The Feminine Dilemma

Women must choose between two different life paths, and two different kinds of men.

Readership: All


Rollo’s socio-sexual inventory ratings of SMV and MMV are based on a person’s desirability in the SMP. This post will take a step away from this commonly used analysis, and embrace Visceral Power and Choice of Lifestyle as fundamental stances which affect the interplay and outcome of a relationship. These two variables may be ascertained through objective tests (to be developed), or projective measures.

The following relationship ontologies are ridiculously broad, and certainly have many exceptions. However, the characterization is readily apparent, and therefore sufficient to develop the descriptive, prototype model discussed in an earlier post, Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (October 3, 2018). References to the Courtly Love and the Tingly Respect models will be made throughout this essay, so if the reader is unfamiliar with these courtship models, he/she should first review this post.

The Dyadic Feminine Dilemma

The following illustration depicts the female’s Life Path on the abscissa, and the Power Structure exercised by the male on the ordinate. Please refer to this figure as an aide to help visualize the descriptions that follow.

Male Power vs Female Path1

Her Life Path

Concerning their path in life, there are generally two types of women.

  • She is either pining for love and hoping for a husband and children, or she is seeking to advance her own interests, pursue her dreams, and/or develop a career.
  • She is either attempting to make herself more feminine, family oriented, industrious, and desirable, or she is looking to travel, meet many people, see the world, and get “experience”.
  • She is either seeking to serve others, or else seeking to serve herself.
  • She is either hoping and/or learning to be a happy help-mate, or else she is working herself towards a position of autonomy and independence.

As a woman advances down either path, it becomes more difficult to change to the other path as life goes on. However, it is considerably easier for a woman to make no effort at all, and for the vast majority of women not abundantly blessed with good breeding, this choice defaults to the independent lifestyle. Thus, a woman must prepare herself to build a satisfying LTR with a man.

What Determines Her Life Path?

Women may or may not be aware of it, but they choose the path they take in life. Early in life, I would guess during or shortly after puberty, females are faced with a dilemma of choice. Their choice is largely determined by a myriad of factors.

  • Agreeableness: Less agreeable → more independent
  • A pattern of being either pursued or rejected by males: more rejection → more independent
  • Education: In general, more education → more independent
  • Emotional Constitution: stronger constitution → more independent
  • Life Experiences: Complicated and nuanced
  • Personality: More extroverted, more rational → more independent
  • SMV/MMV: (Relation is complicated, but in general, a higher SMV/MMV → more opportunities to form relationships are available)
  • Strength of Libido: A weaker libido is thought to be associated with more independence.
  • Temperament: more distemper → more independent
  • Testosterone level: more T → more independent
  • The presence of an authoritative and loving father: less father figure involvement → more independent

I suspect that there are many other qualities that could affect one’s propensity towards independence, such as one’s level of intelligence, neuroticism, personality disorders, socialization habits, cultural norms, and identification within a peer group. So these personal characteristics will remain as an ongoing investigation

This is quite a comprehensive gestalt of many divergent characteristics, but here we’re talking about a person’s natural inclination or general preference.

If a woman decides against independence in favor of having a male partner in any capacity, she must then choose which power structure she wishes to have in her relationship. So here we come to the second choice that women must consider.

Her Choice of a Man

Concerning the type of male partner that a woman could choose from, a typical woman will find that she has a choice between two basic types of men.

  1. Men who possess an equitable or lower SMV/MMV compared to hers, and who are generally more willing to go through a formal courtship and offer long term commitment. These men are typically labeled “Betas”. The vast majority of regular church-going men would also fall into this category.
  2. Men who possess a higher SMV than hers, and/or who can induce Tingles. These men are presumed to be Alphas, or “worldly men”, and they would probably be much more reluctant to marry her.

A woman will be able to attract a larger number of men who have an equitable MMV or lower (the first group), and likewise, she will also receive a significantly larger number of marriage proposals from these men, compared to higher SMV men.

Correspondingly, she will not find access to commitment from very many men in the second group, men who have the ability to exert visceral power over her. So in summary, she will have a much greater selection of choice within the first group, however these choices may not strongly appeal to her liking.

Lexet disagreed with me on this point, arguing that the relatively lower propinquity of such men, and women’s general disinterest in such types, invariably leads to an attrition of volume. So perhaps another way to approach this decision is in asking what type of man will she choose? (This is the fundamental dilemma explored in this post.) In the most simplistic form (within the visceral power based ontology here entertained), a woman is faced with two options:

  1. If a woman seeks to consolidate power and control over a relationship with a passive, agreeable man of lower SMV (Beta), or if she simply ‘settles’ for this type of man, she is adhering to the Courtly Love model.
  2. If a woman chooses to submit to a man’s authority, or if she just happens to set her thighs on an assertive, higher SMV, Tingle-inducing man (Alpha) and becomes enslaved to her passion for him, she is opting for the Tingly Respect model.

As you might see, this dichotomy boils down to the simple choice, “To Tingle, or not to Tingle”. It might be argued that there is a third choice, “To Tingle intensely during peak SMV years (while riding the carousel), and then not at all (during marriage). This is actually a very popular choice these days. Certainly, women may or may not choose to date and sexually entertain men of either or both types before marriage, but her longitudinal relational pattern will determine what types of men will be available to her at the time she decides to marry. In other words, a woman will fall either one way or the other. The vast majority of women will find that the third choice is nothing more than a convoluted and dissipating path to the first choice. This view will be further explored later in this essay.

We might anticipate some objections from women at this point. Women will invariably argue against the concept of female submission when the Tingles are absent, and so women will magnify this caveat as a fault of the Tingly Respect model. But on the other hand, women will hardly ever chafe at the task of submitting to a high-SMV, Tingle-inducing stud. So it can be assumed that a woman’s choice to submit is highly tentative on the visceral power of the male. In other words, a female’s submission is inherently conflated with, and wholly dependent on masculine power within the Tingly Respect model. If and when the Tingle is absent, the relationship may very well default to the Courtly Love model, unless the woman can place her faith in God during the dry spells, and submit to the man out of obedience to God.

But whether there be Tingles or not, those women who resist submitting to a man’s authority are left to wallow at the bottom of the graph. Here there are basically two genres of relational structures. Women who desire companionship must continually grapple for power in the relationship, while those women who can accept or prefer more independence fall into the Feminist category.

Combinations of Power Structure vs. Life Path

This section will examine each of the four extremes of the original chart, encompassing the Tingly Respect model, the Courtly Love model, Feminism, and a fourth, uncharted type of relationship, Allyship*.

This assertion that either the male, or the female, but not both, hold a place of power in the relationship agrees with Rollo’s Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:

“For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

It will be shown that a woman’s willingness to submit, and to be a help meet, is a reflexive critical Factor in determining her life path.

Dependent Female + Dominant Male = The Tingly Respect model

Since a woman forfeits the position of power upon entering into the Tingly Respect model, pulling off a successful venture in snagging a Tingle-inducing, high SMV man for marriage can be a challenging feat for most women. She needs to have/do the following.

  1. Self Development: A woman needs to have a firm command of several qualities of excellence just to get her foot in the door. This is important, because the type of man she can attract in marriage is directly dependent on the current level of her character development.
  2. Self-Estimation: She needs to have a real-time feedback mechanism built into her self-consciousness, so that she can exercise personal boundaries, which can be used to accurately assess the quality of man that she can reasonably assume to receive a marriage proposal from, and adjust her own self-perception accordingly.
  3. Socio-Sexual Awareness: She needs to clearly know the difference between her SMV and her MMV, and use this knowledge to achieve her lifelong relationship goal.
  4. Social Estimation: She should be acutely aware of the interest level, and the type of interest, she gets from men, and use this information to identify her true MMV, and learn to regulate her expectations and/or her character accordingly.
  5. Recognize Authority: She needs to accept the fact that the man will expect to be the head, and that she will need to submissively fill the role of his helper and life companion.
  6. Dignity: She needs to learn how to offer honor, respect, and genuine friendship to a man in a way that he will appreciate.
  7. Sexual Purity: She needs to preserve her sexual purity, so that she can avoid being Alpha Widowed, and will thus be able to bond with, and feel genuinely aroused by a man who is on par with her own SMV.

Now, what happens to many women these days, is that at first, they pursue the Tingly Respect model. However, somewhere along the way, they run into some problems (corresponding to the list above) and drop the ball. See this list from Deti for more.

  1. They do not develop emotional or spiritual maturity.
  2. They do not exercise sufficient self-control to regulate their boundaries and make the most of their opportunities.
  3. They idolize the Tingles too much, and chase men who are inappropriate matches for them, out of their league and/or are only interested in sex.
  4. They fail to adjust their expectations to reality, and do not take responsibility for regulating a healthy social life. At worst, they indulge in fruitless or even self-destructive endeavors, and expect others to pay for their ‘life experiences’.
  5. They do not feel the compunction to see themselves as a ‘helper’, and learn how to get along with a man accordingly. At worst, they denigrate hierarchy as ‘the oppressive patriarchy’.
  6. They have an arrogant Feminist mindset that belittles and demonizes masculinity.
  7. They do not feel any conviction to pursue sexual purity, thinking it to be archaic.

As a result, they take a few rounds on the carousel until they come to a point where they see that they will never just “fall into a marriage” with an Alpha by accidental fate, and they subsequently give up on pursuing this model. By this time, their MMV has depreciated so much, that they are forced to assume the Courtly Love model, in which they are able to exercise enough power over their relationships to make them come out the way they want (which is never exactly what they want). Unfortunately, they must sacrifice their holy Tingles in doing so, which transforms them into bitter, disrespectful shrews. Remember, Tingles = Respect.

Dependent Female + Submissive Male = The Courtly Love model

Modern women with real world sensibilities will say that there is no such thing as courtly love in today’s MMP. Contrary to their assertions, the courtship model endorsed by many churchian societies is basically a churched-up Courtly Love model. (This has been parodied by Dalrock for years.) In addition to the informally instituted Courtly Love model within the church, there are many men who willingly pursue and engage in the Courtly Love model, but these men tend to be those who are sexually invisible to these women, men who have no visceral power to induce the Tingle, and so these men don’t come up on their radar. This is partly because the MMP is presently converged with the SMP, and conservative, marriage minded men cannot compete with ravaging cads in this arena. Also, masculinity is persecuted, so there are very few men willing or able to step up their game. To reverse this sordid State of Affairs, parents (especially fathers) and social communities need to invest in and reward young men’s development of masculine traits.

It may also be possible that some women who chafe at the idea of submitting to a man, or who are determined to create a life of their own choosing, willingly embrace the Courtly Love model from the outset. Their reasons for doing so might be because of cultural norms, peer pressure, education, insecurity, a poor relational history characterized by a distrust of men, or merely due to the rebellious female sinful nature to usurp power from men.

Independent Female + Submissive Male = Feminism

Women who insist on Independence, and who want or expect their men to be compliant and accommodating, are basically feminists, or else, they’re into BDSM. The Feminist idea that men and women are “equal” is categorically rejected here as unrealistic.

If an independent woman can accept (or is forced to accept, due to her lower SMV) a more submissive man, she’ll have to shoulder the majority of responsibility for the relationship. This is not likely to sit well with most normal women. More liberated types might find the opportunity to be swinging with cuckolds.

Worst case scenario for men! Feminazi’s might try their d@mnest to destroy any visceral “weakness” – any emotional vulnerability which a presumably “evil man” might use to exert power over her. Women like this know they must necessarily dissipate their natural ability to Tingulate (= Respect a man) in order to solidify their grip on power. So they carelessly (or willingly) embrace the carousel (if her SMV is sufficient to allow the possibility) as an enjoyable way to destroy their innocence and vulnerability, gain social and sexual “experience”, and become a Strong Independent Woman™ (SIW). This is a wide and well-traveled road which prepares her to manage a weak, submissive, human ATM after her peak SMV years have passed, and she can no longer depend on suitors for material resources. Government welfare programs may provide a feline ridden alternative to this fate.

Independent Female + Dominant Male = Allyship*

Women who can attract a dominant man, but who wish to remain independent, basically have a choice between having Open Relationships with plate spinners, or being a rich man’s sugar baby. Prostitution may also be an option for those women with a high libido.

A formal marriage proposal is very unlikely to be offered here.

* Update (November 11, 2018): At the time of writing this post, I had not found a suitable label for this type of relationship. H/T to Dalrock for bringing the word “allyship” to my attention in his post, Do what she asks, but know in advance that she will take great care to protect herself from feeling gratitude. (October 16, 2018). In this post, a woman explains the behaviors of two different types of men, one a “mansplainer”, and the other an “ally”. This is an excellent example of an independent woman’s subjective assessments of men, based on their interaction. Remember, the interaction defines the relationship.

In the comments section, Spike argues,

“Allyship” is the legitimate word for the derogatory term, “White Knight “, or “mangina”.

I disagree with his claim that allyship = mangina, because the allied male in the cited story expresses dominance over the other mansplaining male in the interaction. This is actually the application of masculinity to support the woman’s prerogative, and although women seldom display gratitude for this, as Dalrock pointed out, women always find a rush of affirmation when male strength is used to pump her ego. White Knights, OTOH, demonstrate Chivalry, but not necessarily dominance. If you think about it, gratitude abuts humility, whereas ego stroking reinforces pride. So it’s implicitly incongruent or even contradictory to express gratitude for having the ego fluffed.


Women must work out a very complicated decision of whether to join with a man in a long term relationship, or else pursue an independent lifestyle. If a woman decides to have a male partner in any capacity, she must then choose which power structure she wishes to have in her relationship. According to this ontological model, the following conclusions have been obtained from this study.

  • Women may or may not be aware of it, but they choose the path they take in life, henceforth female agency is a primary factor in determining which life path she will embark.
  • There are many life factors that determine whether a woman chooses to accept a male partner in a LTR, or else to pursue independence.
  • A woman’s willingness to submit to a husband, and to be his companion, friend, and helper in life, is a critical factor in determining her life path. So if a woman desires to ever be in a committed, LTR with a man, then she must prepare herself accordingly. Earlier preparation in life is better, so as to take advantage of her peak SMV years to attract the best mate possible.
  • The Feminine Dilemma boils down to the simple choice, “To Tingle, or not to Tingle”, however this choice is confusing and difficult to execute. Women must also fight against their own rebellious sinful nature to usurp power from men. As a result, very few women can achieve a robust marriage characterized by Tingles and respect.
  • Women are expected to naturally prefer a Tingle-filled relationship in which they have little control. But since they are lacking overt control in this case, it is difficult for them to move towards a committed relationship. Female control must thereby be sublimated into a larger array of personal characteristics, and this generally takes the form of soft power. Females stand the best chance to achieve an ideal relationship if they develop their kinder, gentler forms of soft power.
  • Women tend to be blind to all relationship options that do not inspire the Tingles, and are strongly resistant to enter into those same relationships. If Tingles cannot be produced within a marriage, it spells a very difficult and unhappy union for both partners.
  • Because the Tingles are a central element for inducing women to effortlessly conform to God’s archetypical relational structure (i.e. respecting and submitting to their husbands), parents (especially fathers) and social communities (including churches) need to invest in the cultivation of young men’s development of masculine traits, such that they can harness the visceral power of invoking the Tingle tantrum in women. Young men also need to be informed of the powerlessness of women in the (preferred) Tingulated state, and should be held responsible for their actions.
  • Likewise, young women need to be educated and instructed how to develop qualities that are beneficial towards attracting a serious commitment from a man, including the development of soft power, and the preservation of their sexual purity. They also need to develop sufficient faith in God to be able to resist the temptation to usurp authority or rebel, and trust their husband’s (or father’s) headship, even when Tingles are not forthcoming.
  • Those women who desire companionship but who are adverse to the idea of submitting to a man, must continually grapple for power in the relationship. In the case where the man is willingly submissive to her, she will come to bear all responsibility for the relationship.
  • Those women who prefer more independence will fall into the Feminist category, which has little chance of yielding a quality Christian marriage.
  • Those women who choose to pursue an independent lifestyle, have no honorable options in the way of relationships, unless they remain chaste.


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Female Power, Hypergamy, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Perseverance, Relationships, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Strategy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to The Feminine Dilemma

  1. Lexet Blog says:

    Unable to comment more in depth this week, but several things popped into my mind: Voddie Bauchum recently said that its rare for him to come across a Christian man marrying an unbeliever, while all too often Christian women marry nonbelievers. He says it raises legitimate questions to their faith if they are willing to disobey and be unequally yoked.
    [SF: Obviously, such women are chasing after the Tingles as an easy way to conform to the Tingly Respect model, probably because she cannot find a Christian man who gives her the Tingles. She may also have the belief that this structure is more honoring to God.]

    Per respect models, I wonder if there is a way to develop subset categories.
    [SF: I think we’ll get to that eventually. What categories do you envision?]

    In the traditional RP understanding, the respect is something that is noticed immediately.

    However, as a man, I don’t give blanket respect. So for a woman to do so, it’s almost idealization (or idolization) of the man.

    A more genuine respect, in the traditional sense of the word, is something developed over time. I don’t see that taking place in the real world or being discussed online. Perhaps this form of more genuine respect is a beta characteristic, while the fear-based respect is an alpha characteristic.


  2. larryzb says:

    There are many contradictory impulses in women, and many women seem not to realize how they can work at cross purposes if they do not think their relationship goals through more thoroughly.

    The Christian churches are largely accommodating, if not actively supporting feminism. So we ought not be surprised that there is so much confusion and misunderstanding about what a Christian marriage is, and what it requires.


  3. “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

    I always disagreed with this.

    In the past, being a husband and father was itself worthy of respect. Society had propped up men via this model, and the vast majority of the population (90-95%) was for the most part married happy and/or satisfied. Once that was torn down, men and women are on a more equal playing field and by simply being male isn’t enough for women to look up to you.

    We can see this in God’s Design of marriage, especially the position of headship and of one man and one woman. Men are positioned as the head, with authority, and this is one of the things that assists (but does not cause) a wife in respecting her husband.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. ramman3000 says:

    Between patriarchy and egalitarian is complementarian, the balanced choice. Between “Tingly Respect” and “Courtly Love” is complementarian, the balanced choice. What’s missing? A balanced choice between “Help Meet” and “Independent”. In terms of patriarchy, “Help Meet” denotes servant help as opposed to team. Perhaps between “Help Meet” and “Independent” is “Egalitarian”, although that still doesn’t feel right…
    [SF:I do not agree. Women are either into having a serious relationship with a man, or else they are not. It also depends on what kind of men are available to them. This can be objectively measured by whether a woman in question is sexually involved with a man.]

    “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

    What is my point? I have a balanced marriage, one in which my wife and myself are “equally yoked” in the sense that we are both highly capable and neither one of us stands out. As you get to extremes (the corners of the chart), conflict and competition increase. For the biblical complementarian, the strategies are complementary. (This is completely separate from generalized conflict in marriage, which is an apples and oranges different kind of thing)

    What I really like about this chart is that it separates things that are explicitly anti-Christian (the right column) from the things that are just different ways of doing things (the left column). The mistake that Top-left authors, like Dalrock, make is to indiscriminately treat everything not top-left as evil.

    Deep Strength might disagree, but I think that it’s common for the strategy to succeed without compromise or abandonment on any of the left column options, not just the patriarchal model. The details of each particular pairing determine which block results in the least conflict.

    Or maybe I just completely misunderstand the point.


    • You’re right. I disagree.

      In terms of patriarchy, “Help Meet” denotes servant help as opposed to team. Perhaps between “Help Meet” and “Independent” is “Egalitarian”, although that still doesn’t feel right…

      Except that’s false. Ephesians 5 tells men to treat their wives as their own bodies 3 different times. Headship and Love is a horizontal relationship, while submission and respect is a vertical one.

      Patriarchy (husband led marriages and male led Churches) are based on the Scripture- the husband is to be the head and to love, while the wife is to submit and respect. The wife, as a helpmeet, is perfectly suited to submit and respect, but that does not mean that she is a “servant” given that a husband’s love should treat her like he treats himself.

      Per the words of Jesus to the Church, which husbands are to emulate to their wives.

      John 15:14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

      Anything aside from what the Bible says about marriage is anti-Christian and that includes (the practice of) complementarianism. Complementarianism, in theory, is supposed to be what the Bible says about marriage, but they went down the rabbit hole of agreeing with feminists and thus making the head into a figurehead with no authority.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Wayne says:

        DS, According to your diagram, and your description, there is a difference of perspective between the husband and wife. It seems that the husband should consider his wife to be “equal” to himself, but the wife should consider her husband to be her head, (i.e. not “equal”). Would you agree?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Wayne


        Those under authority are always told to submit and respect. Those in authority are always told to love and treat those under them well and/or with honor.

        That is what the Bible advocates if you look closely in all headship and authority relationships. This includes masters and slaves and also Christ-Christians. You can see that Paul always call himself a slave/bond-servant for Christ.


      • Wayne says:

        This explaination makes it crystal clear that it is evil for women to demand equality, especially if they apply threatpoints. Men have no use to demand equality, because the burden is on us to carry this attitude as an expression of love.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Wayne

        Also correct.


    • Wayne says:


      Your comments reveal that you are Complementarian, and I am thankful for your input. I did not cover Complementarianism in the OP, because of my lack of first-hand knowledge about it. The following comment will cover some of my musings about Complementarianism, and I hope you’ll feel free to clarify your stance, if you feel I am mistaken.

      I agree that each relationship is unique, but I also believe that a relationship having genuine male authority (e.g. the Tingly Respect model) better conforms to God’s archetype of marriage. This is also Dalrock’s and DS’s reasoning, but Dalrock dramatizes the rhetoric by labeling everything else “evil”. (I enjoy reading Dalrock’s amplified version, but I’m not sure if it works for my own blog. I’ve found that readers are rather serious minded and don’t catch my artful humor – which makes me look bad.)

      From what I have read elsewhere, I have gathered that Complementarians place an emphasis on “equality”, which I don’t believe is a practical reality. I can readily agree to the necessity of being “equally yoked” in terms of faith, capability, and even SMV, but not in terms of authority within a power-based ontology. We can’t have two managers, so to speak. DS’s image clearly illustrates that some aspects of the marital relationship resemble “equality”, while others definitely do not. In sum, the relationship is not as simply defined, as we might like to think.

      Judging by your comment, it seems that Complementarians have the primary goals of reaching “balance” (4), compromise (2), and reducing conflict (3) and competition (1) between the sexes. (Numbers indicate the number of times you used those words in your comment.) For example, you pointed out, “As you get to extremes (the corners of the chart), conflict and competition increase”, as if that were a bad thing. Granted, it is a very bad thing, if a man has a wife who wants to compete instead of submit. But therein lies the rub. Wives are called to submit, not compete. If husbands are stressed out about marital conflict and competition, then it is a sure sign that the wife is not obeying God’s command to submit.

      Reducing conflict and competition by avoiding questions of authority and not playing the power game might be possible with couples who are very emotionally mature and losing passion and libido (perhaps due to advanced age), but for younger, impulsive, inexperienced people who are dealing with these issues, prioritizing the argument that conflict is to be avoided above all else is not going to fly. (That’s why I think this argument is a red herring thrown to men by women trying to usurp authority.) For young people pursuing relationships and marriage, going through these issues of passion and authority, and learning how to deal with conflict, are a healthy experience necessary for personal growth. Women (and children) need to experience authority and have boundaries placed on them, in order for them to feel emotionally secure and loved.

      In all, it’s my gut feeling that the complementarian church is female-dominated, and the men are just going along with it, maybe for the sake of “peace”. (Again, obtaining peace would not be so much of an issue if the wives were truly submitting.) I suspect that these Complementary wives are looking for “the best of both worlds”. They want the benefits to females offered by Christianity, like for men to be men, husband’s to love their wives and to sacrifice themselves, and for men to be responsible for everything, but at the same time, the women can evade the call to submit and show respect for their husbands, while getting a seat at the table of authority. The women’s strategy seems to be, “If men don’t agree with us, or lead us the way we like, then we will create discord (and deny sex) until they do.” This is essentially rebellion.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “…you are Complementarian…my lack of first-hand knowledge about it…I hope you’ll feel free to clarify your stance, if you feel I am mistaken.

        I don’t speak for complementarians: I can only claim my opinions as my own and offer what flawed insights that I can. Historically complementarianism has often meant distinct gender roles and no women pastors, which is very much a patriarchal stance. For the past year I’ve been working on a detailed multi-post biblical discussion of the topic, but it isn’t done yet. So I’m taking some time to think over your thoughts and I’ll respond in detail when I can.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Wayne says:

        Every church is managed a little differently, and it might be possible that the most public mouthpieces of Complementarianism also just happen to be sympathetic to Feminist gynocentrism, which is rather the norm these days. In your essays, you may like to explore the possibility that Complementarianism is not necessarily a unique subset of Churchian Feminism, and vice versa. In other words, just because a church espouses Complementarianism may not necessarily mean that their doctrines are converged with Churchian heresies. I’m looking forward to reading your studies on this topic, as it would be somewhat of a RP Christian rebuttal to Dalrock’s criticism of Complementarianism – an approach which no one else has taken so far (to my knowledge).

        Liked by 1 person

      • larryzb says:

        We see the development of a dialectic here to sway future generations.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Biblical marital perspectives | Christianity and masculinity

  6. Pingback: The Feminine Typecasts of Men | Σ Frame

  7. Pingback: How much is Virginity worth? | Σ Frame

  8. Pingback: The proper and fitting way for women to infiltrate Male spaces | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: Courtship and Power | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: The need for Marriage Education | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: Why is premarital sex a sin? | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: Placing the Marriage Structures within the Archetypical Models | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Headship Restoration | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: More on Relational Archetypes | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Theories on Single Women in the Church | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: The Masculine Dilemma | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: The Relinquished Life | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Commonalities of Successful Marriages | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: YOLO = FOMO | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: The Feminine Christian Marriage Quadrilemma | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: No Mo Roe, No Mo Hoe! | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: On Clarifying a Christian Culture of Attraction | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s