matter what I do now.  We are the couple who would fall into the 2 percent “still infatuated” category.

We both have some anxious attachment qualities.  We are fiercely stubborn about protecting our little romance bubble from any outside threat.  And in the end, I don’t care if I look goofy or weak in my “beta” stuff to anyone.  Mychael can’t keep her hands of me, and vice versa.  In fact, I think that’s the part she likes the most–that I couldn’t care less what others think of us.

* Note: as this is a Christian oriented site–I should make the disclaimer that the situation I am describing is clearly for after the wedding day.  However, even before the sex starts, you can tell if she is “that into you” unless you are truly clueless.

Related

• Christianity and Masculinity: Revisiting the Christian marriage market (2017 April 4)

A Response to Jason’s Comments

A Response to Jason’s Comments.

Readership: Jason (lastmod); Lexet; Derek (ramman3000); Others who may be interested;

Dear brother Jason,*

This week, you left quite a few comments under Monday’s post, Courtship and Power (2020 February 17), which was Lexet’s critique of an earlier article on Sigma Frame, Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (2018 October 3).

You’ve covered a lot of ground in all your comments, and it took me a while to see what you’re really getting at.  Just to let you know I haven’t forgotten about you, I wrote this post to cover some of the issues you brought up.

Here, I cited several of your comments, which are followed by my views on the matter.

On the Male Social-Sexual Hierarchy

“So, a beta, or cuck, or chump, or simp who is married… is alpha because he is leading his life?  He works hard at his job, initiative, leads his life… or is still a cuck because he doesn’t agree with Dalrock, or DS, or others… but takes responsibility, works hard, and has initiative…

What I am seeing more and more… in Red Pill, in MGTOW, in the general “help” for men is this:

Being an Alpha is pretty much strictly now a “genetic” thing.  You were born a certain way, or have a certain temperament, and now you are deemed “alpha”.

The rest need to study, hair-split words, spend a vast amount of free time reading medieval literature to find out how much of a cuck they are…  study, study, study…  and then be told “Umm, no…  alpha also means this”.”

“I just don’t like people claiming a term that most could and will never attain and how goalposts move and shift like the mist.  People claiming this or breaking other men down into scales like this just seems very unchristian to me.”

Concerning the greek letter male hierarchy, I just see it as a generalized typological model.  Each type represents a certain kind of attitude, a social strategy, and an area of expertise (and weakness).  All men fit into every type in some aspect of their lives, while no man fits perfectly into only one type.  If you’re confused about which type you are, then you’ve missed the forest for all the trees.  It’s just an abstract model to describe behaviors.

Using myself as an example, I identify as a sigma because it describes my outlook, my values, and the general trend of my behaviors.  It doesn’t mean I’ve never ever behaved as an obsequious, supplicating beta, or a cynical, self-righteous gamma, or even a reclusive, nihilistic omega, because I have.  Everyone has under certain circumstances at some point in their lives.  But the value of having the hierarchy nomenclature is that these terms allow us to label these behaviors and talk about them in an easy-to-understand way.

Concerning the Biblical Legitimacy of the Ontological Power-Based Presumptions in the Study of Courtship Models

“Did Jesus punch evil doers in the mouth?  Did he brag about himself being a provider?  He was trained or training to be a carpenter but he never once mentioned his provider status.  He even told slaves to obey their masters…  Did these men refuse to act?

Scripture may clearly define masculinity…  Have your yes mean yes, and your no mean no…  But I don’t recall anywhere talking “power” and “courtship” or so many steps, models to follow, and when to implement them, or having marriage is being masculine.”

You’re right that (the word) power is not mentioned in the context of marriage anywhere in the Bible.  This whole study of courtship models is an attempt to think outside the box and start from the ground up.  It’s a fresh approach to the problem.  Does that make it wrong or unbiblical?  We’re yet to find out.  In the meantime, we’ll be learning how things work and why God’s way is best.

Having a proper appreciation for Language Texts

“Why have church if the translation boils down to is “well, you have to know Greek and Aramaic.”  So is now being Alpha in the Christian sense, “he knows Greek and Aramaic”?  So now anyone else is a beta, chump, cuck, simp for not knowing this?  Will the ante be upped further?  “Well, he can speak these languages… but what seminary, what university does he teach at, and who did he study under?  Which texts did he translate?”

“Why have the bible in English if every word is going to be hair-split, have dual meanings, and meanings that could be, or might be, or should be.  This is like the former President Clinton lecturing us on what the word “is” means back in 1998.

Why even worry, ponder or even debate what Jesus said, or Paul, or Moses, or what king said what to whom when we don’t know what they really meant…  you know…  because we don’t know Greek or Aramaic, and you should…  and if you don’t?  Well, “trust us” we know what he really meant.  So why read the bible, study it… if everything is “Well, that’s up for debate, you don’t know Greek and don’t know what he really meant”

If indeed Jesus’s message was for all, and its “very simple, easy to understand” most followers have made it into something that is a lifelong quest and you still may not know “what it means”.  Face it, this faith is for the arrogant, the high intellect and self-righteous.  They also spend more time now debating on how a few poets and writers made it into feminism back in 967 AD or whatever.”

Just how important is our mastery of ancient languages (i.e. Greek and Aramaic) when studying the Bible?

If you can learn something from it, then that’s great!  But if it is confusing or frustrating to you, or if you know it’s never going to bring you closer to God, nor fulfill your purpose for living, then why break a sweat about it?

We come closer to God through opening our hearts to the truth of the Gospel, not by opening our minds to the Biblical exegeses of John MacArthur or William Lane Craig, et al. (although it does happen that way for some).  Some people have the heart to learn more about God, and they share what they’ve learned with others.  We can be thankful for that.

The same goes for any other advanced topic, like martensitic phase transformations in equiatomic alloys, thermal/intrinsic stress in thin films, or glissile dislocation generators that increase the entropy in hexagonal crystals.  (These are my own areas of expertise, and no, I’m not GeekMOGing.)  I don’t blog about these subjects because it’s unreasonable to expect anyone to know everything there is to know about any particular subject, or even take any interest in it.

This is essentially what Derek said when he wrote,

“Scholars do the work of translation and analysis.  In seminary the clergy learn language concepts, but otherwise utilize and rely on the material produced by scholars (including whole Bible translations).  Nevertheless, large numbers of clergy delve into the original languages in preparation for their weekly sermons.  Layman don’t generally have the interest and/or ability to do this, so they rely on the clergy to teach them.

Just because someone has to do it doesn’t mean everyone does, but the output of their work is extremely important.  Nobody has to learn other languages.  It is okay to be a follower.”

The thing about being a follower is that you have to trust that the authority is telling you the truth of the matter.  Much of the argument and debate surrounding the definitions of this greek word or that one, are really about whether we can trust that interpretation as being true.  Even experts disagree and falter in trust.  No one knows everything with 100% certainty.

I believe this is where you might be running into trouble – you’re afraid to trust.  There is a fear that either they might be wrong and lead you astray, or they might abuse your trust.  I’m not saying this to ridicule or reject you, but rather to affirm your experience as authentic.  I too struggle with trust as a result of childhood issues.  But being aware of it is a huge step in overcoming it.

For example, although I may know a lot about one field of study, it’s just not constructive for me to read those research papers about other things I know nothing about, and then criticize the authors for being deliberately confusing and arrogantly high-minded.  I have to realize that deep down, the reason why I want to reject those authors/papers is because I can’t trust (or even understand) what they’re saying.  Going further, I have to recognize that my inability to trust has no correlation to whether a matter might be true or not.  The problem is with me.  As I wrote in an earlier post, The Evils of Solipsism (2019 November 19),

“I am foolish, therefore, objective truth exists.”

I could very well be excluding myself from some information that would make my life better.  But if I can’t help myself by overcoming my inability to trust, then the next best thing I can do is to know when to put my fork down, and to not be ashamed of admitting my limitations.  I can’t assume to be the most noteworthy expert on every matter, and that’s fine.  That’s just less work and responsibility for me!

So stick to whatever it is you do best.  If you can’t trust the source, and you don’t know any better, then put it on the back burner for a while.  If it is really, truly important in the grand scheme of things, you can be assured that God will continue to bring it up again (and again) in a different way, maybe one you can understand next time around.

Honest Discussion Requires a bit of Trust (Faith)

“I encourage readers to leave comments that are insightful regarding the topic, or which might prove useful to other readers.”

Translation: Agree with my post / take on this”

You might be surprised to know that it doesn’t really matter whether you agree or disagree.  As far as this blog is concerned, agreement and disagreement are both educational.  There are benefits either way.  If you agree, then we might build trust.  But if you disagree, and you could articulate exactly why you disagree, then you would be contributing some valuable insight to the topic.  You also invite others to trust you.

The point of all this blogging and discussion is to hopefully learn some things in the process.  I know I have, and I hope you have too.

So have you?

“I read the article, your insights are brilliant.  If only men just were Alpha, not beta everyone would be married.  I was a loser and a chump and I read your advice, now I am an Alpha, and now I am going to be married to a top tier woman.  Thanks!  I am studying Greek right now so I can lead, teach and be a real mighty man of God who is doing his bidding: being Alpha, getting married to a woman who just wants men to be aggressive!  Thank you so much.  You should publish a book!”

Brother, I can see through you.  The insincerity here is all too obvious.

I’m sorry Jason.  If we haven’t gained your trust, or if you can’t believe anything we’re saying, or buy into the discussion here, then what are we offering to you?  What do you get out of reading and commenting?

We want to know what you think, but you’re not telling us your honest opinion, and we feel disappointed that you won’t share your mind with us.

Concluding Statements

Here and on other sites, you’ve said a lot about how lousy (the converged) church is, and how inconsiderate Churchians can be.  Most of us can empathize with you about that.  We’ve experienced much of the same.  But we’re not satisfied with the way things stand, nor will we be content with resigning ourselves to a fatalistic outlook.  I hope you could agree on this point.

We know the church is converged.  We know the current “Courtly Love” model of chivalry doesn’t work.  We know the current “Christian” methods of getting into a marriage are not all that different from the wider secular culture.  Thus, it seems ridiculous that people should expect the results to be different just because they show up to a church service once a week and stick a Jesus label on it.  There has to be more to the story.  But what?

In the previous post, Is Biblical Courtship Possible? (2020 February 19), Ed Hurst pointed out a major ontological reason why courtship in the west is a sham.  I think this is quite informative of where western culture stands in relation to both the world’s historical norm and what facilitates God’s blessings.  Does that mean we need a revolution first in order to do God’s will?  No, it’s just some insight that helps us understand where we are and what we’re dealing with.

We invite others to join us in this discussion, including you, Jason!

What do you honestly think about all these new ideas about courtship models (or any other topic)?  Of course, you’re free to disagree, but please do all of us the favor of telling us why.

Best regards!

Your younger brother Jack

* Readers can see more of Jason at his blog, Top Face – The Aging Mod’s Forgotten Story.

Related

• Σ Frame: A Response to Stephanie’s Comments (2017 December 19)

Is Biblical Courtship Possible?

Do What's Right

Jack over at Sigma Frame has requested that I explain a comment I made on his blog that a biblical courtship is so counter to our Western culture as to be virtually illegal. More specifically, he broke it down into the following questions:

• What is a biblical courtship? (A brief description and definitions to serve as a foundation for the following.)
• Why is a biblical courtship (and/or marriage) illegal or impossible in western society?
• What would need to change in the laws, culture, or society for a biblical courtship to be accessible?
• Are there any foreign countries (that you know of), where people could freely practice biblical courtship/marriage?

This is really quite simple: Biblical Law requires a covenant patriarchal, feudal and tribal social structure in the first place. Anything else hinders the power of shalom promised by God in His covenants. It is possible to approach Biblical Law in your…

View original post 1,173 more words

Courtship and Power

Lexet’s critique of Sigma Frame’s models of courtship and marital structure.

Topic: Courtship, Sigma Frame’s article, Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (2018 October 3).*

Audience: Christian men; Single men; Pastors; Elders;

Author’s notes:

• This study was conducted by the author of Lexet Iustitia, and was first published on 2018 October 4.
• This article was updated on 2018/10/4 and revised for reposting on 2020/2/7.
• Updates are underlined, not in bold.
• Sigma Frame (SF) has added some commentary in blue text.

Feel free to ask questions or critique below.  It is not a full length analysis of every aspect of Sigma Frame’s original article.

INTRODUCTION

This article addresses Sigma Frame’s article about courtship, and the power dynamics within a courtship.  I encourage all to read it, although non-Christians are likely to not care nor be interested in it.  As a Christian, it is important to know and understand what the Biblical model for “finding a wife” is.  In the article below, the reader will come to understand what the word of God says on the issue (which is what I affirm).

Something to consider, however, is that even in Christian circles, men face the dilemma of being forced into a non-biblical, or even anti-biblical, system to become married.  This dilemma subjects Christian men to intense temptation, and puts them under extreme pressure to marry, if they wish to retain their sexual purity.  I do not aim to address that here, or what to do if you encounter this dilemma.  I may touch on that later, but I believe a man should understand what marriage is, who he is, and what he expects his wife-to-be to be, before he considers a relationship.

Depending on the woman, her family, and church circumstances, it’s possible that a man might have to be flexible in his approach (dating vs. courtship).  For instance, it would be practical to date a woman in her middle to upper twenties who lives alone, while it may be more prudent to court a younger woman, or woman who lives with her parents.

I. SIGMA FRAME’S POSITION (and definitions) 

A. Definitions

Sigma Frame defines two courtship models, which correspond to the sex holding the majority of “power” in the interaction.

1. The Courtly Love Model is the traditional (for modern times) model where the female holds power.  For the sake of clarity, SF has taken the liberty to label a marriage based on this model as a matrimony.  This is the dominant model for courtship, and is the dominant model in Bible believing Christian circles (Reformed, Evangelical, and Baptist).
2. The Respectful Courtship Model (humorously labeled as the “Tingly Respect model” in SF’s essay) is the historical norm.  Again, for the sake of clarity in meaning, SF has labeled a marriage based on this model as a patrimony (from Latin, patrimonium, or the obligation of the father).

SF: These models are further defined and explored in a follow up essay, The Feminine Dilemma (2018 October 27).

Marriage is known as “holy matrimony,” and stems from “Matrimonium.” Matrimonium is the combination of mater (mother) and monium (obligation).  Matrimonium used to be a system where the wife should become a mother, and stay with the father of that child.  From a highly technical, and semantic point of view, it appears that defining a marriage as matrimonial according to the Courtly Love model does not make sense.

However, the legal definition of patrimonium is the private and exclusive ownership or dominion of an individual, to the exclusion of others.  Sigma Frame’s article is about the FRAME of the courtship, the relationship itself, and how they contrast.  The contrast of Matrimony and Patrimony fit into this narrative.  The fact that this distinction has lasted for centuries is a major clue to the truth of how relationships should operate.

SF: There are several reasons why I adopted these two words, “matrimony” and “patrimony”, to refer to the respectively defined relationship structures.  These reasons are briefly described here.

• “Patrimony” is used to replace “matrimony” when referring specifically to the Tingly Respect model, in order to easily and clearly make a distinction between the two relational structures.
• The word “patrimony” accurately reflects the nature of the Respect model.
• English culture has used the word “matrimony” to refer to a marriage since circa 1300 AD, which is around the same time that the perverted concept of Chivalry appeared.
• Reintroducing the word “patrimony” to replace “matrimony” makes a break with the tradition of Chivalry (and modern Churchianity), and returns (nominally and symbolically) to an earlier tradition which has been replaced in modern times by Chivalry and Feminism.
• It is important to differentiate between the two structures so that people can make a clear distinction of what they expect in a marriage, and also communicate this in meaningful words.

B. My Position on Sigma Frame’s Definitions:

I agree that these are good working definitions for the courting phase/pre-marriage phase of a relationship.

For those of us in modern times, the traditional norm of a relationship is that men chase and initiate, while women respond.  From my own understanding, this has been the predominant model since Victorian times, when men would “call” on women, and meet in the parlor rooms of the woman’s family home.  This custom has fallen out of practice, but the model itself is still hammered into most men from a young age, from all angles, especially pop culture (as of 2008, when logic and reason were turned upside down).

In the context of the Christian community, this is also true to an unhealthy degree.  Christian men are taught that men initiate, and take charge of the relationship.  “He who finds a wife finds a good thing” (Prov. 18:22) is quoted to death in these circles.  But the reality on the ground is that Feminism and Chivalry dominate the intersexual dynamics being taught and practiced in the church, and as such, marriage is more of a risk than a benefit, Christianity notwithstanding.  (Dalrock has explored the deceptiveness of this belief in detail.)

My personal viewpoint is traditional, and now a minority view in Christianity: Men are to take charge, take responsibility, and provide for their families.  They lead their household.

However, there is no Biblical basis for saying the individual man is personally responsible for making this relationship happen.  The very same book of the Bible that is cited to push men to be proactive in their dealings with women also tells men to not waste their strength on women.

“The glory of young men is their strength, but the splendor of old men is their gray hair.” ~ Proverbs 20:29 (ESV)

“Do not spend your strength on women, your vigor on those who ruin kings.” ~ Proverbs 31:3 (NIV)

“³³ But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, ³⁴ and his interests are divided.  And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit.  But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband.” ~ 1^st Corinthians 7:33-34 (ESV).

With a minimal number of exceptions, the norm throughout the Bible is a man dealing with the father of his interest, or the fathers of both arranging the relationship.  (That is not to say there was no veto power by the man or woman in the cultures of the era when scriptures were recorded.)

Even the exceptions prove this rule: Boaz (or his relative) was bound by law to marry Ruth, as her kinsman redeemer.  In fact, there was another kinsman redeemer closer in the line of “priority.”  Boaz only married her after going through his city’s leaders, and receiving permission from the other redeemer.  It was also a legal obligation of his.  He took responsibility, but he didn’t initiate the relationship.

The other exception commonly cited is Hosea, a prophet who was commanded by God to find a wife of whoredom, in order to graphically illustrate the specific nature of Israel’s spiritual adulteries.  Hosea’s marriage (and presumably all the drama and gossip that came along with it) was intended to make the Israelites aware of God’s perspective on their spiritual profligacies, and so shame them into repentance.

However, in most pulpits, the command for Hosea to “man up and marry that slore” is the underlying message emphasized.  Meanwhile, the risk, heartbreak, and implicit fraud involved with Hosea (or any modern man) marrying a promiscuous woman, or having an adulterous wife, are totally ignored.  It is not by coincidence, that this omission mutes God’s perspective on the issue altogether, and shunts any sense of shame that might arise in the parish.

Quite frankly, the book of Hosea, and the Church’s spin on its message, proves more Red Pill principles than just about any other book or chapter of the Bible.

In Mandarin Chinese, a cuckold is called a tortoise (烏龜).

II. THE PRESUMPTIONS OF POWER IN A COURTSHIP (OR RELATIONSHIP)

Sigma Frame claims: men tend to (1) comply, while women tend to (2) fight to establish power, or (3) fold and bow out of the relationship.  I can agree to this assertion in general, but believe there are strong exceptions to this, as both sexes have tendencies to do (1) and (3).

As per (2), the word of God makes it clear that, as part of the curse on man, women will try to usurp the authority of her husband.

“Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” ~ Genesis 3:16.

Regarding (3), I think the tendency for males is to fold to the woman, or to “make them happy” and give the woman what they want.

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and [disobeyed my command]… cursed is the ground because of you…” ~ Genesis 3:17.

The result of this curse is that there is constant friction between the sexes, with power being a fluid force.  Men tend to abuse their power, or give it to the woman, who tends to desire that power.  It takes great strength and willpower for a man to find that balance.

A. The Courtly Love Model

The very nature of the Courtly Love model is that the man must conform to her wishes and whims, and act according to her schedule.  The man pedestalizes the woman in every way: he singles her out, she knows this up front, and he must perform in order to win her affection.  He is at her mercy the entire time.  The woman definitely holds the power in this system.

The Courtly Love system is Blue Pill (or anti- Red Pill) because the woman doesn’t operate within the man’s timeframe and prerogatives.  He does not set the rules or boundaries of the relationship or how or where it is to be conducted.

Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to maintain a Red Pill Frame in this type of relationship, because the men who participate in this system (1) tend to be of high character, (2) have a moral belief in the model, thinking it is the man’s duty to accommodate his wife, and assuming that love must necessarily adopt a supplicating response, or (3) believe that a particular woman, or the personal rewards of “having and holding her” [Translation: “owning and f*cking her”], makes it worth going through this process.  [Note: This is a form of Beta-persistence.]

Sigma Frame is absolutely right in that a man becomes a plea bargainer in this form of a relationship.  However, I believe this plea bargaining can occur in any model of relationship that is not properly maintained.  (Crappy emo music exists because of plea bargaining betas.)

B. The Respect Model

Sigma Frame posits that in the Respect model, men retain power, but women have an advantage in the way of choice.  The model works such that the woman trades her choice for marriage, while the man consolidates his power.

SF: To elaborate further, the woman’s power of choice is phenomenally glorious during her peak SMV years (18-25 years old).  This power (based on her youth, beauty, undefiled fecundity, and the inspiration that she imparts to the man) is absolutely necessary to negotiate a high-stakes marriage with a suitable man.  By marrying one man during her peak, she forfeits all other men (and experiences with men) as a cost of opportunity, but gains a multitude of benefits through that marriage that will extend throughout her life.  Once the woman loses her power by becoming defiled or by waiting until wilting (~30 years old), she forfeits landing a high quality man in marriage, and runs the risk of not marrying at all.

I do not know anyone who has gone through this process for courtship, but have read about it in books or posts online.  Some might claim that this is what the Duggar’s practice, but that family calls for the suitor to submit to the father… forever.

SF: The Duggar’s structure seems similar to Confucian Filial Piety, which is the standard family structure in Chinese cultures.  The single man does not maintain any sense of personal identity, as he is over shadowed by the patrilinear governance of the family – a senior male figure.  This might seem like a drag to younger men, however, the positive flip side is that he receives (1) financial support in developing his career, and (2) mentorship and guidance, in the hope that he will one day assume the position of the patriarch within the family.  Younger, independent, feminist women hate this patricentric structure, but more mature, marriage-minded women appreciate the emotional stability, financial security, and the occasional family drama that accompanies this model.  It is noteworthy that the Chinese family structure, as it pertains to societal preservation, has lasted since ancient times, and continues to be one of the most stable social structures in the world.  Thus, the Filial Piety structure might offer several case studies which manifest the Respect model.

The Respect Model should theoretically work both ways with a father and the suitor: mutual respect, and an understanding of boundaries.  From a Christian perspective, this is due to the father’s authority over his household, until the daughter marries and cleaves to her husband.

III. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF BOTH MODELS

A. The Courtly Love Model

“Women are more likely to attract men who possess an equitable SMV/MMV with hers.”

FALSE.  In Christian circles, this is highly unlikely.  Not only are men and women expected to go to college, but men tend to abandon the church between the ages of 18 and having kids.  In my experience, the men who attended were college age and younger, or mid to late thirties, while the women were 18 to mid-twenties.  The women are not interested in their peer group (contrary to secular culture).  They are openly hypergamous in “not settling” for the not too older, successful, charming, fit, and wealthy man (men who generally don’t exist in a Bible-based church).

SF: Your comments are a fairly accurate description of most churches.  But when I say that women are more likely to attract men who possess an equitable SMV/MMV, it doesn’t mean that women will necessarily be attracted to these same men.  This is one of the weaknesses of this model, since women cannot respect the type of men that the Courtly Love system delivers to them.

In my situation, I would be forced to consider someone older (never happening), or more than five years younger (no personal opposition and preferred, but most people would not be ok with that these days).

“Men have sincere convictions about committing to an LTR/marriage.”

TRUE.  Something must have gone wrong if an Alpha survives this process.  Either the relationship was teetering on immorality, or the marriage was against parents’ disrespected wishes.

A friend of mine who went through a super short courtship confessed that his wife admitted she was struggling with temptation.  The courtship is supposed to guard against such struggles, meaning the model produced a marriage in spite of the system.

“Men’s honor is assumed.”

FALSE.  You will still be shit tested to death.  Men are conditioned to fall into the trap, hence so many single Christian girls in their late twenties.

SF: To elaborate further, men’s honor, in this case, is based on the Courtly Love mythos of Chivalry, and how well a man conforms to the rules of Chivalry.  Thus, honorable men of high caliber tend to fall into this system.  (This is NOT the same type of men that women find attractive, as mentioned earlier.)

• It is popular: TRUE.  Case in point: Joshua Harris, even after his retraction of his books.
• The structure inverts the Biblical analogy of marriage: True.
• Marriages based on this model lead to conflict and divorce…  Probably FALSE.  Marriages from any model come to the same tension and conflict.  However, this model speeds up the process, as the woman enters the marriage with this power.
• The Model shows feral inclinations of the flesh: TRUE.  This model absolutely promotes pedestalization, and the idea that a man must prove himself to a woman.  There is no obligation for the woman to be committed to the relationship.
• Respondent cannot make a determination as to Sigma Frame’s remaining claims due to lack of sufficient information, experience, or belief.

B. The Respect Model

After this sentence, I will post my thoughts in as many words as there are relationships formed from this model:                                                   .

In all seriousness, this model needs to be fleshed out.  It can only work in a Christian environment, or in a culture influenced by Biblical Christianity, and not churchianity.  This model must be fleshed out in order to advocate its implementation.  The likelihood of a person finding this in the real world is slim to none.  I believe only incredibly orthodox communities that are legalistic and quasi-pharisaical would practice this model (e.g. Doug Wilson’s “church”, Mennonites, Conservative Presbyterians, “fundamentalist” Baptists, or super small, rural, non-denominational churches).  However, as our boy Dalrock has pointed out numerous times before, people like Doug Wilson are beta’s in disguise.  It is very common for men to vocalize support for Biblical Patriarchy out of insecurity.  They lend their voice, but not their actions, to this position.

SF: If they were to see REAL Biblical Patriarchy, they’d lose bowel control and blaspheme.

IV. THE REALITY OF COURTSHIP

A. What Courtship Should Be

For those men who are Red Pill and Christian, who would like to be the man that maintains power over the relationship before marriage, there is really no clear cut way for that to happen.  A woman is under her father’s authority until marriage.  The man has zero “power,” other than the woman having some interest in him.  Ideally, the character of her father would affirm the character of the prospective suitor.  That is what the Respect Model should be.  A man should display certain alpha qualities in every aspect of his life.  The demonstration of his consistent alpha behaviors is key.

1 Corinthians 7:36-38  is sometimes improperly translated, confusing its meaning.  Because of improper translations, some say this verse pertains to an engaged man and his virgin bride.  This is not the case.  In fact, this verse is critical for understanding biblical relationships, because it directly states the authority of a woman to marry, and whom she may marry, is in her father.  The verse is properly translated to convey what the Greek text says in the NAS.

“If any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.  But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.  So both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.”

B. What Courtship Is In Reality

The Great However, however, is that what is described above does not happen in modern Christianity, save for pure ceremonial purposes at a wedding.  I know of only one instance where I think it may have happened, and that is from my experience in several denominations, in several regions, of at least four states.  That means any suggestion of the Respect Model existing is hearsay, in my opinion.

For my friends, and myself (a successful courtship that left me unscathed), we are forced into operating under the Courtly Love model.  Most Christian fathers are not alphas, nor men of character, regardless of what they say or practice.  They either prefer a dating model, where they can abdicate their authority (through compliance and folding), and check out of their family, or are puppets of the daughter/wife.

I have never seen a Christian man make a hard decision for his daughter, where he said, “This will be done, for your benefit, regardless of what you think.”  In fact, the only time I have seen this happen was to make an awful decision that was not in the best interest of the female, of the church, or as an example for all other single females in the church.  A conservative church I attended openly demanded a single pregnant member to abandon the father of the child, against all biblical precedent and common sense.  Fortunately for many, I was not present when this announcement was made.

CONCLUSIONS

In today’s world, a marriage or relationship is the mutual exchange of mate-choice for commitment.  But we are without clear societal and legal controls to guarantee that commitment.  Sigma Frame is correct to say that,

“The weak link in the chain is not so much a lack of courage or righteousness in the man’s authority, but in the willingness of the woman to continue in a posture of submission.”

While SF says this is for the Respect Model, this is true for both models of courtship, as proven by recent divorce figures.  Regardless of the models used during the pre-marriage phase, every relationship faces the same tension after the exchange of nuptials.  In the Red Pill community, this is ascribed to hypergamous tendencies, while in the Christian community, it is ascribed to our sin nature, and a direct result of the curse.

“Women who pine for power, but who fail to achieve it in a relationship, often resort to cheap but greatly annoying substitutions of pseudo-power.  This situation is especially prone to occur after a woman loses her SMV/MMV power (AKA “hitting the wall”), while her male counterpart is reaching his peak SMV, which further enhances her sense of insecurity and powerlessness.”

Many men in the red pill community do not realize this, and have a problem in transitioning from being single and Red Pill, to maintaining that “frame” or “mindset” once they are in a LTR.  This is men tending to COMPLY.  We let our guard down, and think we can ride off the achievements of the past.

The reason why we may see a tendency of marriages to fall apart based on what model was used in establishing the relationship has more to do with the individuals, not the model.  The model may have set the pace, so that conflict comes sooner, or in a different way.

While I believe the Church should advocate a method of “courtship,” it is critical to define gender/sex roles, and roles within marriage, and hold firm to those values.  Men must decide whether or not the system of marriage in our society is worth the battles he will face.

In all reality, establishing an LTR as a man is committing to lifelong battle against our nature of letting our guard down, fighting against societal pressure against our interest, and fighting the usurpation of our authority in a relationship.  While a man of character (the proverbial Alpha) may come across many “losses,” he will wage this battle nonetheless.

SF: Lexet, thanks for taking the time to study the models and write this essay.  I’m thankful to have this review back up on line.

Related

• Christianity and Masculinity: Marriage Structures (April 15, 2016)

Teaching our daughters well is the early foundation of successful wife moulding

Readership: Fathers; Parents; Grandparents; Christians;

Introduction

The author of Biblical Gender Roles made the following statements in a comment.*

“From everything I have seen of Red Pill, it completely rejects a man appealing to a woman’s sense of duty and honor as if women are incapable of having any such sense.  So according to the [secular] Red Pill, the following endeavors are utter absurdity and a fool’s errand.”

1. A father teaching his daughter that it is her duty to give her body to her future husband.
2. A father teaching his daughter that it is her duty to cultivate a desire for her future husband.
3. A husband appealing to his wife’s sense of honor, faith, and duty to God for her to behave in a spiritually obedient manner.
4. A husband appealing to his wife to willingly give her body to him as an expression of love and respect.
5. A husband appealing to his wife to cultivate her own desire for him.

I’ll comment briefly on each of these applications.

The first two statements in the list concern the raising of daughters.  I have written one post (so far) about how to properly discipline daughters: 13 Disciplines in Dealing with Delectable Daughters (2018 January 29).  I also wrote a case study in which I moulded a neighboring divorced woman’s daughter: A Girl Becomes a Lady (2017 December 26).

Children are especially mouldable, and so parents have a major responsibility to form daughters into young women who are emotionally mature and spiritually disciplined as adults.  Unfortunately, this is a lost art form.  Most of today’s generation of proud, arrogant, entitled, promiscuous women were raised by a previous generation (dare I say the Boomers), who were themselves rebellious and liberal, and therefore were undisciplined in their approach to child rearing.

The last three statements in the list concern the conduct of wives and wife moulding.  The application of these statements bifurcates into two general areas, according to what kind of woman we’re dealing with.

1. For the wife who is emotionally mature and spiritually regenerated, it’s about facilitating and rewarding her habitual choice to be spiritually obedient (to God).
2. For the wife who is emotionally immature and/or fleshly minded, we’re talking about discipline and wife moulding. This is important, because if she doesn’t get her act together, the marriage, even to a good-willed, self-sacrificing, spiritually obedient husband, is bound to fail.  Also, if she happens to be one who lacks self-control, then the marriage is incalculably unstable.  In this case, the husband will need to utilize some game to satisfy her needs in order to decrease the chances of her spilling the pudding.

“But we know from history that women, when properly trained in their faith, can actually have a great sense of duty and honor.  In other words, if a woman truly loves God and his Word she can and will love her husband.  A woman can learn to give her body, even when she does not desire it, from a sense of duty and honor.  This is all foreign to Red Pill from what I have seen.”

I agree that women can have a great sense of duty, honor, and even loyalty, but this is habitually overlooked in most secular Red Pill literature.  I believe this omission is partly due to the fact that this kind of woman is exceedingly rare, too rare to put any faith in finding one by chance, and partly because this knowledge is essentially meaningless to the secular Manosphere’s target audience – younger men looking to score.

It is an omission now being covered through this response to BGR.

First, consider this proverb.

“Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.” ~ Proverbs 22:6 (NKJV)

Of course, this also applies to female children.

Based on this verse, I postulate that such women worthy of marriage might increase in number, provided they have a suitable education and training.  I am not referring to a liberal arts degree in gender studies (unless it’s hosted by BGR).  I mean, having an upbringing filled with continual education and training on how to be responsible, faithful, and dignified wives and mothers (as opposed to irresponsible, unfaithful, and indignified wimminz).

The historical importance of Finishing School

In times long past, wealthy families used to send their daughters to what was known as a “finishing school”.  (Think “finish”, as in being thoroughly prepared and ready for use, like a glossy oil finish on woodwork.)  Finishing school taught young ladies the arts of home economics, cooking, cleaning, mending, child care, as well as proper etiquette and social graces.  But that’s not all.  From a Red Pill standpoint, it also taught women to be self-aware, humble, respectful, deferential, and self-disciplined.  Finishing school, for women, was as emotionally and physically taxing as basic training was for enlisted servicemen.  This is why many families believed that finishing school was absolutely necessary to prepare a young woman for marriage life.  The qualification of having completed finishing school also served to help young women who aspired to land high (or higher, according to her hypergamic filters) MMV husbands.  For many families of refined taste, a young woman was not considered eligible for marriage unless she had attended finishing school, and by doing so, had diligently prepared herself for married life.  In recent times, the influences of feminism have all but eradicated the practice of finishing school.

I’m still searching for a finishing school in Switzerland that goes by the name of Chateau Heartiste.  I know there’s got to be one there somewhere!

In my opinion, finishing school was for parentally lazy fat cats who were too busy working, traveling, and making money to spend the time and effort necessary to educate their spoiled rotten children themselves.  You don’t need to have such opulent means to train your children well.  I suggest that parents should be teaching their children (not only daughters) on how to be finished individuals.  In addition to this, churches and other social organizations could offer the equivalent of finishing school to young people in their congregations.

Home schooling is a necessary daily exercise

I know this connection (that disciplined daughters become faithful wives) is highly theoretical, especially since we never see this happening anymore.  But I am convinced it is true.  Parents need to teach and discipline their children, both boys and girls, and start from a young age.

Consider this passage from the scriptures.

⁴ “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!  ⁵ You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

⁶ “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart.  ⁷ You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.  ⁸ You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.  ⁹ You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” ~ Deuteronomy 6:4-9 (NKJV)

When I look around, I don’t see any Christian parents who are in the habit of even mentioning anything about the Bible outside of chirtch.  Tsk, Tsk…

Later in this passage, it gives the reason why we must teach God’s statues and commandments to our children.

²⁴ “And the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day.  ²⁵ Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us.’” ~ Deuteronomy 6:24-25 (NKJV)

This same command is reiterated again five chapters later.

¹⁶ “Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them,  ¹⁷ lest the Lord’s anger be aroused against you, and He shut up the heavens so that there be no rain, and the land yield no produce, and you perish quickly from the good land which the Lord is giving you.”

No wonder!  This is already happening to the U.S. and Europe.  Tsk, Tsk…

¹⁸ “Therefore you shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.  ¹⁹ You shall teach them to your children, speaking of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.  ²⁰ And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, ²¹ that your days and the days of your children may be multiplied in the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers to give them, like the days of the heavens above the earth.”

The message for Christians (I believe) is that (at least some) women have the potential to become virtuous (i.e. righteous), but it all depends on whether we as a family, and as a society, want it desperately enough, and whether our daughters are able to accept our teaching, and the testimony of our lives.  It follows that such a woman must then enter into a redemptive life experience which can set her on the upward path – such as home schooling or finishing school.

²² “For if you carefully keep all these commandments which I command you to do — to love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and to hold fast to Him — ²³ then the Lord will drive out all these nations from before you, and you will dispossess greater and mightier nations than yourselves.” ~ Deuteronomy 11:16-23 (NKJV)

Think about that last verse for a moment.  If your main concern has only been that your daughter might get pregnant out of wedlock, then your mind is in the gutter.  It’s time to recalibrate your mind and set your sights higher.

If you think I’m toting some version of a prosperity gospel, then you’ve missed the point.  The point is that getting involved is going to improve your life, and your children’s lives too.  Talking to your daughter about various things on a regular basis is going to improve her future.

Concluding Statements

In conclusion, the parents’ faithful discipline and teaching their daughters (and sons) during childhood and adolescence, produces emotionally mature, responsible, and faithful wives (and higher quality men).

If the nuclear family and the church community cannot offer the necessary teaching and discipline, along with a meaningful social structure and a clear life path for young people, then we’re unwittingly handing our children over to the tortuous and destructive devices of this world.  Satan will always be willing and waiting to entice our daughters to explore the SMP, exercise her feral hypergamy, transform her into a highly educated wh0re, and then whip her hopeless heart senseless.  Those women who fall for the ploy are eventually forced to become cruel, heartless b!tch!z (AKA a Strong Independent Woman™) in order to secure resources and affirmation for themselves, before retiring as burnt out felinephiles.  Tsk, Tsk…

Fathers, don’t default to stand-by mode while your daughters are growing.  We must take some kind of action.  Make it a daily activity, not just an alarming one-off lecture with disheartening gravity.  Write it on the doorposts of your house!  Also consider home schooling, or finishing school, or a similar training program for your daughter.

* BGR’s statements have been paraphrased for the sake of clarity and conciseness.

Related

• Study in Switzerland: Finishing Schools In Switzerland: Everything You Need To Know (2019 March 12)
• Bible Reasons (feat. Fritz Chery): Teaching Children (2020 January 7)

The Dalrock Route

A comprehensive assessment of Dalrock’s overall Frame of reference concerning the male-female ontology.

Readership: All; Dalrock’s followers;

Note: This post is offered to commemorate Dalrock’s service to Christians and their understanding of Christian doctrine over the past decade.

Dalrock has contributed a large number of fundamental insights to Christianity, the Manosphere, and to society at large.  A shortlist of just a few of these topics would include,

• How to deal with a troublesome mother-in-law
• The College Boyfriend and marriage lite.
• The glorification of single mothers
• Modern trends in marriage and divorce
• Marriage 2.0
• The threatpoint of divorce and the Duluth model.
• The demonic origin of Courtly Love and the modern morphology of Chivalry.
• The confluence of Chivalry, Feminism, and Christianity to produce modern Churchianity.
• Chivalry as male feminism, the religion of beta orbiters
• The errancy of complementarianism and the myth of mutual submission.

Not to mention his many buzzwords, including, “Sticking the Landing”, “Harley McBadBoy”, and “You can’t make this stuff up!”.

The real Dalrock Route – Route 66 (AKA Lakeview Parkway) facing east through Dalrock Rowlett Texas, U.S.A.

What is the Dalrock Route?

A little over a year ago, Pastor Douglas Wilson answered a letter from Keith which asked him to define what he means by “The Dalrock Route”. (Scroll waaay down this page, or do a page search for “Dalrock”.)  In a long overdue response, Wilson wrote,

“Keith, from what I have seen, I would describe the Dalrock route as over-realized patriarchy.  This is not the same thing as extreme patriarchy (the toxic kind), and it is not the same thing as my own version of (amazingly balanced) patriarchy.  I speak as a man, as Paul might say, and that’s the problem, as RHE [sic] might say.  Over-realized patriarchy has a tendency to assume that the complementarians who gave away the store (and I agree with Dalrock that many of them did give away the store), did so on purpose.  In other words, what they tend to describe as conspiracy, I would describe as a mix of conspiracy from some and confused foolishness from others.  This also has had an impact on how Dalrock has interacted with some of my stuff, looping me as one of the conspirators to feminize everything.  Since I know that he is persistent in reading me incorrectly, eventually I quit reading him.”

Unfortunately, Wilson failed to define what he means by “over-realized patriarchy”.

I informed Dalrock in a note, and I don’t believe he ever gave a response to Wilson’s description of The Dalrock Route.  [If any readers know of a response, please leave a link in the comments below.]

Gunner Q offered his take on Doug Wilson Multi-Cucks (December 22, 2018).

From my reading of Wilson’s response, the only difference between his viewpoint and Dalrock’s is that Wilson attributes foolishness to what Dalrock presumes as a conspiracy.

Actually, both viewpoints are correct.  Let me explain.

While foolishness is commonly accepted as ignorance, naivety, or childish tomfoolery, the true nature of foolishness is a lack of spiritual discernment and the knowledge of God that are concomitant with spiritual immaturity.  Foolishness is thus a form of latent evil.  That is, Satan and his emissaries use foolish, immature minions, useful idiots if you will, to implement his will.  Thus, foolishness is a part of the Satanic conspiracy.

I discussed this phenomenon in Why does Game work? (2019 December 9)

“Men and women conditioned by Feminism and its counterpart, Chivalry, don’t understand their own wants, needs, and desires.  There is some sort of spiritual blindness prevalent in modern culture that prevents them from realizing that there is an aspect of themselves (i.e. Desire) that they are ignorant of, and which they haven’t taken ownership of.  Instead, Desire is permitted to roam free and unexamined, and it seems unreasonable that they should be expected to accept responsibility for this unknown part of their own nature.  Therefore, when a person with Charisma stimulates those desires, they find it easy to jump to the conclusion that they are being “manipulated” or in some cases, “raped”.  As a point in case, if you were to ever ask a young woman how she ended up in bed with so and so, the default answer would be, “I don’t know… It just happened!”  Only after many encounters does she understand the mechanics of how it happened, yet she still doesn’t understand her own Desire as a motivating factor.”

The Dalrock Route is a paradigm that accounts for this phenomenon.  If you read between the lines in his writings, there is an unstated, running assumption that people (i.e. women) are aware, or should become aware of their own nature, and that they should take responsibility for it.

Those conditioned by Feminism and Chivalry (male feminism) want to believe that women are not able (nor willing) to take responsibility for their own nature.

Christianism has a complicated assessment of the issue, which was summarized very concisely by Novaseeker.

“[Complementarianists] … see women as having agency but that agency is contained within/conditioned by/constrained by (or enabled by) men’s agency such that while both have agency, men have responsibility for both.  It’s a clever way of being able to preserve female moral agency in a technical sense while still holding men responsible for how women exercise their moral agency (creating moral agency without responsibility for women … or at least without the same degree of responsibility as men have for women’s agency).  All stemming from a misreading of Genesis 3.”

Thus, these groups consider Dalrock’s approach to be absurd, immature, harsh, or even misogynistic.  A lot of the backlash Dalrock received from his critics was mostly centered around the beliefs that (1) women are not responsible for themselves as moral agents, and (2) neither should they be expected of the same.

On the other hand, it could be validly argued that Dalrock grants dignity to women in assuming that they do have moral agency, or that they could if they would “grow up” and develop maturity and spiritual discernment.  From this viewpoint, Dalrock’s detractors are the ones who are the true misogynists, as well as heretics for denying that women might experience the redemptive grace of God.

Note: In my own writings on Σ Frame, I presume that women are spiritually immature (lacking agency), but that they should be expected to mature, develop spiritual awareness, and a sense of social responsibility.  Similar to Dalrock, I don’t believe the woman’s behavior and its consequences are entirely the man’s responsibility.  But in contrast with Dalrock, I do believe there are a number of approaches that can facilitate the process of her spiritual growth.

A comparison of sources versus their underlying assumptions are given in the truth table below.  The statement, “Women should be expected to develop moral agency”, expresses an unwavering faith in the power of redemption, which is missing in Feminism, Chivalry, and much of Christianism/Complementarianism.

Related

• Dalrock: Warhorn interview: Male responsibility and female agency. (2019 February 8)
• Dalrock: Transcript of the second podcast. (2019 March 9)

Christian vs. Non-Christian Women

Why should there be no difference between Christian women and non-Christian women?

This post was originally published on Lexet Iustitia in February of 2019.

Readership: Christian men; Church leaders;

I saw this comment under Sigma Frame’s post, Why do Christian women have the reputation of being whores? (2019 February 23).

“There are no functional differences between Christian women and secular women.  Christian women are (or at least can be) as depraved, sexually damaged, and morally compromised, as a non-Christian woman can be.  She might be a Christian, but she’s still a woman, and All Women Are Like That, including Christian women.” ~ The Deti’s Second Law of Relationships

Coincidentally, I was thinking about a similar issue while in church today.

Both groups of women have their sinful nature.  However, a Christian woman should be aware of that, and should be constantly fighting against her sinful nature.  But as I looked around, I could clearly see that Christian women are not into this habit.

There is a level of depravity, however, that not only reveals a lack of sanctification, but also a rebellious life.  Take for instance, a “christian” woman who shows up to church, week after week, month after month, year after year, wearing inappropriate clothing. That requires a callous heart, a lack of introspection and examination, a lack of discipleship, and a complete disregard for what the scriptures say.

Should Christians be distinguishable from the rest of the world?  A clear and quick glance at scripture reveals that the answer is an obvious YES.

“⁴ And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues.  ⁵ For her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.” ~ Revelation 18:4-5 (ESV)

So why, in the United States, or in the West in general, is it impossible to distinguish a Christian woman from a non-Christian woman?  [The exception would be the Amish, Mennonites, or girls who wear long denim dresses and head coverings].

Why is it that the vast majority of women in the hyper-majority of protestant churches cannot be differentiated from the outside world (when the outside world is literal harlotry 24/7)?

We have allowed culture to infiltrate the church, and not only control our lifestyles, but even control our theological doctrines.  When there is no functional difference between a Christian woman and a woman openly practicing the values of Sodom and Gomorrah, there is a massive problem.

Our churches in the West should be embarrassed that there is no practical difference between Christian women, and non-believers.

Related

• Wintery Knight: More And More Women Are Asking Why They Can’t Find A Good Man To Marry (2018 April 12)
• Σ Frame: Meretricious Power and the Tingle (2018 October 9)
• Σ Frame: Christian vs. Non-Christian Women – A Negligeeable Difference (2019 March 20)
• Σ Frame: Christian Women Demand Men Marry Sluts With Debt and Tattoos (2020 February 3)

Women’s choice to be relevant

No matter what lifestyle they might prefer, women must choose to be relevant.  Includes a case Study of J.P. Sartre and S. de Beauvoir.

Readership: All;

Even Feminist women find ways to become Relevant

Hommunism just posted a concise and informative takedown of the evils of Feminism, Modern Feminism’s Enemy: Womanhood (2020 February 4)*.  It is quite a good read.  It included this quote from the founders of Feminism.

The celebrated feminist Simone de Beauvoir famously told Betty Friedan,

• “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children.
• Society should be totally different.
• Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Did you get that?

“…authorized to stay at home…”

“…authorized to raise her [own] children…”

Wow!  You can almost feel the sinful solipsism from her psychological projection!

Of course, this goes directly against what we’re told in Titus 2:3-4.

“³ the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— ⁴ that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, ⁵ to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.”

I did a little search on de Beauvoir and found this photo of her.

I’ve never seen such an icy cold look on a woman, and I can detect the vertical stab wounds of the 1,000 C0ck stare.

…and she’s wearing a man’s suit and tie.

Another woman of de Beauvoir’s generational cohort included the Wicked Witch of the West (starring Margaret Hamilton, 1939).  Compared to de Beauvoir, Hamilton is adorably cute, even in greenface.

So far, de Beauvoir is not relevant at all.  Her motivations and conscious aspirations have little use or benefit outside her social circle.

However, it is interesting to know that de Beauvoir had a lifelong open relationship with Jean Paul Sartre, the leading existentialist philosopher of the 20^th century.  Sartre was a great mind, but handsome he wasn’t.

Young men, beware!  This is what cuckoldry does to your face!

Sartre wasn’t that unattractive as a young man.  He and de Beauvoir had had some kind of a relationship since their youth.

It appears that he was more into her, than the other way around.  She just can’t light up fast enough!

The truth be known, she was always on the prowl.

More than her contributions to society and philosophy, De Beauvoir was infamous for her sexual liaisons, including lesbianism, group sex, and debauching her students.

But apparently, she was really into this guy, Nelson Algren.

Even so, Sartre played the orbiter, even into their golden years.

Unsurprisingly, no man would have her in marriage.  Besides, even though she longed for a husband and family, her work and her livid sexual promiscuities were more important to her than a commitment.

So how did she make herself relevant?

I suspect that de Beauvoire’s greatest contribution to humanity was not so much to Feminism, but rather in serving up regular doses of electrified ћә11 to Sartre (as well as her stultified, second-hand students), who then transferred that palm perspiration into his writings.

Verily, the existentialist view emerges from an agony and fear too intense to bear, combined with an imaginative mythos fueled by hope and desire.  Being in love with a reveling feminist, and experiencing the intense jealousy that results from her capricious indiscretions will suffice to this end.

She also had an impact on Algren’s success as one of the best known literary writers of his generation.  He produced his best work and spawned several films during his affair with de Beauvoir and within a few short years after.  Later, he won the national book award for his accomplishments.

It’s well known that psychotic women are sexual powerhouses.  She must’ve been super hot in the sack.  It’s also known that a saturated sexual satisfaction can yield an intensely clear mind.  Why else would these men tolerate her for years?

“Too hot to handle.  Too cold to hold.” ~ Bobby Brown (1989)

On to the next point.

Quality doesn’t matter as much as Relevancy

In the comment section under Hommunism’s article, Wordlywoman2 writes,

“Maybe Artificial Intelligence in the female form, will take over the role of caregiver in the family home.  Designed expressly by the man of the house, with all the desired attributes.

Babies will be produced in test tubes, with the eggs supplied by a few carefully selected human females who, once past their use by date, will then be desexed and sent to work in construction.  What a perfect world!  Everyone gets what they want.”

Of course, we know that she’s wrong about one important point.  She misses the fact that the highest quality females who are counted worthy of reproducing future generations of the human race will have already made the choice to marry and have children according to nature.  It is the lower quality females who make poor choices in life and who need to be cared for in their later years, either by the socialist state, or by marketing transcripts of their torrid affairs.

Low quality females have the following attributes.

• They cannot (or will not) cultivate a peaceful, quiet spirit.
• Instead, they are brash, outspoken, and rebellious.
• They cannot (or will not) be trusting, humble, and content.
• Instead, they debauch their feminine nature and defile their ability to trust by engaging in profuse sexual promiscuity.
• They cannot glorify God by making themselves presentably attractive.
• Instead, they desex themselves by growing obese, cutting their hair too short, or even by going full tranny.
• They cannot maximize their feminine powers during their peak SMV years.
• Instead, they degrade their own bodies with substance abuse, hormonal birth control medication, and abortion.
• They cannot attract the love of a man willing to commit to marriage.
• Instead, they are forced to attend college and pursue a career in order to support themselves, while doing “Netflix and chill” with Tinder hookups.
• They have a negative opinion of men and authority, and so cannot find their place in the world.
• Instead, they are destined to go through life lonely and alone – except those with cats and box wine.

Low quality females quickly surpass their expiration date, and have little to offer society in their later years.  However, Wordlywoman2 says that such women can always work in construction during their later years, so they are not totally useless, nor relegated to a sunk cost status.

I’m not sure about heavy construction, but spinsters would be especially well suited for inspecting, quality control, painting, sewing, typing, cleaning, food service, decoration, repetitive assembly line work, and making general errands.  If I remember correctly, this is what spinsters did in de Beauvoir’s day.  They even made enough money to afford thoroughbred poodles and copious quantities of wine for their singles parties.

Concluding Statements

While I’m certain that Wordlywoman2 is trolling, she does make a good point.  Feminism doesn’t need to be all bad.  Those women whose lot in life is to be feminists, and those who might even prefer that lifestyle, can still do their own thing without bringing the rest of society down to their level.

Simone de Beauvoir was a low quality woman, but she made herself relevant.

Everyone gets what they want, whether they end up liking it or not.

But it’s their choice to be relevant.

* Reblogged At Larry’s Musings: Modern Feminism’s Enemy: Womanhood (2020 February 4)

Related

• Σ Frame: The Evolution of Feminism as a Series of Cultural Movements (2018 January 15)
• Red Pill Dad: Quick example of why women are better off getting married and having kids. (2020 February 6)