Placing the Marriage Structures within the Archetypical Models

A Christian marriage is determined by male authority and female dependence.

Readership: All;

In this post, I will discuss a post from Christianity and Masculinity: No, your congregation does not preach Biblical headship (2020 August 12).  It’s a classic piece from Deep Strength, and I encourage everyone to read through it.

Here, I wish to point out that the four marriage structures described by DS in this post correlate loosely with the Archetypical relationship models I outlined in a previous post, The Feminine Dilemma (2018 October 27).

To briefly review these Archetypical relationship models, consider the following diagram which appeared in The Feminine Dilemma. The female’s Life Path is on the abscissa, and the Power Structure exercised by the male is on the ordinate.  Please refer to this figure as an aide to visualize the descriptions that follow.

Next, I’ll list the four marriage structures (as described by DS and shown in blue font), and indicate which relationship model it correlates with.

Headship: The view that the man is the head of his household.  What he says goes.

Headship correlates with the Tingly Respect model.

Complementarianism: The view that God has given men and women different roles to fill.  Among the man’s roles are the right to have the final say on disputed matters in the home.

Complementarianism correlates with the Complementarian or Courtly Love models.

Egalitarianism: The view that husband and wives are on equal footing with regard to all roles, including decision-making authority.

Egalitarianism correlates with the Allyship or Churchianity model.

Feminism: The view that women should be empowered in the home to do as they please and that men should support them in the direction the woman chooses to go, unless it would otherwise amount to direct sin.

Feminism correlates with the Feminist model.

By integrating DS’s four marriage structures into the previous diagram and revising the image a bit, we obtain the following correlating diagram for the relationship models.

Note: The earlier image shows a clear demarcation between the models, which is somewhat misleading.  In reality, we find that the many various nuances of different relationships cast a spectrum which is represented by the red-blue fade in the figure.

Identifying the Marital Structure

Here, I wish to make a very important assertion that should be duly noted by the reader.

Σ Axiom 6: The natural interaction defines the relationship structure according to which model it fits best.

I’ll discuss this a bit so that it will take effect in the readers’ understanding.

The natural interaction between two people in a relationship is what defines the relational structure – not cognitive dissonance, not presumed choice, not cognition, not willpower, not doctrinal stance, and not how Alpha or Red Pilled the man might think he is.  The day to day interactions follow a habitual pattern, and that pattern fits one relationship model better than the others.  This relationship structure might change, but not without severe resistance.

The particular blend of personalities in the union, and the style of relationship you have developed, will largely determine whether you have a Headship or Tingly Respect type of marriage that glorifies God, or else some other type of relationship which doesn’t.  In this case, the man’s authority is not merely a nominal or puppet position according to a mentally prescribed hierarchy.  If it is, then it’s not truly a Headship / Tingly Respect structure and will be prone to failure because of its denial of Σ Axiom 6, as defined above.

As a consequence of fitting God’s Covenant order, Headship and Tingly Respect both yield a home environment filled with God’s peace and presence, producing a sanctified marriage and providing a superiorly ideal setting for children to be raised in.  All other relationship structures do not fit God’s archetype, and will be prone to dysfunction, not only within the marriage, but also in the children.

The Differences between Headship and Tingly Respect

Headship and Tingly Respect deserve special attention, because these are the relationship structures that glorify God.

Concerning the red area in the second diagram, there is a small difference between Headship structure and the Tingly Respect model.

In the Headship structure, the woman submits to the man’s authority out of reverence and obedience to God, and this requires her maturity, faith, and willingness to do so.  It does not rely so much on the character of the man, but it does work to inspire the man to grow in faith and confidence.

The success of the Headship structure depends on the wife’s willing submission.  Properly understood, Headship is not predominantly a legalistic system of rules intended to control the wife nor to check the aspects of her worst nature, but it will tend to resort to these methods during rough times.

In the Tingly Respect model, the woman is emotionally and viscerally swooned by the masculine authority of the man.  It does not rely so much on her faith and willingness, but instead, tends to inspire her faith and willingness.

The Tingly Respect model is less susceptible to the usual wifely indignation, because it appeals to her emotions, sates her natural hypergamic desires, and therefore relieves the wife from a heavy reliance on her willpower to be obedient.

The Tingly Respect model works because a woman’s natural desires for a husband and to be ruled over (according to Genesis 3:16) is commonly expressed as a hypergamous desire for a top quality man.  She intuitively perceives that such a man has the visceral power of authority over her desires, and he therefore rules over her.

Therefore, the Tingly Respect model depends heavily on the man’s mastery of true masculine authority, characterized by Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status (AKA LAMPS or PSALM).  It also requires the man to showcase his persona non gratis and his charismatic leadership, all of which attracts and inspires the wife’s affections and loyalty.

In a Headship relationship, the wife has the upper hand in attracting her husband’s sexual interest, as long as she is willing to do so.  As such, she has authority over his body (i.e. his sexual desire).  In a Tingly Respect relationship, the husband is able to cause the wife to lose control over her sexual desire for him, such that she wants to make love to him on impulse and without prescient contemplation.  This is why I called this the Tingly Respect model.

Furthermore, if a married person has the power to turn the other on to such a degree that he/she has lost all conscious mindfulness, and dives into the act of intercourse without any thought, hesitancy, or reservation, then that person might be able to truthfully claim that he/she has real authentic authority over the other’s body (according to 1st Corinthians 7:4).

Conclusions

By associating the four marriage structures (from DS) with the correlating relationship models, it becomes clear how the woman’s choice of her Life Path and her subjective relation to masculine authority (e.g. father, husband, mentor, government, etc.), are the two major determining factors for the type of marital structure that results.

To obtain a God glorifying union, the man must maintain the power of authority over the woman. The woman absolutely must cultivate a posture of submission and humility in her Life Path, and she must possess an authentic respect for the male authority in her life.

Of all the relationship structures, only the Headship and the Tingly Respect structures offer a God glorifying marital union.  Headship works by virtue of the woman’s strength of will to be obedient to God, whereas, Tingly Respect functions as a product of the woman’s hypergamous passions to be obedient to her husband.

Most men would prefer a Tingly Respect relationship, but are discouraged from entering into one when they realize that (in the current MMP) this usually requires him to choose a woman who is substantially below his own SMV/MMV.  Those men opting for a Headship structure will find it to be very challenging to identify a potential mate who is willing and diligent in remaining obedient to God.

If both of them are sufficiently emotionally and spiritually mature, then it will be easier for them to utilize their collective willpower under the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of note, if a woman is able to remain sexually pure prior to marriage, then it becomes all that much easier for her to experience the emotional thrills and sexual bonding necessary for her to nurture an authentic respect for her husband, which intrinsically grants him a greater strength of authority.  Doing so will allow her to not have to rely on her willpower so heavily in marriage, and it will excuse the husband from relying mainly on Game tactics.

Conversely, if a woman doesn’t cultivate a posture of submission and humility in her Life Path, and she does not reverence men nor respect male authority in the structure of power, then it is highly unlikely that a God glorifying marriage will somehow ensue without a soul chafing reliance on willpower.  As a consequence, the home environment and the children’s wellbeing will suffer.

Comprehensively, this study offers strong support for the Meet Cute encounter as a God honoring courtship model, since it assumes from the onset of the relationship that the man holds a visceral power of authority over the woman, and that the woman is actively responsive to his authority as evidenced by her IOI’s.  I will cover this aspect further in a future study.

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, Courtship and Marriage, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Game Theory, Hypergamy, Influence, Leadership, Male Power, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Power, Relationships, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Placing the Marriage Structures within the Archetypical Models

  1. Novaseeker says:

    The natural interaction between two people in a relationship is what defines the relational structure – not cognitive dissonance, not presumed choice, not cognition, not willpower, not doctrinal stance, and not how Alpha or Red Pilled the man might think he is. The day to day interactions follow a habitual pattern, and that pattern fits one relationship model better than the others. This relationship structure might change, but not without severe resistance.

    This is surely true, which is why it’s so difficult to “salvage” a relationship where the basic dynamic, from the beginning, was not in one of the two spiritually acceptable categories. In that scenario, it likely never will be, no matter what you do (if you are close, say in complementarianism, you may get to move to some form of headship, but even that is hard if the basic dynamic is resistant to it), because it is based on the two personality types and how they organically interact in these two specific persons. Resetting that is extremely hard, and is basically trying to start a new relationship, which is why it runs the risk of the other person leaving since they would not have been interested in that dynamic if it had been present at the beginning in any case.

    I think this also explains how the same woman, with the same basic values, can have very different kinds of relationships depending on the context and timeframe involved — the reason is that the specific dynamic is dependent upon the way that two specific relationship types interplay with each other in a given encounter of two specific people. So, a woman who is on the left (dependent) side of the table will vary in her reaction to a man from expectations of courtly love to complementarian to headship to tingles depending on the way her specific personality interacts with his specific personality — the same woman, however, in all cases. This also is the source of relationship “risk” for men with “left side” women who are in a courtly or complementarian relationship with them, in terms of women being very attracted to men who trigger, by virtue of their personality and the way it interacts with their own, a visceral tingles, or even headship/submission, reaction.

    In this way, it has to be kept in mind that a “meet cute” scenario is in no way only limited to people who are married. Married people also have “meet cute” scenarios with other people, and if a married woman is on the left side and in a courtly or complementarian situation, she can be vulnerable to acting out on a “meet cute” scenario where the man in question, in terms of the interplay of his personality with hers, triggers a visceral tingles or headship response. Watch out in those cases.

    I also think there is a temporal element that can cause women to “flip columns”, as it were. So, while I generally agree that …

    By associating the four marriage structures (from DS) with the correlating relationship models, it becomes clear how the woman’s choice of her Life Path and her subjective relation to masculine authority (e.g. father, husband, mentor, government, etc.), are the two major determining factors for the type of marital structure that results.

    … nevertheless I do think that it is also the case that a woman from the right column can, at least for a while, find herself in a top left column relationship. That is, the ball-busting grrlboss feminist egalitarian drunk on her own sexual power can find herself involuntarily attracted to a man in the top left sense of visceral tingles (it goes beyond the “super friends” situation of the top right to more raw, visceral stuff — think of the ballbusting NY lawyerette who falls swooning for the rough-but-manly-like-no-guys-in-Manhattan-are Montana rancher while on holiday). This is a “column hop” from right to left. Now, it is inherently unstable, because she is, in fact, a right column girl, and her attraction to the top left column guy in a top left column way creates a huge amount of cognitive and emotional dissonance in her (great stuff for romance novels or movie plots, btw!!, women love this stuff), but it is still there. In the end, these relationships don’t generally work, because the right column “is [too] strong in this one”, as it were, for her to ever be comfortable in a left column relationship (and if it’s Hollywood, the script will sometimes have the guy himself convert to being a right column guy, because he is so overwhelmed by the woman’s allure … the old romance novel script of flipping the viscerally attractive man and molding him, capturing him, etc.), but the fact that they do happen means that even the most staunch right column girl still is vulnerable to a left column dynamic under the right circumstances, at least for a limited time.

    Conversely, gentlemen, the reverse can happen as well. That is, a woman can “hop” from the left column to the right one, over the course of her life. This can happen if she is seeking change, greater independence, greater empowerment, and so on, and it is often egged on from outside sources — keep in mind that in the age of the internet, such outside sources are legion in scope and are not predictable in terms of when and how they may impact a given woman. But the important thing is that if a woman ever makes that “column hop” from the left to the right column, look out, because your left column relationship is now in serious jeopardy. The recent example of the suburban mom/female-assistant-pastor turned Only-Fans-Girl is an extreme case of this, to be sure, but there are many other much less extreme cases of column hopping from left to right that most of us will have seen at some stage, and so it is something to guard against if you are in a left column marriage. It goes without saying (or should), that this risk generally does not materialize if you are in the top right, ideal, situation. It becomes a much bigger risk as you go down the left-side pole, and when you are in the complementarian or courtly situations, however, so be aware of that, and be careful.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Should read, at the end, “if you are in the top left, ideal, situation” … not the top right. Hopefully that was clear from context, but if not I am adding this to clarify in any case.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        I placed “celibacy” at the top right, as it’s the only way a woman can remain independent and still be under a man’s authority (i.e. her father). But you’re probably right about it being the ideal situation. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      @ Novaseeker,
      You’ve described a few real world dynamics and have thereby showcased the applicability of the ideas behind this post. Thanks for that. Because different people and relationships have so many aspects and dynamics, I’m sure there’s many more.

      “…even the most staunch right column girl still is vulnerable to a left column dynamic under the right circumstances, at least for a limited time.”

      Concerning “column hopping”, what we often see happening (all too frequently IMO) is that the woman is lured into a Tingly Respect relationship early in life, when her SMV is high and her agency is non-existent. (BTW, this is the main reason why women should marry young.) But she can’t maintain the relationship because she’s too emotionally immature and too spiritually disobedient, partly because of Feminist indoctrination and partly because of a learned inability to trust God/male authority. So (since she didn’t marry first) she gets ejected from the relationship and the resulting heartbreak kickstarts her rounds on the carousel. After a few more years and a few more men, she learns to be independent, thus ensuring her fate on the right column.

      Moreover, the entropy of disobedience and sin pushes women to the lower right quadrant and therefore makes them wholly unfit for an ordered, God glorifying, Covenant marriage in the upper left quadrant.

      “…if a woman ever makes that “column hop” from the left to the right column, look out, because your left column relationship is now in serious jeopardy.”

      I believe that (1) either egotistical pride or a lack of trust, and (2) a preference for indignation or self-determination over humility is what inevitably lands a woman on the lower right. So even if a woman has not hopped columns in the past, she is at risk if she shows any of those four qualities (egotistical pride, a lack of trust, indignation, and being self-determined). Having all four is a sure bet that she’s a booby trap bomb awaiting the right conditions to blow up.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        what we often see happening (all too frequently IMO) is that the woman is lured into a Tingly Respect relationship early in life, when her SMV is high and her agency is non-existent. (BTW, this is the main reason why women should marry young.) But she can’t maintain the relationship because she’s too emotionally immature and too spiritually disobedient, partly because of Feminist indoctrination and partly because of a learned inability to trust God/male authority. So (since she didn’t marry first) she gets ejected from the relationship and the resulting heartbreak kickstarts her rounds on the carousel. After a few more years and a few more men, she learns to be independent, thus ensuring her fate on the right column.

        True. It also tends to build resentment (she resents the fact that she finds it attractive, still, and resents the guy for having kicked her away as well), which fuels the desire to be independent of “men like that who are not healthy for me” (but who still secretly make her tingle nonetheless). If she’s lucky she gets an “allyship” marriage (what I call “SuperFriends”, after the rather obviously feminist cartoon from when I was growing up, where males and females were all equally powerful superheroes). If not, she ends up dropping down the right pole into situations that satisfy her mentally/ideologically but bore her to death emotionally and sexually.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Another thing is that women who have experienced Tingly Respect before can get really good at faking Tingly Respect for the purpose of luring and frauding a man into marriage. She will psych even herself into believing she’s sexually attracted to this man who really doesn’t do it for her. She does this because she needs this guy, she needs to keep him, and she needs to get married. I suspect the thinking goes something like this:

        “I really really like this guy. We get along really well. We have things in common, We like the same things and live the same lifestyle. My parents like him. My friends like him. Even the sex is good, rarely, and it’s OK most of the time. I just… don’t… feel the way I felt with other guys. Maybe. But I SHOULD feel that way with this guy. I SHOULD.

        “You know, maybe something was wrong with all those guys. Maybe something was wrong with me. But it’s better now. I really DO feel that way with this guy, and here’s how I know that: Because I would not like a guy like this unless I felt that way about him. I could not have sex with him if I didn’t feel that way about him. I don’t have sex with guys where I don’t really really want to have sex. I don’t have sex with guys unless I feel that way about them. Since I have had sex with him, and it was good sometimes, and is OK most of the time, I must feel that way about him. Plus, I want to get married, and this guy is probably gonna do that for me, and I need that, and I need to do what I can to get that from him, so it’s all good. So I’m going to keep going.”

        Or something like that.

        Which is why she becomes so incredibly disappointed and disillusioned with sex very soon into the marriage – because she didn’t really feel “that way” about him. She talked herself into it to quiet the cogdis, and because she needed to get him to give her the commitment she craves. Which is why she avoids sex into the marriage. He really doesn’t make her feel “that way”and he never really did. He has no idea how to make her or any woman feel “that way”. Which is why women will say that the sex is so bad, it “feels like rape”, and they avoid it – because he just doesn’t do it for her and never really did. But she lied to herself and to him, and lured and frauded him into a marriage that should never have been.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @ thedeti at 10:49 re women faking attraction

        With zero proof beyond observation, I suspect you are correct and there may be more. I think many (maybe most) women have the capacity to create temporary attraction based on opportunism (with limitations). Yes they’re individuals and this capacity varies from woman to woman. Women love opportunistically. Perhaps real but not sustainable.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        cameron:

        I don’t know if it’s so much “faking” attraction as it is “overstating” her attraction. What I mean is that she has some sexual attraction for the guy… it’s just not as much, or as visceral or intense, as it was with earlier men. It’s enough to get her kind of interested for a while and to keep her there. His real appeal to her is that he brings beta provider traits, which she absolutely MUST have to marry and to start the family she needs.

        It works great for her, until she has the last kid. It works terribly for him.

        Of course, women have always felt this way about men. There’s a small amount of men they really really want sex with, and of course, all women want sex with those men and there aren’t anywhere close to enough of those men to go around. There’s a small amount of men that are true “incels” who will never be successful. And then there’s the very large group in the middle, who can gin up some attraction but not very much, not strong, and not sustained.

        The problem is not that women feel this way about men; the problem is that we have based Western social policy and culture on women’s feelings about men. How women feel about men is now empowered. Women are now “entitled” to be constantly tingled and stimulated and entertained all the time. Women are now entitled to be “happy” all the time, and if they are not, then the relationship is a “failure” and he is not “The One”.

        It used to be that women felt this way but they weren’t empowered to base their entire lives on it. They were mad that Biff the Quarterback married Stacy the head cheerleader. They were mad that they couldnt get Chad to marry them. But they were OK with their “regular guy”, mostly because they never got to have sex with Chad or Biff, or if they did, it was once or twice and she knew the score – she knew Biff would never ever marry her. And she didn’t want it to get out that Biff got there first, because then Tom Teacher, Paul Plumber, Frank Farmer, Phil Factoryworker, or Ernie Electrician might reject her.

        Women knew all this. So they never even set their sights “that high”. They got Tom or Paul or Ernie, and they were content. Maybe not thrilled and tingled constantly, but they were content. They got most of what they wanted.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Women were under intense familial, social, religious and cultural pressure to get serious about finding a man for marriage, if that’s what they wanted (and most of them wanted that to varying degrees). Those pressures have been largely removed so that now women don’t have to be serious about finding a man for marriage in her late teens or early 20s. There’s “time to play” now.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        thedeti,
        I agree it’s probably mostly not “faking” – I used “faking” in response to you using that word above.

        I suspect that regardless of prior experiences (or lack of), their built-in opportunism enables them to generate (often temporary) lower level tingles for Beta Bob (but not Gamma Greg/Incel Ian – that’s why I mentioned “with limitations”). I’m not sure if it even typically sustains itself until the last kid – I think a common timescale is a few years (4 years is you ask F. Roger Devlin).

        Contrast that with the typical beta male (not meant in an insulting way – the middle 60% or whatever are beta) who has strong desire for a woman who passes his attraction threshold – often a girl of equal SMV.

        As an aside, I hate when people say “beta male” and really mean “blue-pilled male.”
        I think we’re mostly on the same page.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Women were under intense familial, social, religious and cultural pressure to get serious about finding a man for marriage

        Deti — True. Also financial pressure. A large part of it is that women are now their own betas, financially. This greatly extends the “party years” phase prior to the lane-changing and husband search phase around age 29.99999999999999 (keeps getting closer to 30 and is actually over 30 in the blue metros now).

        I don’t know if it’s so much “faking” attraction as it is “overstating” her attraction

        Yes. It’s sort of like when people are buying a house in an area that has a hot real estate market, where the “good” houses move quickly. Buyers tour houses and they kind of “talk the house up” to themselves in order to convince themselves that they should put an offer on the house — basically making themselves more comfortable with making the offer than they would be if they were not under the pressure of being in a seller’s market by talking up the house to themselves and convincing themselves that it is a better house than it really is. Women often do the same thing after they have lane changed and for similar reasons — they feel market pressures, they feel like the number of suitable for purpose guys is getting smaller by the day, and they have to put a down payment on one of them. So they talk themselves into a guy who they are attracted to, but not head-over-heels for, because head over heels isn’t a realistic option — he’s either not going to marry her or women like her, or he’s already married to someone else, or he will take so long to find that family will be off the table by then.

        Women knew all this. So they never even set their sights “that high”. They got Tom or Paul or Ernie, and they were content. Maybe not thrilled and tingled constantly, but they were content. They got most of what they wanted.

        A lot of this has to do with FOMO. Just as the culture surrounds men with images of beautiful, sexy women, women who retain true sex appeal well into their 40s now due to gyms and trainers and nutrition and surgery and so on, it also bombards women with these same images. These impact the sexes differentially, and in both cases negatively, but for women the impact is that they tend now to see their options as being greater than they really are, other than during that desperate “need to find a baby daddy who will be married to me at least when I have a small child” search. That creates an intense FOMO among women. After all, they are bombarded by images of women everywhere of seemingly all ages deploying their beauty, relishing the attentions of attractive men, having fun, traveling, living fabulous lives and so on. Why bother being married to Ernie or Paul when you can have that life, you know, the one that’s in your social media phone feed every single day?

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Novaseeeker – yes all of that. To me the interesting questions to answer are – what are the numbers for female attraction – is it really Pareto (80/20)? Also, is it relative – based on a woman’s SMV/self-perceived SMV or is it absolute (e.g. 80/20 for all women)?

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Cameron —

        I think there are both pareto and relative elements in the following sense. The top tier men are attractive to all women — the top 20%. They are attractive to all women, satisfy hypergamy of all women. Even the top women.

        When you get down from there, a relative element arises as to “which other men fit the attractive profile” beyond the 20%, and that is relative to the woman’s SMV. It must always be higher than hers, but for women with lower SMVs it does capture more men. So, for example, a woman who is a 6 will not find a male equivalent 6 (men aren’t rated 1-10, but just for simplicity’s sake let’s use that phrase to describe an equivalently attractive man) to be attractive, but a female 4 will and, albeit less intensely, a female 5 as well. The male equivalent 6 will never be as attractive to the 4 as a pareto 20% male, but he still is genuinely “attractive” to her in that he satisfies hypergamy.

        As we can see this wreaks havoc. Because a female 6, in assortative terms, should be linked up with a male equivalent 6 … but she isn’t hypergamously attracted to that man. Under the ancien regime, that was who she was “stuck with” under assortative mating, and it was “ok” in terms of the woman being in the same boat as her peers, but she was still having a low level of discontent due to not being genuinely attracted sexually to her husband. She just often didn’t expect to be, because most women also were not under the old regime, so they didn’t torture each other, either, about the great sex they were having with man X. Once women were able to break out of that system by being financially independent, they bolted and pursued hypergamously attractive men almost immediately and en masse … something which indicates that there was a good amount of “bottled up” discontent under the old system which wasn’t expressed simply because it had no way to be expressed other than in outlier women.

        The sad truth is that assortative mating doesn’t work for hypergamy, other than for women who are themselves at the very top. That is — in a system where women have real options (i.e. not pressured to marry for various reasons), assortative mating is unattractive, because their peer males are unattractive. In order for hypergamy to be vindicated, a solid percentage of men must go without mates, while the men who are more attractive practice “serial polygyny”, with multiple women, often multiple wives, in a lifetime, while other men get 1 or 0. Robert Wright, no conservative he, noticed this back in the late 1990s, and was basically told by other liberals to shut up, so he did, but he did talk about it. And of course some of the most attractive women are engaging in polyandry as well, but this is a smaller effect, because the issue for women is that there aren’t enough attractive men, so it tends to lead to polygyny rather than true polyandry, it’s just that the polygyny, in the context of marriage at least, takes place serially (simultaneous being against the law). Realistically what we have going on among men is a combination of the following: (1) serial polygyny for a relatively small number of men, (2) a large group of men being more or less used by women for the purpose of family/children, and in a significant number of cases, discarded when deemed no longer fit for purpose or otherwise cramping the woman’s style and (3) a growing number of zeroes who are left out of the entire system because hypergamy trumps assortative mating increasingly, meaning more men get left out over time as it displaces assortative mating.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Novaseeker,
        Thank you for the response – I have always found your comments very informative (and thedeti’s too).

        “a large group of men being more or less used by women for the purpose of family/children”

        Yes and I would add “for the purpose of a paycheck” too. This even happens with childless couples where the woman works – she can’t have the lifestyle/house/car she wants without the 2nd paycheck.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. thedeti says:

    The relationships from the Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary (I will not name names, we all all know who they are) are Tingly Respect. That’s mostly because the relationships started out that way.

    The absolute very best that most men can EVER hope for is complementarianism, and that is only if the woman is constantly mindful of her own proclivities. She has to force herself to submit. It causes a lot of friction, unhappiness and deep resentment. Most women slip out of this mindset from time to time.

    Some men can get to headship. Most men are never ever going to get to Tingly Respect unless the relationship was that from the get go.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      @ Deti,
      This breakdown confirms my long held suspicions that the wife’s obedience is the key to a successful marriage.

      “The absolute very best that most men can EVER hope for is complementarianism, and that is only if the woman is constantly mindful of her own proclivities. She has to force herself to submit. It causes a lot of friction, unhappiness and deep resentment.”

      This could be a very practical reason why so many pastors are embracing complementarianism — because they know most men are just not going to do any better, not these days, anyhow. (Although I have doubts as to whether they actually realize this.) However, if this is the case, then they need to focus much more heavily on wifely submission and what it means to be obedient. (We’re still waiting for that to happen.) They should also be putting forth Headship and Tingly Respect as ideal models to strive for, but churchianity is too cucked to see those as godly relationships.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Most men don’t inspire Tingly Respect in any woman. Most men will never get there, particularly in this day and age.

        Liked by 2 people

      • AngloSaxon says:

        Are there any christian chads out there?

        Like

      • feeriker says:

        Respect as ideal models to strive for, but churchianity is too cucked to see those as godly relationships.

        Indeed. I struggle mightily with the idea that most churchian CEOs (a.k.a. “pastors”) today would be capable of even comprehending the models you describe. Some are incapable of any sort of deep analysis of anything, while others (a majority, I strongly suspect) simply have a theological and ideological blind spot for the subject, brought about by their lifelong blue-pill feminist conditioning.

        What we can say with near certainty is that the church(ian franchise model) as it now operates will not only be of no help or refuge whatsoever to those men not in the Pareto Top 20 Percent, but will amplify the World’s mistreatment of them (the silver lining to this being that the refusal of such men to in any way associate with these empty shells will hasten their inevitable demise).

        Like

  3. Pingback: Sexual Authority | Σ Frame

  4. Pingback: Complementarians are Effeminate! | Σ Frame

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

  6. Pingback: The Bible and female life path | Christianity and masculinity

  7. Pingback: Headship Restoration | Σ Frame

  8. Pingback: More on Relational Archetypes | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: 2020 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: The Relinquished Life | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

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