Meretricious Power and the Tingle

A response to Lexet: (1) Courtship model Framework, (2) the unavoidable merger of the SMP and MMP and the resultant dominance of visceral power, (3) the necessity of the Tingle in the Tingly Respect model, and (4) how the fragile Tingly Respect model of courtship becomes spoiled at the outset, especially in the converged MMP.

Readership: All

Lexet’s post, Courtship and Power (October 4, 2018) offered a thoughtful analysis and critique of my previous post, Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (October 3, 2018). As a response, I wish to further develop a few important concepts that are essential to my original post.

1. Courtship Model Framework

There are a few broad statements I should say up front. The first is that we are talking about theoretical models, so of course, real world examples of relationships will always have their own unique characteristics.

Secondly, these models of courtship could be formally institutionalized, or informally practiced, and we might also find many variations, or ‘sub-models’ of these two types, based on different cultural and religious values, as well as the personalities of those involved.

I am sure there are other models of courtship besides the Courtly Love or the Tingly Respect models – models which are not focused on the visceral power dynamics between the man and the woman involved – and these other models might be more suitable for couples who are more mature in their ability to offer selfless love, and altruistic respect, and who are more willing to submit to a hierarchical order of authority out of faith in God’s Word.

There are also variations of these models with respect to the individual roles of the bride and groom within the extended family. Lexet pointed out one variation of the Respect model, by offering an example of specific arrangements of power between the husband and his father-in-law.

“[In one variation, the] family calls for the suitor to submit to the father… forever. The single man does not maintain any sense of personal identity, as he is over shadowed. [In contrast,] 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.”

2. Meretricious Power

Of course, mature people should not make lifelong commitments based on passing emotions, but in fact, this is the norm for modern society, and the church is hardly any different.

Currently, the Courtly Love model is institutionalized in society au fait, and it is perceived as a formal style of courtship. However, it is not formally institutionalized, meaning that the model is presented as a traditional standard, but there are no regulations for courtship that are enforced by society or the church.

Since a formal, institutionalized model of courtship is absent, young people are naturally going to approach courtship from a subjective point of view, just as they now do. Hence, the visceral power to create emotional impressions on the other partner then becomes the overriding center of focus in defining the rudimentary nature of the relationship. I believe Lexet would agree with this description of the present ontology, because he wrote,

“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 to find that balance (for a man).”

On a larger scale, the fact that the modern SMP is marshalled by meretricious Machiavellianism, and the fact that “courtship” is besmirched as much as cuckoldry is taken for granted, are sure signs that the sexual revolution has reached its’ rapturous consummation. Pursuing Zoe has been replaced by ravishing Trixie. The flesh is thrust in everyone’s face at adolescence, and there is little other recourse.

“…even in Christian circles, men face the dilemma of being forced into a non-biblical, or even anti-biblical, system to become married (the only lawful outlet for sex permitted).”

In other words, the MMP is converged with the SMP.

Will society repent, or roll over for another round?

3. Don’t forget: Tingles Uber Alles!

Aside from his preamble, Lexet conspicuously dropped the adjective “Tingly” from the name of the Tingly Respect model. I know “Tingly” makes the name somewhat ludicrous, but it is an integral part of this model, because this is the form of power that the man has over the woman. That is, the man makes the woman Tingle, and the woman responds to his power over her emotions by displaying respect for him. This fundamental characteristic of this model was derived in a previous post, Tingles = Respect (October 6, 2018).

Similarly, for the Courtly Love model, the Courting is an integral part of this model because the woman requires the man to court her (e.g. show various expressions of his love, devotion, and willingness to invest in her) in return for her “love”. Of course, we know that “love”, in this sense, is experienced by the man as a purely subjective experience which motivates him to perform acts of love towards the woman. The problem with this model is that the man’s respondent acts of love are unable to generate the Tingles, and are therefore merely expressions of obsequiousness. This is the visceral power that the woman has over the man in this model.

Lexet argues that there are no examples of the Respect model in western culture as follows.

“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 would fully agree that there are no formal or institutional examples, but informal examples are somewhat ubiquitous. Anytime a woman gets the Tingles for a man and chases him down, we are seeing an example of the Tingly Respect model in its beginning stage. Although this happens very frequently, it is considered improper, dishonorable, and often obscene, to discuss, reveal, provoke, or satirize female desire. Furthermore, females are extremely careful to hide their arousal, and are evermore discrete in their liaisons with the male objects of their affections. In fact, women will usually lie about their feelings towards a particular man whenever they are confronted, especially in public. So it is not something that is obviously witnessed, except by those who have the knowledge and discernment of such things.

The reason why these budding Tingly Respect relationships seldom develop into stable LTR’s is somewhat complicated. The next section examines the factors.

4. Complexities of the Tingly Respect model during Courtship

As mentioned in my previous post, the Tingly Respect model is weaker in the courtship phase. The failure could be caused by either the man or the woman. If either one fails, so does the model.

1. The woman’s failure: The woman foolishly chooses a man who Tingulates her, but who is also far above her own MMV banding, and therefore cannot attract a marriage proposal from the man.
2. The man’s failure: Even when a woman chooses a man who Tingulates her, and is also within her own MMV band, the man may not feel any compunction to develop a LTR with her, and therefore may not take responsibility for the relationship, nor offer any commitment.

There are a few different methods by which either sex could louse up the process.

Concerning the first stumbling block, Dalrock describes how women should be aware of the feedback they get from men, identify their true MMV, and learn to regulate their expectations accordingly. He wrote,

“She can subtlety indicate interest to the kind of men she thinks would be a match for her, men she is attracted to. If her standards are too high and the man isn’t interested, or is only interested if fornication is on the table, her ego is bruised but she has retained deniability in her expression of interest. As her over inflated ego is reduced to reality, eventually she will be able to feel attraction for the kind of man who wants to marry her.  Internalizing responsibility creates a mechanism for her to both get real world feedback on her self-perception, and for her to be able to become attracted to the kind of man she can attract for marriage.”

For the second error, men need to resist the easy opportunity for a pump-and-dump, and think more seriously about sex and marital commitment. Or else, make it clear to her that she should move on. If a man screws her up, and then dumps her, then afterward, she is defiled in the eyes of any future suitor (i.e. Alpha Widow syndrome).

A third problem is when a woman becomes so defiled by previous (sexual) relationships, that recalcitrant men refuse to marry her. This is the biggest challenge to young Christian woman – to resist the urge to merge with any particular man who turns her headlights on.

A fourth issue arises when men have no power, because they are clueless about how to create a Tingly emotional response in women. Developing visceral power is the biggest challenge to young Christian men, as Churchianity has basically castrated their sexual potential and forced them to submit to the Courtly Love model. As a result, women have a much smaller pool of Tingle-inducing men available to choose from, and those few men who remain “sexually visible” to females are more likely to resort to p*ssy plundering and thereby mass produce defiled Alpha Widows.

In view of the above issues, much of the success of a Tingly Respect courtship, in terms of it leading towards a satisfying marriage, is largely dependent on practicing self-control (especially for the female), and self-development (especially for the male).

Knowing human nature, Lexet’s statement is probably true.

“[The successful implementation of the Tingly Respect model] can only work in a Christian environment, or in a culture influenced by Biblical Christianity, and not churchianity.”

Related