Looking at the Essentials

Young people need to think on two (or more) planes when selecting a mate.

Readership: Singles; Parents of adolescents and single young adults; Christian mentors;

The Flesh is Strong

Let’s think about the mate selection process.

When people are young, they tend to focus on the stereotypical traits of attraction in the opposite sex.  Women focus on finding a confident, charismatic, and handsome man with a successful career.  Men focus on finding a girl with feminine appeal — soft-hearted, slender, unsullied, and vivacious.  They might have a mental image of what this person looks like.  They might have a checklist in their heads about what kind of person they are “looking for”, usually things that are socially reinforced, things that are proper and acceptable to discuss.

But in reality, we often see individuals pair up with someone who is far from the stated ideal.  Bystanders might sigh and shake their heads, but no one ever asks why.

The general answer to the question of why is because they are living in the vanity of their minds, seeking to gratify their fleshly desires (Ephesians 4:18), and they are not paying attention to the deeper characteristics of their respective natures and how that might play out in a long-term relationship.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.  For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.  For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.  Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” ~ Romans 8:5-8 (ESV)

But in spite of what the scriptures say, these other characteristics are often used first and foremost for mate selection — even among nominal Christians!  Is this not the same as setting one’s mind on the flesh?

Even for those who are fairly successful in keeping their minds set on the spirit, it is not uncommon for them to find that something deeper lurks in the heart which takes one “by surprise” when the urge to merge kicks in, and this seems to happen whether one agrees with it or not, and also whether one likes it or not.

This might be explained if we assume that being aware of the inclinations of our own individual fleshly nature is not the same as “setting our mind on the flesh”.  But how do you achieve the former without committing the latter?

Some make peace with this incoherency early on, but others fight against their deeper natures for years, and suffer accordingly… and inexorably.

Youth is Wasted on the Young

After you’ve seen a bit of life, around a decade or two for the average person, you begin to recognize that what you want is not what you need, nor what you get.  You realize that these vain imaginings, these superficial things cannot fulfill.  They might boost your ego, sate your desire for the time, and maybe even help you see things more clearly, but eventually you’ll begin to question the deeper meaning of life.  Then at that time, you’ll start to look for more essential qualities in a mate, such as shared values and interests, the level of intimacy that is shared in the relationship, and what that person brings out of you.  These are the things that can actually build a starring relationship, and it’s a pity that most people look for these things too late in life.

A Revised Approach to the Essentials

It might be wiser if young people took the opposite approach instead.  That is, they should assess their own personal characteristics and the strength of a potential relationship first and foremost when they are young, so that they can make a good choice of a partner.  Then as life progresses, they should focus on developing those outward details and effects which reinforce attraction.  Namely, men should focus on building a career and reputation.  Women should focus on maintaining feminine appeal.  This serves to cement and reinforce the relationship.  But too many people fail to maintain themselves in this respect as they age.  Don’t be one of them!

It’s like the analogy of putting rocks, sand, and water in a jar.

This analogy is usually used to describe time management.  But it’s also quite useful to describe the qualities sought after in a relationship.

Granted, it is a little more nuanced, especially with respect to time.  You have to consider the competition involved — getting your act together such that you have the chance to select a suitable match while the pickings are still good (viz. before you’re too old, and before all the “good ones” have been taken).

Choosing to enter into a relationship which has the potential to bring long term fulfillment, and making this qualification a first and foremost priority, has the potential to set one on a different trajectory in life.

But in the application, it is critical to first identify what qualities would bring long term fulfillment.  A pat answer would be to choose that which would glorify God, but can we narrow it down any further in terms of the individual decision?

Deep Strength has written volumes on vetting women, and although these qualifications might give a man a good idea of which chicks to avoid, vetting doesn’t offer any clues about which one to definitively choose for a life long relationship.

So far, I’ve only identified one specific quality that seems to hold any hope, and that is in choosing a partner who can faithfully support you in your God ordained mission in life.  This is one trait that would surely hold up over the years.  I’m sure there are many other qualifications besides this, but it seems like these things would uniquely depend on the individual man and his mission.

Strengths of the Essential Approach

Choosing someone with whom you share a deep, authentic relationship has an inestimable value.  It minimizes the hassle and extends the benefits.  It makes all the work and sacrifice of love into a net benefit, and a positive sum game.  Knowing that the person you’re with cherishes you for non-superficial reasons, and is committed from the heart, can become a source of eternal joy and happiness.  It adds immensely to your sense of security and confidence.  It allows you an extra degree of freedom in the pursuit of your life goals and mission.  Most of all, it is conducive to your mutual sanctification and holiness.  This is because you haven’t wasted the best years of your life and your emotional attachments on anyone who is unable to deliver the above.

This is not an argument for the soul mate myth, but merely am emphasis on the importance of having a strong connection of trust and respect, and a mutual heart-felt symbiosis that makes any relationship strong.

Weaknesses of the Essential Approach

The difficulty of accepting this “spirit led” approach is that until you explore having a relationship with a partner who is “high quality”, according to stereotypical SMV/MMV indicators, you don’t have the knowledge in your heart that those things cannot fulfill.  So there is always a weakness there, in that one will be tempted to explore other opportunities in order to satisfy this question of the heart.

This is also a weakness of the Meet Cute model.  When a women finds a man whom she perceives to have a high SMV, it can generate strong tingles.  But she has not yet realized that a day-to-day interaction with this man may be frustrating, simply because they may not share key values and goals in life.  In the typical Meet Cute experience, her finding a partner who shares a deep, vital link in their relationship is only an afterthought — one that may bring both regret and the motivation to further explore the possibilities that her hypergamic hamster brings up in her mind.  The same is true for men who are attracted to high SMV women.  Many secular men have realized this, and this is one of the reasons why they resort to the pump and dump.

The Takeaway

Young people need to see themselves clearly, both in the flesh, and in the spirit, in order to make a wise choice in the way of a mate.  This essay has identified two planes of reference to consider when selecting a mate.

The Flesh – Your individual fleshly nature, its peculiar desires, weaknesses, inclinations, and “fetishes” (e.g. Are you an “@ss man” or a “tits man”?).  This is not the same as having a mind that is blindly focused on the desires of the flesh, but rather, it’s a deeper awareness of who you are in the flesh, and what kinds of challenges you may have to face as a consequence.  You need to know what is acceptable and what is non-negotiable.  If you don’t know yourself very well, then the answer might be different than what your fleshly mind might think.  This awareness includes the knowledge in your heart that “[your personal] sin is lurking at the door, but you must learn to master it” (Genesis 4:7).  All this is colloquially known as “coming to terms with one’s self”.

The Spirit – Your individual spiritual nature.  To get a better idea of what this is all about, consider the following questions.

  • What are your innermost values?
  • What contributes to your inner peace?
  • What makes you feel loved?
  • What gives you joy?
  • What makes you angry?
  • What motivates you to speak and act?
  • What brings you closer to God?
  • What is God’s will for your life?

The chances are good that your answers to these questions are different from how others might respond.  This is a deeper awareness of who you are in the spirit, and what kinds of conditions you need to find healing, and grow in faith.  You need to know what is acceptable and what is non-negotiable.  If you don’t know yourself very well, then the answer might be different than what your alienated mind might think.  This awareness includes the knowledge in your heart that “all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28).  All this is colloquially known as “being at peace with God”.  You need to get a handle on this so that you know you won’t be shooting yourself in the foot by choosing a woman who may very well be a Christian, but who fails to bring out Christ in you.

I remember some insight offered by an old PUA guru, who said that (paraphrasing) each different woman brings something special into a relationship with you, but none of them can completely fulfill.  So if you’re going to settle down with only one, then it’s important to choose one who offers you something that you deeply value, and not any of the others who offer what you would consider “novelties and conveniencies”.

The bottom line is the same for all humanity, both sexes, secular or not.

Young people who are shopping around for a mate should keep all the above in mind, and use this as a double Frame of reference, combined with the added awareness provided by discernment and wisdom, to determine what each candidate might offer in terms of a long-term relationship.

Note: This advice may only apply to those men who can achieve a reasonable degree of success in attracting a sufficient number of women to have such a choice.

Related

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 Attraction, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Holding Frame, Introspection, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Relationships, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Strategy, Vetting Women and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Looking at the Essentials

  1. Scott says:

    I’ve never been able to resonate with the “girls who can shoot, work on cars, kick ass in general” thing. I find the greasy woman under the car replacing the strut to be supremely unattractive. Even if she is objectively cute.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      @ Scott, I hear you. The attraction in the case of the grease monkey girl is that they share a common interest, a common lifestyle, and she is devoted to being his helper. They probably come from the same social background as well. For some men, she would be a keeper.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        I think most men who say they like that are lying due to social pressure. Otherwise you face the “not a real man, not secure in your masculinity, can’t handle a strong woman” onslaught.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        The situation that you are referring to where having some blue collar greasy skill adds to the marriage (and in NO WAY subtracts from her femininity) is rare.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        This is EXACTLY my husband’s take. When I am getting dirty helping him do a manly job, he loves it. He finds the smudge on my face cute, adorable even. He finds my willingness to work with him a sign of love and interest. He finds my openness to being able to learn how to do certain things comforting in the event that I am in need of such knowledge and he is not around.

        He’s even planning on teaching me to shoot, which I never thought would cross his mind because he isn’t into “kickass feminism” either. He just knows he is guaranteed a long life and perfect health and so believes a wife with at least rudimentary skill outside of the kitchen might not be the worst thing in the world.

        But hey…that’s my man. The beauty of marriage is that every man gets to decide for himself what cranks his engine and the kind of wife he wants.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. AngloSaxon says:

    This all sounds very complicated.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      @ AngloSaxon,
      I have only covered the main idea. But yes, it is complicated, and it gets more complicated when we do some introspection to discover our own nature. Spiritual growth is certainly not a simple, easy task. Then when we attempt to identify a suitable partner, it becomes almost indecipherable. This is partly why we need God, as well as family, and a community of believers to help us choose wisely. It is a monumental undertaking with significant obstacles, but also one with monumental rewards.

      Like

      • AngloSaxon says:

        I’m not interested in a “partner”. I want a wife who gives it up, brings me dinner and is pleasant to have around.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        @ AngloSaxon,
        In other words, you want a woman who fulfills your basic physical needs and who is spiritually obedient in doing so. Most men think on this level. The problem is that women these days will never sign up for this. I used to believe that a Christian, marriage-minded woman would be up to the task. But a woman’s mental assent to the Christian religion is meaningless if she remains stationed in the vanity of her mind. It requires something much deeper, something on the spiritual plane that is determined by who you are and what God wants for your life.

        Like

      • AngloSaxon says:

        If she’s not on board with the above she’s off the ship and in the sea.

        God wants me to obey his commandments, including taking a wife (if you can’t handle no sex) and nail my wife. I am not convinced God has some great big fat grand mission for my life.

        Like

  3. Scott says:

    OT

    Christianity is 100% converged. Christians who quietly and diligently try to practice their faith outside the church are like the Jedi scattered about the galaxy in exile.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/12/southern-baptist-president-urges-members-say-black-lives-matter/amp/#click=https://t.co/YXfsinZHJv

    Liked by 2 people

    • AngloSaxon says:

      JD is worthless. This is of no surprise at all.

      Big evangelical is junk.

      Like

    • Ed Hurst says:

      Sometimes from a front row seat, but not for the last 20 years, I’ve been watching this long slide Southern Baptists have been making into covergence with the world. It began noticeably in the 1960s when I started seeing the US flag in the auditoriums. You would never have seen much of that up until then. Such a small thing, but not having one represented their strong distaste for sucking up to the state. I recall conversations about that in several churches before and after, and noticed that big change. Of course, it came with a lot of other baggage I won’t list here, but you can see where it has brought them now.

      Like

    • okrahead says:

      Christianity is not converged, nor can it be. Some, perhaps most, individual denominations are converged. This is why the term “churchian” exists. Do you think the Orthodox church is converged? I’ll happily grant that the Southern Baptists are, along with most evangelical churches, but that is not the same thing as saying Christianity is converged. Those who are converged are peddling a false christ and a false gospel.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        On a spectrum I think yes, Orthodoxy is too. I have found one priest (A Serb, go figure) who is a regular reader of Rollo and the former Dalrock. He found me through my guest appearance on Rich Cooper and wants me to give a speech to a congress of pan-Orthodox priests this summer, the title of which will be something like “What every man in church wishes you would say”

        But the fact that this speech is necessary, and will be controversial is sad.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Kevin Blackwell says:

      Many will be deceived even the elect. That doesn’t mean the opposite of this is good either. Satan’s been doing this for millenna, and he’s been getting better at it.

      Like

  4. Scott says:

    Sorry another OT

    In the midst of all this rioting and cop defunding crap here’s my cop story

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ed Hurst says:

      As a Military Policeman, I was very strongly aware of how difficult it was to assume any kind of cultural orientation in uniform. I was help up to an awful lot of conflicting expectations every day from all different directions, and it was significantly worse because I was so close to a major NATO sub-HQ in Europe. At that time was I also deep into reading professional law enforcement journals and such, and I watched a very alarming trend then developing in police relations with the population. Over a very short time, it went from “member of the community” to “everyone is a potential enemy”.

      Like

    • feeriker says:

      Scott, I’m sure that if you were to repeat what you did today, in the same place and under the same circumstances, not only would the civilian bystanders be more hostile than they were back in the day, but the cops would probably beat and arrest you as well, or maybe even worse. They have reached the point where they now see EVERYONE who is not one of their own as a lethal threat.

      You mentioned that the cop chided you rather than thanked you for potentially saving his life. That is to be expected. NEVER forget that image and ego are gods to a cop. His near miss in having a perp almost grab his own gun, and probably shooting and killing him with it had he been successful, was an intolerable loss of face for that cop. In fact, I would expect any given cop today, when in a situation like that which you describe, to arrest someone who did what you did just to save face.

      Your point about the lack of common cultural attitude and values that make situations like this one ambiguous is spot on. The U.S
      no longer even has a common culture, let alone a set of attitudes and values that would have made what you did an act of valor worth of commendation. We are no longer a nation; we are merely a landmass containing 320 million individuals, most of whom have almost nothing in common with one another. This is why I no longer observe Independence Day. July 4th is now just another day on the calendar. Any nation that not only can no longer live up to its founding ideals, but actively despises said ideals and seeks to outlaw them is simply not a nation deserving of existence. Tragic, but the harsh truth.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        It’s weird because any time you try to analyze something after the fact, you cannot know what would have happened if you with held the intervention

        But I do know the cop was losing the fight, pretty badly. The gun was a wild card that I could not tolerate in my personal risk assessment and that calculation took about a 1 second for me to make.

        Your larger point is well taken though, and I talk like that all the time. “America” is 300 million atomized economic consumption units buying and selling stuff to each other. Not a nation by any real tangible definition. My interaction with this story has been one of many instances along the timeline of my life leading me to realize that. In a “nation” I think it would have gone differently.

        Liked by 3 people

    • okrahead says:

      I believe you’re right that the police are necessary. The people currently clamoring for the elimination of the police are the same ones who want to loot everyone else’s stuff and burn what they can’t steal. They don’t really want the police removed for “social justice”; they want the police removed because those officers are an impediment to their armed robberies of unarmed citizens. The us vs. them mentality of many police officers contributes to this problem; I’ve known officers with that attitude; I’ve known others who were just regular members of the community. The latter were a lot easier for everyone to deal with.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        In another universe, I think I might have made a pretty good cop myself.

        Like

      • feeriker says:

        The us vs. them mentality of many police officers contributes to this problem; I’ve known officers with that attitude; I’ve known others who were just regular members of the community. The latter were a lot easier for everyone to deal with.

        Unfortunately, that second type of cop is as rare as a four-leaf clover today, and getting rarer with each passing day. If that type were even a sizable minority of the whole cop population, we wouldn’t be experiencing the problems we have today.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Scott says:

    Unfortunately, that second type of cop is as rare as a four-leaf clover today, and getting rarer with each passing day. If that type were even a sizable minority of the whole cop population, we wouldn’t be experiencing the problems we have today.

    If the police are pooled from a subset of the community they are policing, this is way less of a problem. There is no “community” like that. In southern California, cops live in places like Santa Clarita (where I am from) and drive into hellholes like South Central, Compton, Lennox, and enforce laws on people they don’t know or care about and then go home.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Deep Strength has written volumes on vetting women, and although these qualifications might give a man a good idea of which chicks to avoid, vetting doesn’t offer any clues about which one to definitively choose for a life long relationship.

    So far, I’ve only identified one specific quality that seems to hold any hope, and that is in choosing a partner who can faithfully support you in your God ordained mission in life. This is one trait that would surely hold up over the years. I’m sure there are many other qualifications besides this, but it seems like these things would uniquely depend on the individual man and his mission.

    I have written on these things, but they’re older so unless you’ve read my blog a long time you wouldn’t have seen them.

    Here’s a general list of the ones I was looking for with Bible references. Supports in mission obviously falls under helper from Genesis 2.

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/05/16/what-i-look-for-in-evaluating-a-potential-wife-part-2/

    FAST – faithful, available, saved, teachable is the big one on the RPChristian reddit.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. larryzb says:

    “Note: This advice may only apply to those men who can achieve a reasonable degree of success in attracting a sufficient number of women to have such a choice.”

    Aye, that is an appropriate, relevant qualifier. It is hard to find good women to have such a choice for most men these days.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      I recently tweeted my final position on this, which I suppose might lose me some support. I have been beating around the bush on the topic for a while, trying to be gracious, trying to sugar coat it.

      I believe that the red-pill content creators (the big ones, Christian or not) are full of crap if they believe that true, visceral attraction can be created in a woman who never had it for you in the first place. Like within the first meeting.

      Some of them have a conflict of interest in trying to create this fiction, because they sell books and have monetized youtube accounts. It is in their best interest to make this seem possible.

      But I have never seen a woman go from being luke warm about a guy and then become [truly] hot for him. She may settle and convince herself that she is attracted to a man who is the best she can get, but hot crazy in love–no.

      If you are not getting really obvious IOIs right from the start, move on. If that makes me “black pill” so be it. I want men to find women who cannot keep their hands of them, otherwise they risk terrible destruction later on.

      Liked by 5 people

      • @ Scott

        I believe that the red-pill content creators (the big ones, Christian or not) are full of crap if they believe that true, visceral attraction can be created in a woman who never had it for you in the first place. Like within the first meeting.

        I don’t disagree, but how many women for that matter are marrying men that they don’t have any attraction at all for?

        There are certainly both men and women who are marrying with varying levels of attraction, but very few have absolutely no attraction. These are probably the ones where you have the wives cringing away from physical contact with their husbands in wedding photos. There are a few, but they’re definitely not even a big minority.

        If we’re using a 0-10 scale where no attraction is a 0 and crazy love at first sight is a 10, there’s a big range. The real question isn’t if we can take a 0 to a 10… it’s if we can take a 3-4 to a 7-8 in most cases. The “sort of maybe attractive when I’m ovulating” or “relatively dead bedroom but once were attracted to each other” to “I want to do him at least several nights a week.” You don’t have to be the 10 of “I want to bang like bunny rabbits all the time.”

        I think the answer to that is yes in a good amount of cases. The results/field reports of husbands turning around their marriages on MRP (married red pill) and RPChristians speak to this.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      @ Larry,

      “It is hard to find good women to have such a choice…”

      Attraction and selecting a mate would probably be very simple and straightforward if the society as a whole valued and practiced sexual continency.
      But instead, what we see is that, because of rampant promiscuity and gynocentrism, the market place has degraded into an amoralized supernova. People are blinded by their desires and their sin-based false notions. Women (and men) chase after the feeelz instead of love and commitment. They don’t know what they want. They don’t know who to choose, so a destructive trial and error becomes the default approach. The few remaining God fearing people are stuck in a tailspin and sucked down the whirlpool as well.
      As a longer-term consequence, most guys, like AngloSaxon, are reduced to settling for the bare bones basics in selecting a mate (“a wife who gives it up, brings me dinner and is pleasant to have around”, as he put it), simply because it is totally unrealistic for them to expect anything more from a relationship. (BTW, I encourage guys who just want the basics to go search for a wife in another culture that is not corrupted by feminism. If you haven’t already done that, then what are you waiting for?)

      @ Scott,
      I agree with your assessment of the Meet Cute, but I also think the implications of your conclusion are a reaction to the inevitable product of widespread promiscuity in the culture, as I described above. Let me explain.
      In another universe, women would find it much easier to experience the Tingles with their husbands if they married while their adolescent c0ckamania was still a novelty in their minds. Wives would find it much easier to bond with their husbands if they hadn’t bonded with 10+ others before marriage.
      But by the time women reach their late 20s, and their N-count surpasses their age, then finding any man who produces the Tingles at all becomes a novelty in itself. The apparent “success” of the Meet Cute phenomenon is largely dependent on this novelty.
      In another universe, the Meet Cute experience would not be such a crucial determinant of long-term marital stability and satisfaction. So in summary, your assessment of the Meet Cute is correct because we don’t live in another universe.

      But even so, there is a lot more to marriage that is achievable, namely a deeper, more fulfilling, and more sanctifying connection, but it requires a lot of faith to believe that there is anything more beyond the basics. In this post, I just wanted to point out that we have to consider the spiritual as well as the carnal if we ever hope to find that deeper fulfillment.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Scott says:

    @Jake and DS

    At first glance, the idea of a spectrum of attraction (woman—>man) strikes me as wishfully ascribing male thinking processes to women. This is understandable, and tempting. I am guilty of it from time to time. I just don’t think if you (a guy) are placed in the “meh” file you can ever get out. So I have never actually tried.

    Admittedly, one problem I have is looking through the lens of my own lifetime of experience, an N of one. In that myopic view, I have never seen this happen. In any relationship I ever developed, be it a ONS, a FB, or an LTR that lasted years, her attraction was always obvious and unmistakable, from the first few seconds save for my obtuse lack of sensing it. I have been told “dude, she is REALLY into you” on more than one occasion before I noticed these signs.

    An example from real life would be something like, I went to a party one time at a friends house and there was a girl there. I immediately found her really cute and started talking to her. There was ZERO indication from her that she was interested, so I moved on within a nanosecond. At that same exact party, I met another girl who would become my longest relationship to date at the time (it lasted about 2 years) and she made it really obvious that I had a green light. So, what I see from women is attraction that actually leads to something more is a dichotomous variable. “On” or “off.” Nothing in between. And you cannot slide along that scale like on a slide rule with them.

    On the other hand, men I think can do the spectrum thing. I have had several LTRs that developed over time with women for whom I had almost no regard for in the first place. Its usually a coworker, or someone you see on a regular basis for whatever reason. She could be flashing giant orange flags that read “here I am come and approach. I will say YES” and I just move along with my life as if nothing is happening. Then, one day the thought flashes across your mind “I never noticed how cute her smile is.” And then you are toast. All of the sudden she is all you think about from the time you get up to the time you go to bed. You now have a crush on a girl who up until this point was just somebody you see as part of the scenery at work.

    Anyway, that’s been my experience.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @ Scott

      At first glance, the idea of a spectrum of attraction (woman—>man) strikes me as wishfully ascribing male thinking processes to women. This is understandable, and tempting. I am guilty of it from time to time. I just don’t think if you (a guy) are placed in the “meh” file you can ever get out. So I have never actually tried.

      I’m not sure I agree with that.

      There are definitely some reciprocal indications in terms of attraction itself. For instance, women can pick out attractive features on men just like men can pick out various attractive features on women. If they have particular unattractive features that knocks them down. Most people are not models so they have a relative mix of attractive or unattractive features.

      In general, male sexuality operates on some lines of physical attractiveness: “would bang but wouldn’t date” to “would bang and date” to “would bang and marry.”

      As we know though, female sexual strategy is relatively dualistic: AF/BB. Ideally, a man has both AF (dominant, handsome, charismatic, masculine, high status, successful leader,) and BB (money). Women’s hierarchy is AF+BB > AF > BB > None. Or if they are their own BB with a good job then it’s AF+BB > AF > None > BB.

      It’s a spectrum and not a yes or no. Women who can’t marry an AF+BB or AF will try to get a man who has some AF with a lot of BB.. and so on down to only BB. But they will be less and less happy about it.

      An example from real life would be something like, I went to a party one time at a friends house and there was a girl there. I immediately found her really cute and started talking to her. There was ZERO indication from her that she was interested, so I moved on within a nanosecond. At that same exact party, I met another girl who would become my longest relationship to date at the time (it lasted about 2 years) and she made it really obvious that I had a green light. So, what I see from women is attraction that actually leads to something more is a dichotomous variable. “On” or “off.” Nothing in between. And you cannot slide along that scale like on a slide rule with them.

      This is not strictly true. From what I’ve seen it depends on fairly specific circumstances to set men up to be successful when there is not a lot of initial attraction. We discussed some way back when here:

      https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/understanding-the-friend-zone-and-escaping-it/

      Lemme give you another example. I’m maybe average attractiveness (not unattractive but not attractive). A couple of my friends have called me a 6. I don’t normally get women to look at me twice. However, I’ve TAed a few classes where there are multiple TAs working together with a large group of students. What usually ends up happening is that a lot of the students (including the women) start to gravitate toward the more attractive men first. However, I know my stuff down pat, and I usually challenge the students and tease the girls. My professor later told me that a large majority of the students told me that I was their favorite TA. I was getting IOIs from the women whereas I had none before and even asked some out later and said yes.

      This is the power of being in a position of relative authority and being charismatic with the students. I think it’s also true that first impressions are the most important, and it’s relatively rare(r) that a woman will like you sans not being attracted at first impression, but it’s been my experience that there are chances to subvert that notion but it has to be in specific circumstances.

      YMMV. But I’ve had that happen several times throughout my life like I described in the meetcute article on my site (don’t know if you read that one, but this is not an isolated incident). Some other commenters chimed in saying it was the case for them too.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Seems like a lot of work when you could next then until a strong unambiguous signal shows up on the radar screen.

        I think that’s kind of my point

        Not that it’s not possible or never happens.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Scott

        Seems like a lot of work when you could next then until a strong unambiguous signal shows up on the radar screen.

        It’s not work because that’s my personality. I don’t have to work or do anything different to maintain it.

        Some women will never be attracted, but some women who aren’t initially that attracted will become attracted. Very few women are naturally attracted to me. I could count on one hand all of the women who were very interested at first sight in my lifetime.

        Anyway, point being that for most men who aren’t rated in the top 20% according to looks (e.g. OK Cupid observations) this is likely the way that attraction needs to be set up. Obviously, lifting and becoming “very muscular” helps significantly but most men don’t have the discipline to do that.

        The alternative is that this can easily be done through other various means. Leading a co-ed Bible study. Heading a Church service project that other women attend. Etc. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a lot of the average joe type men I’ve seen married did these things. It’s an easy way to show strong, confident, competent leadership (like I did while TAing) which is basically a proxy for headship.

        Like

  9. Scott says:

    I would add-

    I have no idea if any women read here. But if there are it would do them well to understand the preceding. This is how men “fall in love.” There is actually quite a bit you can learn from that last paragraph if you are paying attention.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “This is how men “fall in love”.”

      This is how men fall in love properly. He recognizes her value to him as a unique person, and sees the potential for a more meaningful and fulfilling relationship compared to all others.
      I have to point this out because the word “love” needs further clarification as an element of the spiritual plane. Men can also fall in love through having great sex, but this is carnal, and not necessarily a deeper, lifelong connection. Some might call this infatuation, except that you don’t need to have sex to be infatuated. Again, we’re looking at two separate planes of interaction, as described in the post.

      Like

  10. Scott says:

    I tend to frame this debate as one of a scarcity vs abundance mentality. Why put so much effort into squeezing juice out some prospect (a girl who was aloof to you at the start) instead of just moving on to the next one?

    Like

  11. Scott says:

    In medical terms (since I am a provider) this is like the persons baseline. Doing a thought experiment and assuming the spectrum of women being attracted to men is true–Her baseline attraction for you is a 6/10.

    On your best day–employing every single tenet of “game” you can come up with, being perfectly tight, it rises to an 8. You get her to marry you. You then must maintain that perfect level of game in order to keep the 8, but you are human, so you can’t. The real you ellicits a 6, most of the time– her baseline. You never in however many years of marriage see what her 10 looks like.

    Neither of you are ever happy.

    Like

  12. Scott says:

    Every time I went through a break up I went through a phase like the John Favreu character in these movie.

    And every time, my best friend (or my big brother$ was there to give me the “you’re so money and you don’t even know it” speech.

    It would make me laugh, relax and go back to abundance mentality.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Scott says:

    OT

    I remember I had this teacher in HS drivers ed who told us, “If you are too tired to drive, you should totally park your car at a Wendy’s drive through, take a nap, wake up, jump out and start waving your arms around, scream at the cops, get tazed, take the cops weapon, run around like a crazy person, jump in the cop car and start driving wildly around trying to crash into something. That’s the best way to get home safe.”

    Liked by 3 people

  14. JPF says:

    Mostly a good post; thanks for the effort Jack.

    For the section on “The Flesh”:
    It is good you acknowledge that a man should know what he desires. Unfortunately you fell for the idea that these desires should be described with words like “weaknesses” and “[your personal] sin”. If a man has a strong desire for a woman with white skin, then he should not put himself and his wife in a position where she will not fully satisfy his desires, for their entire marriage, just because some politically-correct or some religious person dislikes or disapproves of this desire. Same if the man wants a woman with a certain breast size / hair colour / whatever.
    After all, the reason given in 1 Corinthians 7 for marrying, is sexual desire. So deliberately limiting the “candidates” to women than can fulfill his sexual desires is obviously wise and important. What is the point of marrying a fat woman who he will find repulsive? Or a woman that, while possessing good character, will be sexually uninteresting to him?

    One mistake I made when young, was to be a good man, without being a sexually attractive man. Such as being openly confident and openly wealthy/having a good job. I had the good job and wealth, but I hid it, as I believed the lies from church that what a woman wants is a “Christian and godly man”. What women actually want is both a good man and more importantly a high-status man. If a man does not have the sexual attractivenes, his character is irrelevant.

    And the same is absolutely true for women. If she is not sexually attractive to at least one man, then her character is completely irrelevant for marriage. Women need to be told this. Yes, be chaste and a virtuous woman. But if you are fat, or have short hair, or wear men’s clothing, do not expect much male attention. And since Scripture addresses all of those, such a woman is not a virtuous woman anyway.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      @ JPF,
      Some desires of the flesh are sinful, whereas others are not. Just as you described, it’s important to sort this out for one’s self.
      What is important?
      What is acceptable?
      What is harmful or wrong?
      How do I go about doing what is best?

      Liked by 1 person

  15. JPF says:

    BTW, I encourage guys who just want the basics to go search for a wife in another culture that is not corrupted by feminism. If you haven’t already done that, then what are you waiting for?

    +1 for this. I know this suggestion aggravates some commenters (LM), but really, if the fish in your pond are mostly sick or unacceptable, go to another pond.
    This will not solve all problems… but it avoids some really bad ones, and replaces them with ones that can be annoying but not nearly as significant. Of course, YMMV.

    Wives would find it much easier to bond with their husbands if they hadn’t bonded with any others before marriage.

    FIFY 🙂 And yeah, I am being “demanding” or “unrealistic”…. at least, if you insist on fishing in a pond populated mostly with harlots.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      @ JPF,
      Taking a foreign wife is certainly not without problems, just as any marriage. But at least a man can get the basics. For a lot of men these days, I think the question for them is, “What lengths are you willing to go to, to do what you know you need to do in this life?”

      Liked by 1 person

  16. feeriker says:

    BTW, I encourage guys who just want the basics to go search for a wife in another culture that is not corrupted by feminism.

    That’s what I did, and in general it’s very solid advice. To be sure, one still must choose and vet very carefully, and there is no part of the world today that is completely free of feminism. However, depending on what part of the world you’re talking about, there are far fewer snares and landmies built into the culture that enforce the feminine imperative than there are here in the Anglosphere. In my own case the attraction between me and my wife was almost immediate upon meeting and only continued to grow as we spent more time together.

    I will caution that, as others have pointed out in other places, that the “hunt for the good foreign wife” isn’t for everyone, especially those who can’t abide the idea of living in a foreign country for long periods of time, or even permanently, or who don’t have the aptitude for learning other languages. I’ve always been very comfortable with both, so that served as no barrier.

    Most important, of course, is the strength of her faith. In my own case, my wife has experienced hell on earth that would have broken any women –or an man, for that matter– of weaker faith, and has no tolerance for the weak-sauce, feminized churchianity that plagues the Anglosphere. YMMV, but the stronger and more genuine the faith, the stronger the marriage bond.

    Liked by 2 people

    • JPF says:

      Most important, of course, is the strength of her faith.

      Absolutely.

      One “vetting” trick could be to let her see a typical western “church” service and see how she reacts. Of course, it is always easier for a person to critique another group, so not a guarantee she’ll admit to or avoid the same flaws.

      Like

  17. Pingback: Sanctification and Sexual Compatibility | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Jumping back to meet cute scenarios | Christianity and masculinity

  19. Pingback: Some like it Hot | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: News Flash: Stupidity, Ugliness, being Liberal, are all Heritable! | 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