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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Learning through Feedback Loops

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback Loop

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trajectory of the Learning Curve

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

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

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

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

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


The Trajectory of the Life Curve

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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, Courtship and Marriage, Discernment, Wisdom, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Purpose, Relationships, Self-Concept, Society, Strategy, Vetting Women and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Trajectories

  1. caterpillar345 says:

    Great summary, Jack!

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Sharkly says:

    Jack says: That means, even a low SMV man could find a low(er) SMV woman that would go crazy for him, and who would pose a viable opportunity for a marriage.

    But is that really how that works now? Lower SMV woman was offering free sex while riding the cock carousel. Often a man with much higher SMV would go dumpster-diving and say the right things to pick her up for a quick and easy fuck. He might even fuck her a few more times because she’s easy and available, all the while leading her on, as though she has a shot with him. So maybe she got fucked by an attractive alpha male, or a handful of them, and now believes she almost had the ones that got away. Now she is an “alpha widow” she believes she can land a real hunk, because she almost did(in her mind) and she doesn’t want to settle for less. She will be encouraged by society, by church, by movies, and fairy tales to hold out for “Chad” until her biological clock has wound down to her last three eggs.(and they’re named Moe, Larry, & Curly) Then she will either get cats, or finally stoop to settling for a man just slightly above her level and take out her disappointment on him for the rest of their marriage.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      And so it goes with the foolish dregs of society who have offered the manosphere the best examples of the worst case scenario. As Dark Brightness would say, “Do not be them. Do not be like them.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Social media exacerbated the situation, and made it worse for men. We have all seen the ok Cupid chart on attractiveness.

      Combine excessive internet attention from men who wouldn’t be in their orbit otherwise + loose morals of this generation + the “you go girl” message being sent to women, telling them they can hold out and wait for Prince Charming = a pretty bad situation unique to our time.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Sharkly says:

    To put it crudely: I don’t think the men in the bottom 35% of sexual market value are going to get a second glance from most of the women in the bottom 35%, so long as when they spread their legs and holler for Chad, they can usually lure a man who is at least somewhere in the top 50% to come plant his seed in their baby maker. They don’t ever have to settle at the sex market. They can always mate well above their level. It is a counterintuitive concept to women that settling to get married while young, might be in their best interest.


    • Jack says:

      Fortunately, there is a segment of the younger generation who are starting to wise up to the narrative, and who are looking for viable alternatives. To them I say, stay tuned and do your vetting carefully.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Scott says:

    Just real quick (and I haven’t forgotten about my promise to caterpillar345 either) I will come back later.

    However, it occurred to me while reading this that I give a lot of advice to garden variety depressed people about feedback loops that has nothing to do with sex, or attraction or finding a girlfriend or whatever. And I think that helps with peoples general attractiveness (platonic/asexual). In turn, I would imagine that also helps as a second or third effect with the latter.

    Let me explain. Depressed people have a feedback loop problem, more than anyone else. The avolitional/lethargic/anhedonic features of the disorder cause them to essentially stay inside all day. Its like this:

    “I don’t feel like getting up/going out and doing the things I usually like to do/etc” —-> when I don’t go outside and enjoy the things I usually enjoy, my job, interact with people I reduce the chance of receiving positive feedback (and endorphins) that make me feel good” — “I know I should get up off my ass and go do things” —-> but I don’t want to/fee like it” (And we are back to the beginning of the feedback loop)

    Depression has a spiraling effect, in that the longer it goes on, the progression of symptoms is somewhat predictable. The last things that tend to go are sex drive, self care, suicide. If you get to that point, you are in trouble. And the shitty thing is, the only way to get out of that downward spiral is decide to stop it, and reverse it by doing something other than sitting in your house and not getting feedback loops. You break the cycle. (Meds will take the edge off the worst of the symptoms, but they do not make the underlying negative feedback loop go away.) Because as soon as you DO get a positive feedback loop, you have done step one of reversing the spirial–you get endorphins and positive reinforcement and consequently, feel like getting more.

    Also, it sneaks up on you. Most people don’t detect that they are depressed until they are several days/weeks into the negative feedback loop,making the heavy lifting even harder.

    Note: I won’t go into the nature side of this. Everyone knows by now I believe there is a HEAVY genetic load to these things. But I also believe we have a moral obligation to help others help themselves.

    I think that if guys who struggle with confidence and what not are at least in part caught in a negative feedback loop and have become hyper-focused on the “meeting women” part. I would try this–

    Go out today and DO NOT THINK about this. Instead, walk up to the counter at whatever store/business/errands you are running and compliment whomever is being the counter. Make an affirmative plan to do that. If its a 600 pound fat dude, a little old lady or a smoking hot 9 say something nice to them. Look right in their eye and say it and wait for them to respond to your comment.

    I do this ALL THE TIME when I am having a shitty day and it works to reverse the feedback that got me to that point.

    “You’ve got the best smile I have seen all day.”

    Whatever. Do it with sincerity. Mean it. I’d be interested in hearing a field report from anyone reading.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. thedeti says:

    The problem is not that Women are LIke That (they are, and always have been).

    The problem is that society has empowered women to be like that. The problem is that, at women’s behest and demand, society and culture have codified AFBB and serial monogamy (women’s preferred sexual strategies) as the default paradigm and prevailing model in which sex, dating, mating, coupling, marriage, and family formation take place. If you interact with the opposite sex in the English-speaking West in the late 20th/early 21st century, that’s how you do it – AFBB, serial monogamy, “hookup”.

    It’s sex, date, decide if you want it to be more, most times you don’t so you go back to find the next person to have sex with. Then when if you find one you want to be more with, you date, become exclusive, have more sex, maybe have a kid if you’re not very smart, then the relationship degrades, then you break up.

    Then you return to step one – sex, date, decide if you want to be more…..

    That’s how it’s done now. Even Christian women are doing it this way. Most Christian women are having sex with their boyfriends, or have had sex before. Even the vast majority of Christian women have Ns.

    Just how it is. Just is so.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Oh come on @thedeti, you know they aren’t having sex. It’s called “having fun” now.

      There is no sexual ethic in the Protestant church at large. The churches that have some form of ethic are an extreme minority. Of those, nearly all raise women who are thots.

      Very few are decent, but they still dress promiscuously, and have cognitive dissonance with in church/out in the world behavior.

      I’m sure some father may come across this and get defensive about his wonderful christian daughter.

      I ask: did you raise your daughter to be a godly woman and future spouse, or did you raise her to go to college, to have a career, and to be a tough independent person, and be the son you never had?

      I have been in churches across this country: liberal, conservative, ultra strict, etc. The number of families who have raised daughters to actually be women: I can count on one hand.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “The problem is that society has empowered women to be like that. ”

      Yep, women are now free to be at their very worst 24/7, and basically no one is allowed to say boo to them without risking social and economic annihilation.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Scott says:

    For those who are interested in this project. I have a life outside of blogging about chicks.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Scott says:

    I should have pointed this out earlier but using the ballistic trajectory analogy is very manly/creative of you.

    Here’s the thing. Over these last now three posts, the problem of the target behavior/outcome at the end of that trajectory continues to plague the discussion.

    Psychology has this same problem, in my opinion because at some point my professional colleagues decided to hitch their wagon to the LGBTQIXUZ Pandora’s box. In doing so, they literally cannot regard any developmental outcome as ideal or disordered.

    And it occurs to me that incels, commonly disparaged as basement dwelling neck beards should be relentlessly pointing this out. Carve out your place at table it freaks! It’s just another possible outcome along many equally valid ones. Who are we to judge? A man who developed into a risk calculating, accountable, hard working heterosexual husband and father who his family looks up to is no more valid that playing video games in your parents basement when you are 30.

    Peak subjectivity knows no bounds. (And truth be told I don’t give a shit.)

    The Deti runs into this when he explains that hedonic marriage IS HERE TO STAY so it doesn’t matter how much Derek drones on about the technical elements of what makes a marriage valid in Gods eyes. These are two different subjects.

    So what is the target behavior? Work backwards from there and try to find where that trajectory started and you should not be surprised that I don’t sit around and flog myself in perpetual guilt over having what was, at the time, a totally normative trajectory to my arrival point.

    Sure it was sinful, I learned from it and I am trying to help my kids navigate differently. Those who pretend that Christians can ever truly be above or somehow outside the culture are fooling no one but themselves. The question is, can you glorify Christ in this culture or not?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “I should have pointed this out earlier but using the ballistic trajectory analogy is very manly/creative of you.”

      Thanks Scott!
      I’m not sure if many readers have noticed, but in some posts, I select images that either supplement the text, or tell a pictoral narrative in their own right. The most recent post that had this creative touch was Lexet’s piece, Courtship and Power (2020/2/17).
      In this post, the tortoise/turtle was used as a running theme containing ideas distantly related to the essay.
      1. In Mandarin Chinese, a cuckold is called a tortoise (烏龜). This establishes the identity of the tortoise in the theme.
      2. A news headline that reads, “Woman on vacation finds dead tortoise in her vagina”. This is literally hilarious and it’s an indicative reveal of womens’ sexual nature.
      3. When (2) is superposed with point (1), it takes on a symbolic meaning, especially the adjective “dead”.
      4. At the end of the post, there is another image of a turtle on a fencepost, signifying cruelty, treachery, helplessness, and injustice. (It didn’t get there by itself.)
      5. Taken together, all these offer a humorous description of the typical Western man’s plight.


  8. Scott says:

    Also, at the risk of sparking a religious/theological debate, the moral chasm between myself and those who can, with a straight face, compare Sauls murderous rampage with poorly formed Christians having consensual sex with each other over a serially monogamous life path is enormous and frankly impossible to bridge.


    • Sharkly says:

      Perhaps you missed my point. Saul’s murder was no more the instrument of his salvation, than Roosh’s fornication was necessary for his salvation. Plenty of people get saved without committing murder or fornication, so neither of those capital sins, or any other particular sin is necessary for someone to be saved from their sins. To claim that your fornication, or some other particular sin, was necessary for your salvation, justifies that sin as being a redemptive necessity. Again, I feel you should be less self-justifying of your fornication and show more perceptibly real repentance. And I don’t want that to humiliate you, but for your own benefit, and the good of others.


    • Jack says:

      Saul’s trajectory was along the legalistic (older brother’s) path, (vertical-ish in the graph). Roosh’s trajectory was along the hedonistic (younger brother’s) path, which is horizontal-ish in the graph. I was more vertical than horizontal, but not as much as Saul. Scott was more horizontal than vertical, but not as much as Roosh.

      I labeled each trajectory with a name to make the analogy clearer.
      To take the analogy further, I’ll point out that Saul and Roosh never married. Jack and Scott married after a messy past. Derek had a stable marriage right out of high school.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Scott says:

    both of those capital sins

    That’s where I stop reading.


  10. Scott says:

    If you really believe that the situation I repented from (about a million times in different forums) is worthy of the death penalty, that’s cool. Its a free country. You understand it’s a little off putting though, right?

    You may have better luck with those views starting a secret off the grid commune run by super high testosterone guys with huge c0cks and thick beards where they put fornicators to death.

    Meanwhile, back here in Normalville, I would like to help men who have grown up in the same debauched culture I did, with the same predicable results maybe figure out some creative ways to dig out of the hole they are in — in relation to God, women, and everything else that doesn’t require constantly grovelling for forgiveness decades after they have been forgiven.


    • Sharkly says:

      Scott, there’s no reason to keep resorting to the histrionic strawman.
      I didn’t ask you to grovel for the gift of forgiveness, free to us, but at the cost of Jesus blood. Although you say you have repented online a million times, I’m still sensing you justifying your fornication as though it were, not that bad, necessary or helpful for maturity, a step on your path to salvation, Etc. Your own church does not hold those views, I just checked.
      Even a repentant Roosh V has this as the first rule on his forum:
      1. Do not talk about pre-marital sexual activity.
      While I think we can and should talk about it, as Christians, we should talk responsibly.
      We should not give off the false impression that fornication is not a capital sin. LOL I put “capital sin” in bold since you liked that phrase. I’m not the One who made that rule. God made sex, and God made adultery and most fornication capital sins. We would do well to heed and share God’s concern regarding these grave offences. If fornication and adultery were no big deal, then you could count me in, because I’m a sinner, I might as well do the fun ones. But as administers of the gospel, we need to grow to be grave men, and be careful not to tacitly excuse our own failures.

      Question: Since you want to fix our immoral culture and marriage 2.0, if steps towards the solution were having the culture shame the sexually immoral, or even executing the sexually immoral in keeping with God’s revealed law, would you give up your pride, or even your life, so that future generations could have a more godly society?

      I don’t want to live in Normalville, Muh bearded commune sounds more appealing.

      I just don’t think you’re going to have much success against sexual immorality without teaching men a grave fear of God and a corresponding desire to flee from great evil, that will outweigh a young man’s sex drive. We can’t rely on the morality of women to shepherd us to a better society. LOL We have to do and say the things that can lead back to God, not just teach how to get along and go along with society as it continues to devolve. We do need to attempt to come out from among them and be separate, according to God. Perhaps Montana or Wyoming. Your own bearded commune ain’t too bad my brother.


  11. Scott says:

    I am always amused by the bravado of anonymous bloggers and posters.

    For the third time now, you have indicated that my repentance is insufficient, or disingenuous or somehow or another not real enough (for you). I have tried to be subtle about my response to that, but that apparently doesn’t work.

    I cannot think of a number that exists in nature that can quantify how little I care what you or any other person, not willing to confront me with their real name, not in communion with me, thinks about my sin. Maybe that drives it home.

    Sin has two axes. The vertical and the horizontal. I have either made my peace with God (vertical) or I have not. It has nothing to do with the public at large. I have also either made my peace with the people directly affected by promiscuity (horizontal) or I have not. Again, a blog is the last place I am going to get into that.

    Think of “crazy, cooky, way outside the norm ideas” as existing on a spectrum of one to ten. Donald Trumps civic nationalism, for example is somewhere around a 3 on that scale. I have here, and many other places found myself somewhere around a 9.9, while simultaneously putting my psychologists license on the line. The only way I can make a living and take care of my wife and four small children. WHen you are ready to advocate for killing people who had premarital sex because texts from the Pentateuch for ancient Israel say so, and do it with some actual skin in the game, let me know. I’ll keep pushing the envelope as myself, and taking huge risks in doing so.

    Am I willing to die so future Christians can have a more “godly” society? Its a loaded question and will it never happen, but no. I am not called to sainthood or martyrdom. I have a family to feed. I would no more place myself in that kind of a bind than I would rob a liquor store. There is almost nothing worth leaving my children without a father. I have a much longer game approach to these problems, like centuries long. What I hope we are doing today is a baby step toward something none of us will live to see.

    You want a hard reset? You go first.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      Scott, I’m sorry, in that I don’t mean to upset you. Perhaps I have not written clearly enough. It is often hard to communicate in written format. I’m not trying to say that you are unforgiven, or that I know your personal deal with God. What I am speaking against is glorifying or justifying sins, or downplaying their severity, significance, and giving the impression that they are not grave misdeeds here in public. I think you would do better to make sure others were not left unconvinced that you actually see your past failures as failures and not developmental accomplishments. You could have a “meet-cute” and be validated without progressing to fornication, and fornication should be excised from any part of Christian development.

      I’m glad you do put your career on the line to stand up against the decline. I too have put my career on the line numerous times, and been threatened, fired, persecuted, and such for exercising my own integrity. I’m not sure why my name is important, but I have commented on your blog before, and my real name is the name in my email address, if you want my name.

      FWIW, Most martyrs probably didn’t feel called to be martyrs. But God chooses who He calls to be a martyr, and when.

      “I have a much longer game approach to these problems, like centuries long. What I hope we are doing today is a baby step toward something none of us will live to see.”

      That’s actually not too far off of my own perspective. We’ve been coming unmoored from Biblical truth regarding the sexes for over 1600 years, and it won’t be fixed immediately until Jesus appears. However, like Martin Luther, some folks have to take big steps and risk their lives to get the masses to take the baby steps.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Sharkly says:

    I put up a post triggered by thoughts I had while reading here.
    Laughing at Feminism: Virgin Imprinting (2020-3-1)

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Scott says:

    If anyone is interested I’ll be on Rich Coopers “Before the Trainwreck” YouTube podcast tomorrow at 6pm mountain time.

    We will be discussing the hyper influence blue pill has on military culture, especially marriage in the military

    Liked by 2 people

  14. ramman3000 says:

    Previously, Jack said:

    “I think what Scott means is that all choices, good and bad, have some benefits and some setbacks, or “costs of opportunity” – some carnal, some social, some spiritual. It’s just a question of whether it is taking you to where you need to be in life, and whether it serves God’s purposes for your life.”

    This is grievously incorrect and has since been doubled-down upon in a couple comments, despite Sharkly’s multiple attempts to correct it:

    “I’m still sensing you justifying your fornications as though it were, not that bad, necessary or helpful for maturity, a step on your path to salvation [..] What I am speaking against is glorifying or justifying sins, or downplaying their severity, significance, and giving the impression that they are not grave misdeeds here in public.”

    It’s not about any choices, but the choice to sin. Most choices are amoral. It’s not about guilt and repentance either, for that is between God and the people sinned against. Rather, it is treating sins as badges of honor or beneficial learning experiences. Paul explicitly discussed this in Romans 6:

    “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! ]..] Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! [..] When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death!”

    What benefit did you reap from your sins? Nothing! The old life of sin is garbage to be completely replaced (Philippians 3:8; Ephesians 4:22-24). Sin does not benefit you. It is not part of God’s journey or purpose for your life. It does not mature you, nor serve God. God uses you in spite of sin, not because of it. In all cases you are worse off for having sinned than for not having sinned. Thus Roosh’s stance:

    “Do not talk about pre-marital sexual activity.”

    But surely I’ve missed the point! Surely you can learn from your experiences, right? The lesson you learn when you repent from sin is to realize how damaging it was and to never do it again. You can even serve as a warning to others. If you learn anything, it is from the turning away from sin, not the sin itself.

    Sin wounds you. Though you be healed (Isaiah 53:5) and washed clean (Psalm 51:7), sin leaves permanent scars. This is especially true of sexual sins, many of which, in the Bible, are treated just as severely as murder. There should be no need for a theological debate because it is so obvious and clear. FWIW, I checked Scott’s denomination’s stance and, like the Anabaptists, divorce (regardless of fault) and remarriage disqualifies one from the priesthood.

    So, while your purpose…

    “I would like to help men who have grown up in the same debauched culture I did, with the same predicable results maybe figure out some creative ways to dig out of the hole they are in — in relation to God, women, and everything else that doesn’t require constantly grovelling for forgiveness decades after they have been forgiven.”

    …is one we all share, we can’t hit the target without always acknowledging the very real severity and consequences of sin. We should not be moral utilitarians: it is no excuse that ‘hedonic marriage is here to stay‘ or the path is ‘a totally normative trajectory‘. The goal is great marriage for young men, yes, but even heathens have achieved great marriages. Sharkly stated it well:

    “I just don’t think you’re going to have much success against sexual immorality without teaching men a grave fear of God and a corresponding desire to flee from great evil, that will outweigh a young man’s sex drive.”

    This isn’t just an esoteric or technical point. What is the target here? Is this forum just another self-help forum that pays lip service to God’s tenets? If so, then I want no part of it. If it is a forum that combines an unflinching embrace of biblical precepts with real practical help, then I want to be a part of that.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. JPF says:

    Sharkly writes God made adultery and most fornication capital sins

    Adultery: Agreed.
    Fornication: If you mean sex between two people who are both unmarried and also not closely related through blood/marriage, this is completely false. Even for prostitutes, I recall no penalty even mentioned in God’s law, unless the prostitution was religious (temple prostitutes) or being done by the daughter of a priest (possibly for the same idea of avoiding religious prostitution). Yes, Christ-followers have additional commands given to them, such as this passage from 1 Cor 6:15: Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
    And yes, prostitution by a married woman is obviously adultery. The capital sin there is the adultery, not the prostitution however.
    Please give the reference for any passage where unmarried sex carries the death penalty. And no, I am not advocating this type of behaviour; just think we should not be adding our own rules to Scripture; see Matt 23.


  16. lastmod says:

    My whole take on this is:

    If i made the video “meet cute” and mentioned that never happened to me and why in the same concise and conversational way Scott did. The barrage of comments would have been: looks dont matter / just be alpha / just shower / move out of moms basement / read Roosh’s book / read this book / learn “game” / you’re a quitter / you supplicate to women / just go workout / learn manly hobbies like restoring 1960’s muscle cars and being a Navy Seal / just be a boss / stop being a beta / just walk right up and talk to women

    I could list a thousand more comments. The point again is that Scott said this hence “he will be listened to”

    And the funny thing is….the comments and post deal more with his past sexual history (again we all know women just cannot resist him and no man can do what he does) than the actual content of what he said.

    What of men who don’t meet cute??????

    Its a good question and coming from him addressing this does not legitimize the incels bad attitude nor does it excuse a lazy man who does indeed live at home at the age of 30. But he brings up a legitimate topic and very hard question that is affecting more and more men who indeed are not some supplicanting women worshipers.

    Anyone else (like myself) would be labeled bitter and banned from forums.

    Hopefully this problem at least could be pondered. I dont really think there is a solution for men like this over the age of 35.

    If the church and the faith indeed needs them????? What are they to do? Just burn? Just be told “christianity is suffering” while hearing the boasting of how they all met cute and you didn’t. Tuff breaks.

    Sadly many if these men who are not mouth breathers are just going to have to find sonething to do where they are needed and at least wanted in fellowship…….and from what i have witnessed church, jesus, god are the last place they are wanted.

    It in many cases its coming directly from the men who claim to have the solutions for them.

    Someone like Roosh was worshipped in the christain sphere while he was living a sinful life. Now that he is reformed he’ll still be pushed by the likes of just about all of you as a “witness to the power of god”

    While the man who never met cute….toils in church. Burns. Is told “god has this plan for your life” wonders what it is.

    Did Scott or Jack or Derek know what gods plan for them was at 19?? Do they know his plan for them in the next five years????? Why then is this fobbed off on men who never “met cute” as the solution for them at 34, 40, 48, or 29



    • Jack says:

      @ Jason (lastmod),

      “Did Scott or Jack or Derek know what God’s plan for them was at 19??”

      I knew that I needed to be married and have a family when I was 14, and I took this quite seriously, maybe too seriously. I had Meet Cutes at that age too, but I naively dismissed them as crazy girls. I expected to marry by the age of 24, but things didn’t go as I expected. (I didn’t marry until I was 33.)
      If I had recognized those Meet Cutes as being potential wives, then maybe I could have married at the age I expected. On the other hand, I have no assurance at all that if I had married a crazy Meet Cute right out of high school, then things would have turned out well. Look at Scott’s example. His first marriage was to a crazy Meet Cute who later divorced him.

      “Do they know His plan for them in the next five years?????”

      Since I was 14, I always believed it was God’s will for me to be married. But the task of knowing and doing God’s will is a very tricky enterprise that has become an extreme, reality-show-quality challenge in the modern MMP. I could blame the $#!tty MMP for this, but not really, because that’s a lazy cop-out. The goal is to do God’s will in spite of the obstacles. A lot of my writing is done in an effort to help other men avoid the errors of omission that I have made. Lately, I have come to recognize that this blogging endeavor is part of God’s will for my life. (See 2nd Corinthians 1:3-4, and 1st Thessalonians 5:11.)

      “Why then is this fobbed off on men who never “met cute” as the solution for them at 34, 40, 48, or 29?”

      Scott’s insights are not being “fobbed off” as you say, and you yourself have said that Scott had a good attitude in his approach to this subject. This insight is offered to anyone to whom it may apply. It may not apply to those men who never experienced a Meet Cute, or who aren’t called to marry. A bit of personal introspection and discernment are necessary to determine what information might apply to any one man.

      On a personal note Jason, Your comments have generated a lot of useful discussion, and this is to be commended. But your dogmatic insincerity is wearisome and saddening. Again and again, upon seeing many of your casually critical, “fobbed off” comments, I have had to remind myself to be more patient and more understanding. Contrary to other RP blogs (like Deep Strength’s) I haven’t blocked you because I have the good sense not to mistake your memetically trite assessments as trolling. The context is more nuanced than you seem to recognize.
      I would greatly appreciate seeing a little less cynicism, and a little more consistency in your stated opinions. Please see #3, 4, 7, and 8 of the comment policy.


      • @ Jack

        Contrary to other RP blogs (like Deep Strength’s) I haven’t blocked you because I have the good sense not to mistake your memetically trite assessments as trolling. The context is more nuanced than you seem to recognize.

        Nah, I didn’t ban him for trolling. I don’t think he’s a troll. I warned him to stop making false assumptions and accusing negative of those attempting to help him. He didn’t, so he got banned.

        I stated the same thing other post (or this post?) that I would unban him if he stopped doing that, but he didn’t agree so he’ll stay banned.


      • Jack says:

        @ DS,
        I don’t believe Jason is looking for help. From what I can gather, he’s pretty content with his life. I think he’s offended by others who presume he needs help, and he misinterprets their good will as arrogance or AMOGing, hence the backlash.


      • lastmod says:

        Way off. I have to be content. I probably obly have another twenty years tops. I am just going have to enjoy the unfortunate hand I was dealt. Yeah….my life is better or more content so to speak than is was ten or twenty years ago.

        But what do I know about life. I never met cute…..well i did…..but she was busy giving Scott ioi’s.

        I post here and other sites like this bc you need to be told the contrary lines of much of your silly advice….and the downright evil much of your faith is and the harm it causes many men.


      • @ Jack

        I don’t believe Jason is looking for help. From what I can gather, he’s pretty content with his life. I think he’s offended by others who presume he needs help, and he misinterprets their good will as arrogance or AMOGing, hence the backlash.

        I agree that he doesn’t want help now, but he did in the past and even asked for such before on Dalrock’s before he got banned there too.

        Somehow he came to the conclusion these things (he never describes which things and what he tried or didn’t try) don’t work for him. He’s also said that his facial genetics are the thing that is holding him back (which I and others commenters like Nova, deti and others doubt since we saw his blog in the past).

        When the switch happened, I don’t know. But he didn’t want help anymore, and now probably interprets any attempt to help as what you described.

        I do think it is more difficult if you’re over 40-50 to make things happening, so I can see why he has come to the conclusions he has and doesn’t care to attempt to try anything.


    • ramman3000 says:

      “What of men who don’t meet cute?????? [..] Did Scott or Jack or Derek know what gods plan for them was at 19??”

      I was aware of the need to be married at a very young age. Consequently, I was already on the lookout for wife material at 12 or 13.

      By 16, I had already identified the girl I wanted to marry. We were best friends and extremely close. However, around the time she was finally considering moving to the next stage of a relationship, she met her future husband: a taller, more attractive, more charismatic man who she instantly fell for. She was the first of our peer group to marry (right after high school graduation).

      It was a number of years before I finally starting dating and eventually married my other best friend from high school.

      See, unlike Scott and Jack, I have never experienced a Meet Cute. In the video, Scott said this:

      “If that initial—what they call in the manosphere and redpill—the IOI… If she’s not giving you signals like that, forget it. There’s not pickup line or turning up your game that fixes that.”

      If this were true, I would be unmarried to this day. Jack said this about Jason’s parents:

      “Your parents were of a different generation who got married during a previous time that was more favorable for marriage. [..] Times are different now.”

      If I had listened to this, I would be unmarried to this day. What Jason said rings true:

      “One of the most plain truths i got from the bible was “have your yes mean yes and your no mean no” [..] My parents knew each other six months and married. My mom always said “your father and I never kept a match or score on each other.” My dad always said “Your mother and I just took our wedding vows seriously. It was a promise before family, friends and god. It was just understood, and esp after your older brother…..we only had each other…..we had to make it work.”

      This is why I am married to this day.


      • Jack says:

        @ Derek,
        So in summary, your personal stance is that the Meet Cute thing is comprehensively inconsequential as to marital outcome, and perhaps even detrimental. Is that right?
        But it seems evident that your first pick for marriage was a Meet Cute for her then future husband. How has that worked out?


      • ramman3000 says:

        “But it seems evident that your first pick for marriage was a Meet Cute for her then future husband. How has that worked out?”

        She was indeed a Meet Cute for her future husband. Their marriage was very rocky for a few years, and has probably run into numerous snags over the years. She only told me after she was married that she had been developing romantic attraction for me in high school. Had her future husband showed up on the scene a month or two later than he did, she might very well have married me instead.

        Interestingly, and despite never dating that girl, it took my wife many years to get over me falling in love with another woman. That girl’s husband despised me, likely in part because of the same reason. Jealousy is an interesting thing, but it wasn’t completely unjustified.

        Ironically, my wife was my original first pick, but for a while I thought she was out of my league. Maybe she was at the time.

        “So in summary, your personal stance is that the Meet Cute thing is comprehensively inconsequential as to marital outcome, and perhaps even detrimental. Is that right?”

        Not precisely. We can certainly find any number of anecdotes that show this as being detrimental, but we can also find anecdotes that show the opposite. Let’s gain some additional perspective by considering your comment:

        “This insight is offered to anyone to whom it may apply. It may not apply to those men who never experienced a Meet Cute, or who aren’t called to marry.”

        Undoubtedly, Scott and I have friction because we are focused on different audiences. He is concerned with those who experience a Meet Cute because he has personal experience with that. I am concerned with the other group because it matches my experiences. It doesn’t make either of us right or wrong. Context matters.

        For example, my approach is not without difficulties. I may never experience Meet Cute or IOIs, but I fell in love with three women before I was old enough to legally consume alcohol. Giving your heart away has consequences, just like giving away your virginity (though not in the same way).

        The alpha male “bad boy” can be a difficult long-term match. So when that girl became a Meet Cute for her future husband, they may have had rocky marital times, but what held them together was what Jason talked about: their vows. In our socioreligious ethnic group, we don’t divorce and we, more-or-less, marry for life.

        So precisely, my personal stance is that the Meet Cute approach can be beneficial or detrimental, but that—in comparison—respecting one’s vows is more important. Jason’s stance is, as far as I can tell from witnessing dozens or hundreds of marriages, is the most important component of a successful marriage.

        Liked by 3 people

  17. lastmod says:

    DS didnt like any of his “foolproof” ideas challenged. Its an echo chamber and good for him. He has fixed the dating and marrying scene for men in church…….i call out men like this. I lost the last chances of marriage and potential fatherhood because of advice like he peddles. If only all the betas in the church could bench 30000 lbs with ease and vett women properly and tease them……all the problems would be solved.

    He spreads plenty of falsehoods and assumptions about the world he has no clue about and has the “gonads” to ban me (how brave).

    Jack your comment policy could be enforced on any man here. If you ever decide to ban me……I would expect you would not have a blog.

    I dont want christians persecuted. I dont want them to suffer. I dont want it banned.

    What I wanted was a genuine striving towards god. Never saw it and still have not in any man. Since i am beta-freak-woman-supplicator-chump-simp I expected leadetship from you geniuses in christ. All men are fools compared to the lot of you and I the help I got was “you’re bitter / chritianity is suffering”

    Its sadly a club. You’re on the “meet cute” side? Well….its a blessing and such a honor to do gods will. You’re not on that side? Tuff breaks. Why are you so jaded?

    I wanted to be married. Be a father. I witnessed a marriage growing up that brings tears ti my eyes. You mean to tell me god said “no” to me? Whale excrement. He could care less about any man’s situation in these matters.

    You meet cute or you dont and Scott does bring it up in a way that I just liked. I also like how he posed “what happens” then. He didnt claim to know. That plain honesty was just a thing that i have really seen addressed in that way. Too many have the answer to everything on theses sites.

    Sharkly asked me as a man….and talked to me like one to “not post on his site” I respect him.

    I dont really see how my comments have generated conversation. This thread his been about if Scott is repentant of his past. Could care less if he is or isnt. Plenty about him I really dont like…..but on this recent frame of mind. I just liked what he had to say…..or just the way he said it.

    I will not and have never wished ill on a man who has a good marriage. Sadly I will have to endure more of “gods will” speeches from the christian side and just as many “foolproof” methods to find and get a girl from the other.

    Burn and cant get married? Tuff luck. Meet cute ans get lots of sex and expirence dating or otherwise? Bounds of rewards!

    Well….you know the saying “Las Vegas wasnt built by winners”


  18. JPF says:

    Hi Jason / Lastmod

    I dont really think there is a solution for men like this over the age of 35.

    You may be largely correct. Although I married when I was about a decade older than that. Not ideal of course, but it can be done. Of course, I had to be willing to go to another culture to find a worthy bride; not all men are willing or have the desire to do that.
    And it probably takes some luck or help from friends.

    church, jesus, god are the last place they are wanted

    Church: I’ll assume you are correct about your assessment of the churches you have attended. I obviously do not know them. And I can certainly believe your assessment.

    Jesus/God: God absolutely wants you. The fact many people who claim to be his representatives are horrid/deluded/foolish people does not change this. Jesus hung out with the prostitutes and tax collectors, both of whom I think were socially far worse off than an “unattractive” man of today’s culture.

    How about you consider the men here? Jack apparently finds that you try his patience… and yet he continues to engage with you.
    I desire that God bless you. I don’t recall ever insulting you. (Not saying you have never been offended; that is a possibility any time you disagree with a person.)
    Many other men have offered advice. Granted, you may think much of that advice was bad. But the man who takes time to try to help you is showing at least a small amount of love / concern for you. (Other than those trying to peddle books etc, or who have an agenda.)

    Roosh was worshipped in the christain sphere

    I am willing to accept that you (obviously) have different experiences and interactions than I do. Even so, the above statement is nonsense. No man who has Jesus as Lord of his life would commend a man who encouraged harlotry in others.
    Perhaps a man was envious of how easy Roosh made it appear to get a woman’s interest and (temporary) sexual loyalty. But that does not mean the man worships the PUA.

    Never saw it and still have not in any man.

    This is unfortunate. Also unfortunate is that the fairly consistent negativity you have would likely prevent you from seeing good in other men that are there.
    In my youth group at church, when I was in my early twenties, there were about 8 regular attending men. And at least the majority of them were serious about serving Christ. Not all handsome. None of us rich. But trying to be good servants of God.

    You mean to tell me god said “no” to me?

    Wrong focus. The women you knew, and (possibly) you yourself, said no. God gives us all free will. Women (mostly) said no to me for decades. No matter how great you are, she needs to agree. (Or in a saner culture, her father needs to agree.)

    It is truly unfortunate that other people suffer for my sins and selfishness; this is no less true for selfish women.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. lastmod says:

    “I am willing to accept that you (obviously) have different experiences and interactions than I do. Even so, the above statement is nonsense. No man who has Jesus as Lord of his life would commend a man who encouraged harlotry in others.”

    Roosh has been frequently cited on Dalrock and others, and praised by his awesome efforts to help men be men.


  20. Pingback: List of Female IOI’s | Σ Frame

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

  22. Pingback: Hopelessness | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: What’s good for the goose is bad for the gander. | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: Looking at the Essentials | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: Handling an IOI requires a Miracle! | Σ Frame

  26. Pingback: The Red Pill and Blue Pill as Paradigms of Sanctification and Defilement (with a mathematical analogy) | Σ Frame

  27. Pingback: The Centrality of Sex in Western Culture | Σ Frame

  28. Pingback: The Kardashian Fantasy | Σ Frame

  29. Pingback: Taking Headship by Force | Σ Frame

  30. Pingback: Rethinking Rites of Passage From a Biblical Perspective | Σ Frame

  31. Pingback: The Art of Thankfulness | Σ Frame

  32. Pingback: The Unsolvable Problem of The Modern Sexual/Relationship Market | Σ Frame

  33. Pingback: Happy Birthday to Scott! | Σ Frame

  34. Pingback: The New Red Pill for Online Dating | Σ Frame

  35. Pingback: The Status Signaling Narrative | Σ Frame

  36. Pingback: Determination and Detachment | Σ Frame

  37. Pingback: Pursuing Flow to develop Confidence and Trust | Σ Frame

  38. Pingback: The 12 Harbingers of Masculine Doom | Σ Frame

  39. Pingback: Scott is not Black Pilled | 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