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.

wedding 12

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.

man and woman on fence

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.

LibbyRobinson-NeekitaNabeel-ceremony-highres-168

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.” ~ 1st 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.

dead tortoise in vagina

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.

man woman arm wrestling-744x491

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.)

female scrutiny of male

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.

coverrelatii banner

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.

alan-and-megan_etorfkbx9mig

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.

man woman medieval sword fight

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.”

now i can get fat

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.

turtle on fencepost

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

This entry was posted in Churchianity, Courtship and Marriage, Organization and Structure, Relationships, Reviews and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Courtship and Power

  1. Ed Hurst says:

    In Western societies, a biblical model simply cannot exist. You either have to leave the Bible or leave Western society; they are impossible to reconcile. It is to some degree flatly illegal to pursue the biblical model.

    Like

  2. lastmod says:

    “While a man of character (the proverbial Alpha) may come across many “losses,” he will wage this battle nonetheless”

    Since when are Alphas deemed or considered “men of character”
    This is like when the church talks “social justice” and they have their meaning of it, but the wider world has a totally different meaning of it……and we can say “well, the church / chirstians are right and the world is wrong.” Okay, lets assume that is correct, what is the church doing to get this correct message out? Nothing. Absolute zero.

    Ask a woman what “Alpha man” means you’ll get a really different answer from what the red-pilled world thinks…..and most of those men are hardly alpha……talking tough and voting “trump” does make you one.

    And again, who coined this term??????? Yes, a feminist named Naomi Wolfe did. Shows again how alpha men are just pandering to what women want and then muscling it up with talk, and trying to out alpha anyone else.

    In my life (I am just about 50). I have met maybe two…..three men who would be “alpha” and they were not church guys nor were they military veterans. One was a christian and the other two were not. They inspired leadership, correction, gentle but effective rebuking, could listen, could explain, could make a tough decision and clearly let the men he was leading / inpsiring / teaching understand why he made that decision. Alpha in the ‘sphere means how many women are attracted to you, how many you f*cked before they got all “holy” on the rest of us, and mostly its just talk.

    Women think it means looks, looks, looks, money, looks…..and if you have a letter “D” for your political affiliation

    Alpha doesn’t mean and isn’t equal to “men of character” not by a long shot

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The red pill sphere tends to define alpha as characteristics leading to sexual conquests. I would say this is gynocentric thinking.

      From a masculine perspective, an alpha would be a man that commands the respect of others.

      A beta under any definition is not a man of character, because a beta has no backbone, and does not stand up for himself. Don’t confuse this with a man who engages in debauchery- they too lack character.

      Like

  3. lastmod says:

    The whole Christian sphere then is beta I would guess, because I have really zero respect for just about all the men there. They may think they “command” respect, they mostly do it if at all with snarky put-downs.

    So if a man stands up for himself, he is alpha????? And speaking of that, if every man should be an alpha and strive to this…….and everyone is an “amazing leader”

    who does the work, puts the tools away, and actually gets the job done???? Betas? Simps? Cucks? Chumps?

    One of my big problems with “christian manhood” so to speak was everyone claiming leadership and “commanding respect” and when it came time to get the job done…..none of them could do it unless they had some title as “leader”

    If everyone is a chief……..well I guess the meaning of alpha get muddled further.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Many men in churchianity are “beta”. They are pushovers, they are effeminate, they don’t challenge others and they don’t better themselves. They use prayer as a way to delay or prevent themselves from taking responsibility for decisions, and they are emotional.

      I can’t speak to your experience with church men, but I’m guessing they fit the description above.

      Does one have to be in charge of others to be respected? (No)

      As per every man being a leader – you lead your own life. Take responsibility. Initiative. Work hard.

      I don’t subscribe to the notion that being alpha means you have to be top 1% of men, and in the top of some hierarchy. (This is where I break away from circular red pill). This view is nihilistic, and assumes an evolutionary framework where us humans are just like animals. It’s also based on preliminary studies of wolf pack behavior, which has thoroughly been debunked by the initial author of the theory (wild wolf packs are family units)

      Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I want to explore this thought later: a lot of the effeminacy we see in churches today is the result of pride.

      Men are so concerned about what others think and might do that they don’t do or say anything at all. They don’t want to be wrong, they don’t want to be seen as bad, mean, or different. (Fear is also at play here).

      So they make excuses. “I didn’t feel led by the spirit” or “I felt peace about x,” or “I prayed about doing x, and nothing happened/I didn’t feel compelled to act.”

      They hide behind prayer to justify inaction.

      Example: it took the PCA over a decade to come up with a study on biblical gender roles. The result was dozens of pages of half baked nonsense that apologized for every claim it made.

      Another area where this happens is when people refuse to take a stand on certain bible issues, claiming that ecumenism on those issues is permitted because of Christian liberty and the issue not being primary. Nowhere in scripture are any distinctions made as to primary and secondary church issues.

      Churches were rebuked for their practices concerning the lords supper. Teachers were rebuked over circumcision. Those seem arbitrary to many modern Christians, but both are important to the gospel.

      Take the modern debate between infant baptism and credo baptism. Many claim the two can be reconciled, but in reality they cannot be. They rely on completely different gospels, they have a completely different view on what and who the church is, and they both interpret the Bible completely different.

      Like

  4. lastmod says:

    Okay…..that makes it a bit more clear, I see better now where you are coming from. 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 repsonsibility, 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 temperment 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”

    Even back in the “hey day” of post-war Americanism where men supposedly just “knew” from birth how to be a man by being born…..many were not leaders, nor exceptional in anything and yet most found a place in this world. Today it seems there is a ton of practice, mindset, books, books, books, posts, podcasts, leaders (christian or not) that one must read, master and implement in order to be considered an “alpha” like its earned, or a title that is bestowed. Who bestows this? By what right or standard? Other men? Even jesus mentioned somewhere that “he chose you” (John 15)

    Jesus didn’t use these terms like beta, cuck, or simp, or chump, or alpha in reference to men……..and there were men who were crippled, men of ordinary means who did turn the world upside down. Nor many who were not married (losers in todays church world…”if they just acted more alpha”). If any of the Twelve were met today by so called Alphas, they would indeed be labeled as cucks / betas in todays world and ‘sphere.

    I don’t like the term is the long of the short of it. You may say “well, lastmod…you don’t like it because you are not an alpha”

    No, 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.

    Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Scripture clearly defines masculinity, and rebukes men who abuse authority, refuse to act, and who are effeminate.

      Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        “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 repsonsibility, works hard, and has initiative…..”

        Yeah, this always confused me when I entered the manosphere. I never understood if I was (according to them) an alpha or a beta. I never really got a straight answer one way or the other. I don’t think there is a straight answer.

        “Scripture clearly masculinity, and rebukes men who abuse authority, refuse to act [..]”

        This is overly vague categorical thinking.

        Refusing to act is often an extremely wise decision. Jesus himself refused to act to defend himself and ultimately went to the cross. But previously he retreated from threatening crowds. Correctly determining when and how to act according to the context is itself wisdom.

        Similarly, Christian men are called to submit to each other. This, necessarily, involves varying and sometimes unclear levels of authority. When to act as a group as part of a congregation and when to act alone (under Christ’s direction) is a thing that requires wisdom.

        Lastly, Scripture’s definition of masculinity aside, it is not clear what you mean by masculinity and whether those two should be conflated.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        What is the primary thing you submit to? God and his authority. If you are contradicting that to submit to someone else we have a problem.

        I don’t know why that has to be spelled out.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        “What is the primary thing you submit to? God and his authority. If you are contradicting that to submit to someone else we have a problem. I don’t know why that has to be spelled out.”

        What are you talking about? If this is meant to address my comment, I fail to see how. I didn’t argue anything to which this comment might apply. It appears to be a complete non-sequitur.

        Are you saying that Scriptural masculinity is defined as submission to God’s authority?

        Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I can’t imagine any of the apostles being called cucks in the modern church. If they came back they would be rebuking left and right, and calling everyone heretics.

      Like

  5. lastmod says:

    Jesus wept. Pretty effeminate right there. Knew a decent pastor who at times would break down on the pulpit over unrepentant sin right in his congregation. Effeminate?
    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 bey 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. What of the handicapped (that god made as well in his image? these men are not taking action?)

    I do find this interesting. I am not trolling you btw

    Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Christ flipped tables and whipped people. He has said he will literally slaughter most of the earth on the day of the lord. He will punish evil doers for eternity.

      Don’t ever confuse meekness for weakness.

      The men of today are weak. They have no capability to act aggressively.

      Like

  6. lastmod says:

    I can imagine them being called cucks in the comments section on Dalrocks blog. That’s a given

    Like

  7. lastmod says:

    He flipped tables……yes he did. All jesus did was to please the father. Everything. Nothing to please men. It wasn’t an aggressive “show” to other men to put them in line, or make them want to follow him. It was done out of anger to his father, and his house.

    Acting aggressively in todays world is hailed as being bold, or speaking off the cuff, or being real…..when for the most part that’s all it is. Talk. What does being aggressive get you? Well, if you are deemed “alpha” it probably gets you a tad bit of respect out of FEAR. (yes men in companies, in church, on a blog). If you are not an alpha, you still get laughed out of the room, sent to an HR office and fellow men throwing you under a bus “better them than me” attitude.

    Or is it being able to take or throw a punch? A license of a weapon, and how to use it? Owning a truck?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. lastmod says:

    Ummmmm……no. Because according to men…..I am a beta, cuck, loser, simp, chump…..even when I was a man of faith and around people who supposedly “loved” me. I spoke up, well, it was “you need to read / pray / what jesus really meant or said / the greek word for this or that means actually this”

    Goalposts moved.

    I turned my life around. Lots of hard work. I am the only one left in my immediate family. Brother, parents gone. I have questions. I know plenty of men out there in the world do have the same questions as I do about this. If you are going to say “It’s in scripture, its clear”

    and “jesus was aggressive, he overturned tables”

    does that give me permission to do that in a church? No. And you, nor anyone in the christian sphere has done that during a sermon.

    Being “alpha” isn’t the thing that is attractive to women. Acting it as well (most men are indeed just that). If manhood is defined by dating and getting a wife, or being a father……well, even the pagans and the agnostics / atheists are doing much better than your average 25 year old churchman today.

    Like

  9. lastmod says:

    Who in the man-o-sphere is submitting to God’s authority????????????????? None. Maybe a few are striving to that but never saw one act of Christian charity or submission in the man-o-sphere. Saw a lot of putting other men down, really impolite words used about women, calling fellow believers cucks and comments full of words, phrases, classifications, terms that jesus never used, words I never heard used in a church…….and shifting streams and goalposts of what is manhood, v natural alpha v purple pill v this model and that modewl v this word in greek v that word in Hebrew….

    It was like Athens in Pauls’s time……problem is not the thinking I suppose but the staggering intellectualism and advice given that 99% of the men themselves didn’t follow….and it was ALWAYS to get a wife, date, girlfriend….not “submitting to God’s authority”

    And they were all used up carousel riders anyway……so most men (chirstian or not) are indeed going to be single and “burn with passion”

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “terms that jesus never used, words I never heard used in a church [..] this word in greek v that word in Hebrew”

      You can’t complain about the former if you reject the latter. Moreover, Christians have been discussing Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words for nearly two thousand years. You can’t know what words Jesus used if you don’t know what words Jesus used. This isn’t to say that everyone should be concerned with biblical scholarship, but some of us should be.

      Like

  10. lastmod says:

    I most certainly can complain if I reject the latter…….

    Why then have Bible studies? If words translated from these two languages…..one being a dead on (Aramaic) and the other being Greek which like English has modified, grown and changed over the centuries as well. The Greek of 34 AD is not the same as the Greek of 1998 AD

    Why have church if the translation boils down to is “well, you have to know Greek and Aramaic” So is now being Alpha in 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 femimism back in 967 AD or whatever.

    I speak an ancient language from the British Isles. Fluently. I still have a challenge of reading it and decoding syntax structure when speaking at times. For example, you can use the word “dog” in a sentence. But how its spelled, and placed in the sentence can and does differ. Is the dog a pet, is it sleeping by the hearth? What is it doing? Hence Welsh and its beauty in poetic writing……but speaking and using it can and does massive confusion at times. Hence also why it is indeed a useless language on the world stage (though the Welsh will claim how simple it is). Even Welsh has local accents and nuances in a small place like Wales.

    Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      It seems your problems transcend the subject of this post.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ramman3000 says:

      I’m sorry you wrote so many words in defense of your statement. You could have stopped after this:

      “Why then have Bible studies? [..] Why have church if the translation boils down to is “well, you have to know Greek and Aramaic””

      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. But some people are not content following, and this leads to complaints:

      “I most certainly can complain if I reject the latter…….”

      If you are complaining about “terms that jesus never used” or “words I never heard used in a church”, you necessarily must be in the realm of scholarship. Only scholarship can answer questions about what terms Jesus actually used. You can, by all means, choose an interpretation you prefer, but all you are doing is choosing which scholars you agree with.

      It is intellectually dishonest to complain about “terms that jesus never used” and “words I never heard used in a church” while simultaneously rejecting the need for scholarship. You can’t have it both ways.

      Like

  11. lastmod says:

    I followed Derek, and was always wrong, frankly and bluntly told I was. I began to fully see the church and christianity like a ‘caste system’ that was about keeping the proles quiet, and if something changed…..and to look stupid for not knowing the difference “you should have studied the bible!!!”

    My first comment was about “alpha” and the context it was used or what was deemed one. Wasn’t given a clear answer and now I am intellectually dishonest, have other problems….

    Fine. Any point I bring up, will be scoffed at. Hence why men don’t want anything to do with this faith. Schemas and words, and context and shifting the rules don’t help.

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “was always wrong [..] and bluntly told I was”

      I often agree with you and you often bluntly criticize me. Thus this…

      “Any point I bring up, will be scoffed at. Hence why men don’t want anything to do with this faith. “

      …is an unwarranted overreaction to normal differences of opinion. If ‘faith’ means men holding to reason and being willing to defend arguments, then I’ll embrace it over and over again. If you want a quiet, simple faith that doesn’t challenge your preconceived ideas, you’ll need to look elsewhere.

      Yes, I’m blunt. Yes, I call it as I see it. Yes, I’ll point out errors in your reasoning. You know by now that I’m not going to treat you with kid gloves, but I don’t scoff. It is just my tone and it has no higher meaning. I respect you a lot. I implore you to accept this and move on—complaining serves no purpose.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

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

        Like

  12. lastmod says:

    “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

    Like

  13. lastmod says:

    Lol…okay Lexet…I’ll give a proper answer:

    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 you 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!

    -end 😉

    Like

  14. Pingback: A Response to Jason’s Comments | Σ Frame

  15. Paul says:

    Interesting discussion points, lastmod.

    I agree that the Man-o-sphere is a large collection of men of different backgrounds. I’ve learned a lot on sexual (=male/female) dynamics, mainly driven by biology, but also by spiritual rebellion against God. I don’t adhere to evolutionism, but believe in God’s creation, so many of the evolutionistic remarks I just ignore. Same for all the unchristian focus on ‘getting laid’, either by your wife or in fornication.

    A small group of Christian men is trying to find out how this all translates into the Christian worldview. To be honest, Christianity is divided, false teachers are everywhere, and we all know many churches even follow feminism. Are all things hopeless? Of course not, God is calling men to rediscover now hidden truths. It is however a battle, especially within the church. To wage this war men have different talents, gifts, and roles, that’s to be expected. So we need to share experiences, discuss with each other, and grow in understanding, and then take action. But foremost, it is about obeying God as supreme Commander. And struggling with those who don’t.

    As for reading your bible; again I have no simple answers, but can only tell that the Holy Spirit has given different spiritual gifts. one of which is that of teaching, to instruct Christians on the correct way of living. Not all of us should need to study Greek and Aramaic. I do believe that God is still calling true believers and will guide them by His Spirit. We also do know that if you miss knowledge, God will judge you less severe than those with knowledge. You should rely on prayer and devotion to God. Read or listen to the gospels, especially the parables, they already will tell you a lot you need to know. John 15 tells you: stay ‘in’ Christ by obeying His commands. Repent of your sins before God and stop doing them. Take up your cross, die to yourself, and follow Christ. It will involve suffering. Find like-minded people who are determined to live this life, and fellowship with them. Put your trust fully in Christ in everything. Cling to Him. Always pray.

    The apostle Paul in his letters several times calls Christian to follow his example and his interpretation of Scripture. Be ware of people who easily dismiss Paul’s commands. You cannot go that wrong by starting with a literal reading of the texts, especially Paul’s commands. Many (false) churches will devote themselves to either ignoring or denying these.

    Ask yourself: what part of “submit to your husband in everything” is difficult for men or women to understand? Or “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.”? Or: “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.”? Now observe which men and women are ignoring or denying these commands, mark them, and beware of them.

    Your goal is not marriage, nor your wife, your goal is to follow and obey God.
    “Be alert, stand firm in the faith, act like a man, be strong.” 1Co16:13

    Liked by 1 person

  16. lastmod says:

    “Your goal is not marriage, nor your wife, your goal is to follow and obey God.”

    So why did you get married? God “told” you to get married? Well, he told me too…and it didn’t happen…so god lied? No, I’ll tell you the answer. You wanted sex, you pursued a woman and got it. Lucky guy

    Like

  17. Pingback: On the Significance and Value of the Meet Cute Experience | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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