Sexual Authority

A man who can give a woman the tingles, and a woman who can give a man a stiffy, have intrinsic sexual authority by definition.

Readership: All; Christians; Married Couples;

Introduction

In a footnote at the end of a previous post, I explained my understanding of 1st Corinthians 7:1-9.

According to 1st Corinthians 7:5, a woman may rightfully expect regular sexual attention from her husband, and she has the authority over his body in terms of his sexual desire and satisfaction.  But that is within an intimate relationship between man and wife.  Women in general do not have authority over men’s procreative choices or abilities.  If a woman willingly lays her body down to be shagged by a man, which is her natural use in marriage, then by nature of the transaction, she is submitting to his authority, and his decision to ejaculate wherever he pleases.  If that results in a pregnancy, then she should have accepted that as a possible outcome long before she prostrated herself.

Bee objected to the phrasing, saying that the first sentence should read,

According to 1st Corinthians 7:5, a woman may rightfully expect regular sexual attention from her husband, and she has the authority over his body in terms of her sexual desire and satisfaction.

I suggest replacing “his” in the second line with “her”.

I maintain that the original text is correct, but I see how it can be confusing, so this post is written to explain it in further detail, just to be clear.

Intrinsic Sexual Authority

Sexual Market Value (SMV) as the Manosphere has described it, is a subjective, backward way of attaching a quantitative handle on one’s intrinsic sexual authority, for the convenience of discussion.  That is to say, when we speak of someone’s SMV, we are basically talking about how much sexual authority that person can command.

Sexual authority is not explicitly limited to sexual intercourse and sexualized intersexual liaisons.  It also extends to envelop one’s ability to garner attention, investment, popularity, and favor.  Sexual authority enhances one’s social prowess and enhances one’s overall quality of life.

Women are naturally skilled at this and don’t need any instruction. For example, it is common for teenage girls to compete amongst themselves as to who can dress the most provocatively. Instead, young women need to be taught to be modest, and to restrict this activity to marriage.

For men, as things are now, only high status and high SMV men have this kind of authority, and even so, very few of them are aware of it and know how to use it. (Some PUA’s call this being “sexually aware” or “having presence”.) The vast majority of men are clueless about this, and they have very little chance to learn it either.

Sexual Authority in Marriage

As discussed in the previous section, individuals with a higher SMV are naturally able to command greater authority in the arena of intersexual relationships. But the Biblically inspired challenge is to learn how to exercise sexual authority over one’s spouse. When both husband and wife hold sexual authority securely over the other’s body, then this is exceedingly conducive to marital contentment (i.e. sanctification).

In the passage about marital relations in 1st Corinthians 7:1-9, verses 4-5 say,

“The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

The idea of having authority over the other’s body is commonly glossed over, or conveniently ignored altogether, especially in a converged church sermon.  So you have to come to places like the Christian Manosphere to get any insight on this.  To focus on this point further, this authority over the other’s body entails hairstyle and how the other dresses, but it also includes the sexual use of the body, including sexual arousal, expression, and satisfaction.

The wife has (or should have) the authority (e.g. a shapely fit body, a kindhearted spirit of humility, emotional entrenchment, a personalized seductive lure, the physical skills, etc.) to turn her husband on and use his sexual desire to satisfy her own needs for attention, affection, affirmation, sexual intercourse, etc.

Hint to Ladies: Use your wrist, not your elbow.

Likewise, the husband has (or should have) the authority to get his wife into the mood and use her needs for attention, affection, affirmation, sexual intercourse, etc. to satisfy his own sexual desire.

Hint to Men: Use your elbow, not your wrist.

Sex begins in the kitchen. In the video below, two women demonstrate how to clean the silk from corn with a rubber band. The woman on the left (Rachel Ray) shows the proper level of joyful enthusiasm that is necessary to command emotional authority, but the older lady on the right has a better habit of using her wrist to command technical authority. (Experience comes with age.)  The most holy wife exhibits both.

Marriage Structures with a Healthy Balance of Authority

Many if not most of the frustrations encountered in marriage arise from the fact that sexual authority has not been attained by one or both.

Monday’s post, Placing the Marriage Structures within the Archetypical Models (2020 September 28), examined two relationships that have a healthy structure of authority.  I’ve extracted a few excerpts below.  (Click on the preceding link to read more.)

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.

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.

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 will power to be obedient.

The success of the Headship structure depends on the wife’s willing submission.  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).

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).

Concluding Statements

Men have a natural habit of seeking out women who command sexual authority over them, and men naturally (and quickly) fall in love with such women.  But within marriage, it is more important for a man to have sexual authority over his wife for several reasons.

  • It satiates her fleshly nature, leading to less drama and more peace in the home.
  • It reduces the wife’s inclination, willingness, and overall ability to rebel.
  • It makes it easier for him to rule over his household.

When a woman increases her N count, she is substantially decreasing the authority that her future husband may have over her body.  This is why men prefer virgins for marriage.

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, Desire, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Influence, Joy, Male Power, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Persuasion, Relationships, SMV/MMV. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Sexual Authority

  1. cameron232 says:

    “This is why men prefer virgins for marriage.”

    True but not the main reason.

    Men prefer virgins because of the instinctive disgust over cuckoldry. The harlot is more likely to have an existing child from another man. The harlot is more likely to commit adultery against you. Telegony (even if not real) is an instinctive/intuitive belief. When a man puts his penis & semen in a woman, he puts his genetics in her. These are deep instincts.

    The reason you give is true (also because men don’t want to compete against former lovers in her head or in the bedroom), but trumped by basic biology.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      @ Cameron,
      You’re right. It’s not the only reason. But it’s the main thing that ruins a man’s exercise of sexual authority in marriage. As you mentioned, it also shuts down a man’s desire for his wife. So it affects her sexual authority over him as well. The lack of sexual authority is a big reason why so many marriages fail to fulfill.

      Like

    • cameron232 says:

      LoL – “frontiers in cuckoldry” – maybe telegony (micro-cuckoldry) is real. Speculative science at this point but the hypothetical mechanisms have been described (includes regulation of gene expression/epigenetics AND transmission of genetic information) and the presense of (extracellular) dsRNA, short strand RNA and DNA (not described in linked paper) in semen has been verified. Penetration of the female germ line in the ovary /immature oocytes by seminal molecules also verified by previous work by Australian scientists at U.of South Wales.. See YS Liu’s papers also.

      Anna Kuznetsova may yet be vindicated.

      https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00154/full

      Like

      • Jack says:

        @ Cameron,
        I have formed the idea that telegony, if real, is more likely to be presented in women who have had an abortion. I don’t have a lot of scientific support for this opinion. But I suspect that some genetic material (blood, nerves, bone fragments, etc.) from the destroyed fetus is leftover inside the uterus, and may somehow become incorporated into subsequent pregnancies. There is also a metaphysical force emanating from the sacrificed lifeform (if you believe in that kind of thing).

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Russians (among others) seem to be investigating the phenomena but no matter what they find it will be a Russian conspiracy by the evil Putler. Chinese are looking too so that would be interesting – harder for Western liberal elites to dismiss. Or it could all be as real as UFOs and prehistoric giants.

        Like

  2. AngloSaxon says:

    “For men, as things are now, only high status and high SMV men have this kind of authority, and even so, very few of them are aware of it and know how to use it. (Some PUA’s call this being “sexually aware” or “having presence”.) The vast majority of men are clueless about this, and they have very little chance to learn it either.”

    Does anyone have any idea how to engage with men for whom their wives have very little sexual desire? If such a think is even possible! I’m talking marriages with dead bedrooms from the start of the honeymoon…

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      AS,

      How to engage them depends on if you and/or the man are Christian. If you’re not, then the most useful advice to such a man would be to tell him to give her the boot since she’s defrauded the man of his entire life.

      If you and/or the man you’re trying to engage is Christian, then I don’t know what to say other than “your suffering will be rewarded.”

      Like

      • Jack says:

        It blows my mind how many women get married without knowing that marriage is primarily about sex and procreation, and then they are annoyed when their husband expects regular sexual relations. The Bible proscribed some recourse for certain cases of marital fraud, but now days, there is nothing a man can do except swallow the bitter Red Pill.

        Liked by 2 people

      • AngloSaxon says:

        I think she married him because he was compassionate and patient and things of that nature, women aren’t bluntly told to not marry unless they want sex 3 or 4 times a week at least. I do not believe she has any visceral desire for him.

        Like

      • AngloSaxon says:

        Is total sexual dissatisfaction not reason to divorce? They are both christians but he did say to her unless the sex picks up he will divorce her.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        There’s no universally accepted Christian teaching on divorce.

        Catholics say no divorce (if marriage is sacramentally valid), Orthodox say up to 2 divorces (for grave matter/adultery) and Protestants have a bunch of different teachings (traditionally the confessional Protestants say no divorce or only for adultery).

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        If Catholic and her intention was no sex, then the marriage was probably invalid (she did not consent to God’s definition of marriage). He could divorce and remarry.

        Like

      • AngloSaxon says:

        They’re both Protestant. I dont think he’d divorce her, he is overweight and doesn’t have good options if he divorces.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Sex (and children) is basic to marriage. It’s what men get out of marriage (that they can’t get from other men). What a bunch of crap – I feel sorry for the guy.

        Liked by 3 people

      • AngloSaxon says:

        I dont think they’ve had sex more than 10 times in the first year of marriage – its a disaster I dont know how he can even look at her.

        Like

  3. ramman3000 says:

    @cameron232

    “There’s no universally accepted Christian teaching on divorce.”

    Who cares what the teaching is?

    The Hebrew word we translate as ‘divorce’ means to ‘send away‘ (or expel; banish). Some English translations use this literal meaning, rather than ‘divorce’, for this reason. The Bible never makes specific, explicit mention of ending a marriage. Consider all the biblical ‘divorces’:

    In Genesis 21, Hagar and Ishmael are both ‘divorced’ or ‘sent away’ (same word). In 1 Chr 8:8, a different word is used than the one used in Leviticus 21 authorizing ‘divorce’. Esther 1:19 isn’t even a proper divorce. In Hosea 2 divorce is not explicitly mentioned. Jeremiah 3 describes not divorce (re: Leviticus 21), but a certificate of divorce (separation?) re: Deut 24:3. The language of Deut 24:3 suggests a “first husband / second husband” distinction. Based off this and Jesus’ words in Matthew, it appears that a certificate of divorce cannot actually end the first marriage, only (potentially) allow a second to legally take place. In other words, the remarried woman has two husbands. This is why it is adultery to remarry and why Jesus said that no man can divide what God has put together. It is also worth noting that David’s wife Michal had two husbands.

    Separation (sending away)? Yes. Remarriage? Yes. Ending a marriage? No. Every specific instance of divorce in the bible is an interpretive presumption.

    H/T: God Didn’t Say That

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      ramman3000,

      The evangelical law (the law of Christ – the law we’re under) restores marriage to its original state. Part of that law is that a Christian man cannot put away his (one) wife except for adultery and cannot ever remarry as long as his wife lives.

      The marriages of the OT (post fall) were natural marriages not sacramental marriages.

      I tried not to be “denominational” and assumed the man AS was referring to was Protestant but I also assumed this site is non-denominational and not exclusively Protestant since Scott posted here and is Orthodox.

      Like

      • @ cameron232

        The evangelical law (the law of Christ – the law we’re under) restores marriage to its original state. Part of that law is that a Christian man cannot put away his (one) wife except for adultery and cannot ever remarry as long as his wife lives.

        You had me in the first part until the second part in bold. Jesus reconfirms what the original intent is which is:

        Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

        Thus, the original intent is “A Christian man cannot put away or divorce his (one) wife and cannot ever remarry as long as his wife lives.”

        The “except clauses” in Matthew (not present in Mark and Luke) have reasonable explanations for why they are not referring divorce for Christians. One such example is that the putting/sending away (note: divorce = writ of divorce + sending away) means Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 22 not Deut 24, and another fact which supports this is Matthew including Joseph intending to put Mary away in Matthew 1 for her fornication. Thus, the except clause refers to pre-marital sex which has the possibility to make a marriage illegitimate if a wife lies about it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        @DS

        “note: divorce = writ of divorce + sending away”

        Per Leviticus 21, priests could not marry a sent-away woman, regardless of whether or not she had a writ of divorce, because priests must remain holy. The same rule applies to Christians (i.e. the priesthood of all believers) and is also why they cannot have sex with a prostitute. Per Deut 24, the divorcement does not necessarily end the marriage, only allow a form of legal separation and remarriage. To quote GDST:

        “In Jeremiah 3:8, the point is that both Israel and Judah — God’s two metaphorical wives there — have strayed, but Israel, at least, has a sefer k’ritut. So Judah is worse than Israel, because Israel merely abandoned her husband, while Judah is an adulteress. But God invites them both back. So it looks like the sefer k’ritut allows a woman to find a new husband, but (1) it’s not clear that the old husband isn’t still her husband; and (2) even without the sefer k’ritut, the husband is free to marry a new wife.”

        In this metaphor, the first husband (God) wants both his unfaithful wives back (Judah and Israel), regardless of whether or not they have a writ of divorce. So, better to say that “writ of divorce + sending away” is a formal separation (not divorce) that legally permits remarriage. Indeed, the writ seems to be a formal permission from the man for another man to marry his wife because he doesn’t want her anymore. She is still defiled and unfaithful, but the second husband is not sinning by marrying her. In other words, it formally allows a woman to have two husbands.

        “Jesus is referring to Deuteronomy 22 not Deut 24”

        Jesus is referring to Jeremiah 3.

        Israel committed adultery, so God (1) gave her a writ of divorce and (2) sent her away. She then remarried, but remained defiled and unfaithful: God was still her husband (v14). Meanwhile, Judah was not sent away nor given a writ of divorce. Accordingly, Judah’s unfaithfulness was worse. God was within his rights to give Judah a writ of divorcement, just as he had done with Israel.

        Here is what Jesus said:

        “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

        The ‘exception’ is a permission to send her away. It is a form of legal separation, but it does not end the marriage:

        “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate”

        Matthew 19 is not giving an exception for adultery to end a marriage (no man can do that), it is giving an exception for adultery in order to legally separate. Divorce, as we understand it, is not a biblical concept at all.

        In summary: A man may ‘divorce’ if she commits adultery, but he remains her husband. A non-priest may marry such a divorced woman (though she is still married to the previous man; her defilement cannot be erased). He is undefiled, albeit not very bright and likely to be cucked himself (see Deut 24:3). A priest (and thus Christians) may not marry a ‘divorced’ woman for any reason while her husband still lives.

        “Joseph intending to put Mary away in Matthew”

        This is, indeed, based on Deut 22, not Duet 24. It just has nothing to do with Matthew 19.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Derek

        Per Leviticus 21, priests could not marry a sent-away woman, regardless of whether or not she had a writ of divorce, because priests must remain holy. The same rule applies to Christians (i.e. the priesthood of all believers) and is also why they cannot have sex with a prostitute. Per Deut 24, the divorcement does not necessarily end the marriage, only allow a form of legal separation and remarriage.

        Agreed.

        In this metaphor, the first husband (God) wants both his unfaithful wives back (Judah and Israel), regardless of whether or not they have a writ of divorce. So, better to say that “writ of divorce + sending away” is a formal separation (not divorce) that legally permits remarriage. Indeed, the writ seems to be a formal permission from the man for another man to marry his wife because he doesn’t want her anymore. She is still defiled and unfaithful, but the second husband is not sinning by marrying her. In other words, it formally allows a woman to have two husbands.

        Israel committed adultery, so God (1) gave her a writ of divorce and (2) sent her away. She then remarried, but remained defiled and unfaithful: God was still her husband (v14). Meanwhile, Judah was not sent away nor given a writ of divorce. Accordingly, Judah’s unfaithfulness was worse. God was within his rights to give Judah a writ of divorcement, just as he had done with Israel.

        The ‘exception’ is a permission to send her away. It is a form of legal separation, but it does not end the marriage:

        “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate”

        Matthew 19 is not giving an exception for adultery to end a marriage (no man can do that), it is giving an exception for adultery in order to legally separate. Divorce, as we understand it, is not a biblical concept at all.

        I am familiar with Jeremiah 3 and Isaiah 50 in terms of writ of divorce + separation vs just separation. I agree that God wants both Israel and Judah to return regardless of writ + separation or just separation. Judah was eventually sent away (Babylonian captivity) but redeemed/returned without divorce. And ultimately God redeems both and everyone else through Jesus (Jews & Samaritans and the whole world).

        I don’t know if there’s enough evidence to say that writ + separation is simply a formal separation and not divorce though, but I will have to think about that some more. That would neatly tie in Romans 7, but it would make the latter part of Deuteronomy 24 on divorce not fit as well.

        It also makes more sense for Matthew to have including the exception clause because Deut 22 and the inclusion of Joseph and Mary in Matthew 1 due to the surrounding potential illegitimacy of Jesus which the Pharisees accused Jesus of on several occasions in the gospels.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        @DS

        I find your explanation of Matthew 19 to be compelling. Indeed, I’ve argued in favor of it publicly. But as compelling as it is, the argument has a fair bit of uncertainty.

        “I don’t know if there’s enough evidence to say that writ + separation is simply a formal separation and not divorce though”

        Yeah, this is definitely true. The problem is the distinct lack of actually divorced people in the Bible. The most clearly ‘divorced’ person was Abraham, and that was before the Mosaic Covenant. In all cases, and there are not that many, the ‘divorce’ does not conform to our understanding of divorce. Indeed, other than Jesus’ statements, the Bible has very little to say on the topic and what it says is… inconsistent.

        One problem with the exception clause is the 1st century debate between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. Shammai claimed divorce only by indecency/immorality (i.e. as per Deut 24:1) and Hillel claimed any reason at all. It seems that Jesus was weighing in on contemporary question by siding with Shammai and explicitly rejecting Hillel. Your thesis is harder to reconcile with this, while the argument I just presented is 100% compatible.

        “I will have to think about that some more.”

        As will I. I only came across the bulk of this argument a few days ago, so I’m still processing it. I’m actually surprised you didn’t shoot it down immediately. Maybe there is something to it.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @DS, the early Christians understood the exception clause to refer to the putting away part of the verse but not the remarriage part. Note Matthew 5:32 where the husband is guilty of the wife’s (likely) resulting adultery if he puts her away for any cause but adultery. There was unanimity on this with one exception – a particular bishop recognized the sinfulness of the practice but thought other resulting sins would be worse.
        THere was an early Church controversy over whether men were REQUIRED to put away adulterous wives – the anwser was “no” they were not.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Derek

        “It seems that Jesus was weighing in on contemporary question by siding with Shammai and explicitly rejecting Hillel.”

        No – you would not expect Jesus to side with either – he called his disciples to a higher law. Nor is the disciples’ reaction consistent with Jesus siding with one of the two existing rabbinical schools.

        No divorce (separation) except for adultery – no remarriage as long as your wife lives.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        @cameron232

        “the early Christians understood the exception clause to refer to the putting away part of the verse but not the remarriage part. [..] No divorce (separation) except for adultery – no remarriage as long as your wife lives.”

        FWIW, this is exactly what I would expect if my argument is correct. A husband can send a wife away for indecency (unfaithfulness), but he is still her husband and thus ineligible to remarry.

        “No – you would not expect Jesus to side with either – he called his disciples to a higher law. Nor is the disciples’ reaction consistent with Jesus siding with one of the two existing rabbinical schools.”

        Of course Jesus could agree with one side if that side was correct, just as Jesus prayed before meals, a Pharisaic innovation that Jesus adopted. Regardless, I’m not sure how closely you have followed my argument: Jesus agreed with the school of Shammai on the restrictions to the writ of divorce, but went further than this in rejecting remarriage. This makes sense when you read the restrictions on remarriage for priests. Jesus was calling everyone to the more holy standard, something neither of the schools did. That explains the reaction.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @Derek, I may not have understood your argument (probably lazy reading on my part) – if so I apologize.

        Like

  4. “It blows my mind how many women get married without knowing that marriage is primarily about sex and procreation,”

    For women, getting married is about the wedding, status and resources for herself and any children she wants.

    The end.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      MGTOW truth right here. I have recently been listening to some MGTOW creators, and I am of the opinion that you aren’t truly red-pilled until you understand key aspects of MGTOW philosophy. I think that MGTOW is the ‘correct’ secular response to Feminism, and eventually might quell the feminist movement and restore equilibrium. All other Manosphere movements or philosophies play into the hands of the feminism in one way or another, or situate themselves between the two extremes. Once enough of the top 20% of men go MGTOW and enough time passes then women will see the folly of feminism. Jack do you have any analysis of MGTOW or is this exclusively a redpill site? I would be interested in hearing a Christian analysis of the MGTOW philosophy and its effect on men, women and the world.

      Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        I wouldn’t wait up for the pareto 20% to be going MGTOW to any significant degree. They’re the male demographic that benefits from the current arrangement, so they have little incentive to MGTOW unless they end up getting divorced … and if that happens they sometimes do go MGTOW, but no segment of society has a smaller impact and voice in our culture than divorced men.

        Generally Christian manosphere sites have been negative about MGTOW — counsel of despair and all that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        @ Jeff,

        In most of my writings, I emphasize sex, marriage, procreation, and child rearing because I recognize that therein lies the basic male drive and also the future of the human race. I take a Biblical RP view because with all the lies, heresy, misinformation, and post-truth floating around, this approach is the most conducive towards analyzing and getting down to the truth about these subjects.

        However, I also recognize that MGTOW might very well be the impetus/vehicle that gets us over the current wave of feminism, as you said. I am sure that the MGTOW movement (as opposed to either the RP or the broader men’s rights movements) is what gave feminists (and women in general) a harrowing wake up call, and lately we’ve started to see the pendulum swing back in the opposite direction.

        Many Christian RP voices have the opinion that MGTOW is not characteristically Christian in nature. But I disagree. I think it depends on each man’s purpose in life and what he does with that. In my own personal life, I believe it is God’s will for me to be married with children, so if I went MGTOW, that would’ve gone against what I feel I should be doing with my life. But I know marriage is elective and not for everyone, especially these days.

        I don’t follow many MGTOW creators, so I’m not familiar with the recent developments there. However, I would gladly accept any guest posts, pertinent reviews, or commentary on the subject, because I think it’s important for many men. Men need to have a clear choice, and because of the forces of darkness at work in the world, the choices are not, and never have been very clear. MGTOW is one choice, and it can be a Christian one if led by the Spirit.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Jeff, In theory, MGTOW is probably a better fit for Catholic and Orthodox Christians since celibacy is a higher state in these.
        Who knows if organized MGTOW by the great mass of betas (the bottom 80%) would work -but if you could organize this level of cooperation among men you would just use organized beta male violence – what worked in pre-history. Violence would work better than manipulative walking away.

        Like

      • AngloSaxon says:

        MGTOW isn’t going to kill feminism, women will just ignore them.

        Like

  5. “Once enough of the top 20% of men go MGTOW and enough time passes then women will see the folly of feminism.”

    There’s no incentive for the top 20% of men to go MGTOW. Supposedly they’re getting all the pussy there’s to be had, so why change?

    As an aside, my own take is that women don’t really want the top 20%, they really want the top guy, but will settle for someone in the top ranks, even though is he less desirable than the #1 guy. Women want winners. Honorable mentions don’t get the panties wet.

    MGTOW is really the philosophy for the men who aren’t getting any and don’t have any realistic chances of getting anything but washed-up hoes looking to score some alimony and child support further down the road. Since the women don’t actually care about these men, the group could more accurately be described as MOTO, Men On Their Own.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      As an aside, my own take is that women don’t really want the top 20%, they really want the top guy, but will settle for someone in the top ranks, even though is he less desirable than the #1 guy. Women want winners. Honorable mentions don’t get the panties wet.

      Only in a group of a certain size. It isn’t the case, for example, that all women in a city of 15 million are interested in literally one man, and every single other man is a settle. The size is too big, women don’t have access to all of the men, etc.

      I would agree that in any contained small setting, women all want the top guy, generally. But that context is always shifting (they exist in different settings and switch between them) and so the top guy in any context is always shifting too. Yes, women do compare these “top guys in a given context” with each other, but they also are deeply impacted by whatever their current context is, generally, and that is specific to each woman — again, in a city of 15 million, there are tens of thousands of those contexts taking place with different women and men in them in the same city, with each of them having women wanting the “top guy” in each context, rather than the top guy in 15 million.

      This is why it is an effective strategy for a man to shift contexts.

      Like

      • I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say.

        Maybe I need to clarify my own meaning.

        Women want the top guy; that means whomever they consider to be the top guy. Now, do all women consider the same guy to be #1 in any particular context? No, I don’t believe so. In a town or city, the mayor is supposed to be the top guy, and maybe he is, but many people might consider him to be just a figurehead. Still, being mayor is going to give him status in just about any context in that town.

        Switching contexts only benefits a guy who attains top or nearly top guy status by doing so. And that status in that context must be meaningful to women, otherwise its pointless.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Dunno if this helps KHH but women are naturally conflicted on what they want, being incentivized towards low FA (handsome), height/strength, dominant personality, other masculine characteristics but also toward resources and status as well as signs of paternal investment. If that’s not complicated enough (women are famously complicated!) women vary in relative r/K biology (this is probably both genetic and environmental – women from unstable households get pushed more towards r).
        So aside from the population size issue, women can shift and/or be very conflicted in their choices. I think Cane Caldo said that women sort based on the (real mostly) men in their field of view, with varying degrees of emphasis on the things they are incentivized to.

        Men by contrast mostly emphasize a woman’s “hotness” (or prettiness among the more beta males) and prefer that comes with agreeableness (not being difficult) The emphasis on hotness vs agreeableness is probably a function of how alpha/beta that man is among other things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I find women to marvelously uncomplicated. They want what they want when they want it… : )

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        KH —

        My point is that, when dealing with the physical space (apps discussed below), if you “add up” the top guys in all the various contexts you get to ~20% of the total population of guys, so it is correct to state it as 80/20 (roughly), even though in any woman’s most typical daily small setting (which is a subset of the larger one), it isn’t the top 20% in that setting but a more restricted number — this is because every setting has different guys, and the top 20% tend to be more concentrated in some settings than in others, rather than being equally distributed among all small settings that include men, such that it isn’t generally the case that a woman will find the top 20% in every setting attractive — the top 20% of the overall population, yes, but that isn’t distributed equally in every small setting where a woman finds herself. When the sphere talked about 80/20 it was in respect of the entire male population, not any one setting where a woman happens to be in that specific moment in time. Today she is in setting A and she finds no guys at all there attractive. Tomorrow she is in setting B and she finds the hottest guy there attractive. The next day she may be in a setting where there are many more attractive men than the settings where she is today and tomorrow, and she finds 25-30% of the men there attractive, because the setting has more attractive men overall, even though of course she finds the tippity top guy the most attractive. When you average out all of the possible settings on a large enough sample size, overall it will be between 10-20% of the men who generate visceral attraction, with the variance relating to there being more attractive men per capita in some large samples (say some states or some cities) than in others, meaning more men, or less men, whom women will find viscerally attractive in each of those larger samples. It’s because of this that a man can benefit from moving to a setting where there are fewer attractive guys — whether that is a small setting with fewer attractive guys, or any setting in a larger sample size with fewer attractive guys, relative to his own level of attractiveness, thereby making himself closer to the top — you’re correct that if he can’t get himself into the top 20% in any setting in which he finds the women attractive (i.e., without dumpster diving, as it were), he’s SOL and gets no benefit from changing settings. Changing settings works for guys who can find a setting where they are in the top 10-20% and succeed — again whether that is another small setting, or moving to a different city (guys have often reported results changing a lot based on where they are living for example, due to the different levels of competitiveness in attractiveness among the men in different places).

        Today the situation is actually worsening for men, however, because of social media and dating apps, where women can access the top guys in a wider area and not just a local setting in the physical world where they are physically co-present with men, but when you look at behavior on dating apps overall, with larger sample sizes, it follows pretty closely an 80/20 to 90/10 distribution in terms of which men get attention, depending on how attractive the men are overall in the geographic scope a woman is using for her searches … it isn’t the case that all women swipe on the same man or same 2 men in any group of 100,000 men and no other men, or that women only swipe on the most attractive guy on the app. They tend to have a sense, grounded in hypergamy, and assessed based on swiping around, of which men “stand out” such that these guys are in the top 10-20% of the batch of men they are presented in the app, and the other 80-90% are discarded. Keep in mind these are averages over time and place — on any given day and setting (including the setting of what group of profiles an app sets before a woman in any given session with the app), women may find more or less men attractive given the actual quality presented. But overall it tends towards 10-20% when you get the sample size up to a significant level. Apps are terrible for men for many reasons but one of them is that men can do very little to change their venue or setting or anything short of moving out of a given geographic scope.

        Like

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      @Kentucky Headhunter you neglect the fact that there a significant proportion of MGTOW men particularly those of the top 20% are in fact engage in dating and hookups. These men can do this up to the ripe age of 40, but then many continue on the MGTOW journey and avoid marriage. Feminism hurts women but in a way empowers the MGTOW man. You say: There’s no incentive for the top 20% of men to go MGTOW. I would disagree and say that the MGTOW truth is that there’s no incentive for the top 20% of men to get married. You are falling for the feminist narrative that all MGTOW are incels. This is done because women are afraid that good quality men even those in the top 20% will see the power of the MGTOW lifestyle. Jack is right that the MGTOW movement has feminists waking up to reality.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Jeff’s point is that there ARE top 20% SMV men who go MGTOW, and that they are not necessarily celibate. (The idea that a secular top 20% SMV man would remain celibate is a ridiculous presumption if you think about it.) But the trait that makes him MGTOW is that he never marries and never intends to get married. He just spends his whole life running up lots of women’s N counts. As marriage becomes more risky and more unpopular, there will naturally be a greater segment of that 20% that forego marriage altogether. This is what scares the $#!t out of women, because no matter what their religious beliefs and sexual history might be, all women hope to marry a top 20% man at some point in their lives. So a top 20% man going MGTOW relegates them to be nothing more than a creamy-dreamy pump-and-dump slore. This not only ruins their hope of marriage, but it also destroys their sense of security, and their confidence to enjoy their “season of singleness” (sleeping around), knowing that they can truly “stick the landing” (believing that there will always be a man waiting to marry them). It also pushes then to be totally self-reliant and to live at the mercy of the government dole. In sum, it’s the pressure of personal responsibility combined with the revocation of all forms of feminine power. This is the essence of the wake up call posed by the MGTOW movement.

        Like

      • I think I wrote a reply but may have gone back to read other comments and did not actually submit it, so sorry if this is kind of a double-post.

        I would consider top 20%-ers who pump and dump with no thoughts of marriage to be “players” (too old school?) and not really MGTOW, but if we do not share the same definition of what MGTOW is, and since I don’t really care to debate whose definition is more accurate/correct, I’m just going to move on from that topic.

        “As marriage becomes more risky and more unpopular, there will naturally be a greater segment of that 20% that forego marriage altogether. This is what scares the $#!t out of women, because no matter what their religious beliefs and sexual history might be, all women hope to marry a top 20% man at some point in their lives.”

        I concur, but what is going to be the women’s response? True repentance and a move to being a submissive helpmate OR just going stealth and pretending to be a unicorn all the while knowing that all the laws and cultural practices are still there in her favor when she decides to drop the facade? Are women really going to give up the whip-hand in marriage? I’ll believe it when I see thousands of women burning down the newly rebuilt Portland while demanding the repeal of the 19th Amendment.

        Like

      • Jeff,
        I had trouble parsing your fist couple of sentences, but I think I get the gist of your meaning, though I believe you to be incorrect. Also, let me state clearly that I have ZERO problems with MGTOW. It’s definitely the best philosophy for the vast majority of men. I just don’t think that it’s always described accurately.

        Now, by what definition are men who are frequently dating and having sex considered to be MGTOW? Isn’t that the complete opposite of Men Going Their Own Way? Having a solid frame that you and your mission always come first while proceeding to fuck all the chicks who throw themselves at you is not MGTOW.

        “You say: There’s no incentive for the top 20% of men to go MGTOW. I would disagree and say that the MGTOW truth is that there’s no incentive for the top 20% of men to get married.”

        You’re conflating not getting married and being MGTOW as being the same thing. They are not. The top guys don’t have to promise commitment of any kind, let alone marriage to get sex. Celebrities like Clooney (he totally fucked up) and DiCaprio were/are notorious for getting a new 22 yo GF every two years, with no intention of ever marrying. Good for them. They shouldn’t marry either as they also eventually suffer the same fate as normie betas, re: divorce rape, etc…(see Brendan Frasier, Channing Tatum, etc.)

        Feminism does nothing to empower men. Radioactive waste never gives anyone super-powers, it alway causes cancer instead.

        I haven’t fallen for anything. I know that there are lots of decent, strong, skilled, and even fairly attractive guys who have chosen MGTOW or MGTOW adjacent lifestyles because they are smart enough to see the risk/reward situation out there for what it is.

        Feminists never wake up, they just just continue to blame all their problems on men HARDER. “It’s weak mens’ fault that feminism doesn’t work”. “I’m now a 38 yo fat, ugly cunt, with an N-count over 100 and no hunky millionaires want to marry me! Men are such assholes!”

        Liked by 1 person

      • AngloSaxon says:

        If you are not marrying for religious reasons why even bother in the current year.

        Like

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      @Kentucky Headhunter
      I didn’t claim that men not getting married is equivalent to MGTOW. However being MGTOW implies not being married (unless one is currently married but is preparing to go MGTOW). I just ment to dispute your claim that, ‘There’s no incentive for the top 20% of men to go MGTOW.’ I heard one MGTOW creater claim DiCaprio as an example of a MGTOW man. You seem to equate MGTOW with no romantic relationships with women, that is not the case as some do some don’t. I think you have a caricature of a MGTOW man and you neglect to realise the variety of men and ideas that are more or less MGTOW. Did you read Jack’s comment he fleshed out one of my points in greater detail, which dismantled your previous assertion. I try to be succinct at the potential loss of clarity, so I don’t mind further dialogue. I agree that a MGTOW men wouldn’t throw himself at all the women who come after him and instead would be much more calculated. However bringing up an extremity like that does not dispute anything I have said.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        @ Jeff, KHH,
        Sorry, I had the impression that Jeff was saying that MGTOW included men who refused or avoided marriage on principle. But that may not have been what either of you actually meant. Like I said, I am not up on MGTOW stuff.

        Like

  6. lastmod says:

    MGTOW itself doesn’t care what faith a man is or isn’t. I have been in the scene since the late 1990’s and reading material before the “MGTOW” moniker was even created. No, I am not a mover and shaker in the scene, and I have read a ton of stuff since 1998 or so..followed it…..but MGTOW itself doesn’t care what faith a man is. The christian sphere should be more concerned with the large majority of the “red pilled man-o-sphere” actually. This is the palce where the hostility to the chirstian faith really lies……and if not hostility, most think the christian faith is really stupid.

    MGTOW is not a philosophy. Its just a framework of how to navigate your life as a single man in this culture (West / Japan in particular). It may have some philosphical “trappings” or wise words so to speak….but the two basics are: be a man, and not be married.

    Some become MGTOW and then meet the one….and leave. Some are Incel. Some are those real “monks” and many were and are just the hopeless. No matter how much they work out or leran nonsesne like game……….they were locked out from day one. Some are lazy…some do indeed live in mom’s basemant at age 45 (some because the divorce / alimony / child support / court fees / over zealous family court took everything, and said man really didn’t have a choice).

    Many of late are the PUA / Game types arriving…..their ‘foolproof’ cottage industry collapsed and they are like the used Chevrolet salesman telling the men that they just have to “be confident” like they are. Some MGTOW’s are players and have active dating / sex lives.

    Women don’t care about MGTOW…..they smear it as a hate organization because Oprah, the women on The View, Cosmo magazine or some college professor “said so”

    If that top tier 10-20% go MGTOW then and ONLY THEN will women take notice. Those men never will. I heard it said once that MGTOW’s are like a homeless guy going into a higher end Mercedes dealership; telling all the salespeople that their car is a “worthless” and “overpriced” and “all about looks, money and status” yet……..they could never even get a chance for a test drive.

    Sady…..with many MGTOW’s I would have to agree with this statement. Some decent men there….but its a vast family of ideas under that umbrella. Hence why it is deemed “dangerous” because it cannot be pinned under one man, or “school of thought”

    Hence why most married men hate it as well

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      @Jason, most women (and probably most men) have no idea what MGTOW even means – what % of the general public is even aware of this stuff?

      Women wouldn’t care if the bottom 20% (gammas or whatever) left. They would care if the middle 60% betas (or a significant fraction of them) left. But, as I suggested above, if you could get the mass of men to cooperate, you would just bring the wimminz under control the way it was done in prehistory, through force. There would be no need for men to collectively stomp their feet and walk away.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        You won’t get the mass of men to cooperate. High level guys….that top tier (10-20….even 30%) will gladly take sex if it is thrown at them, or offered to them. These men (a few of them that have posted on Dalrock, here and other forums over the years have mentioned how unhumbly in demand they are) will never put their feet down and go MGTOW. Never.

        In the incorrectly named range called “Beta” you mentioned (that 60% as if men who can’t get a gf or date because of their looks means they are bad men / supplicating to women…..no, that’s the higher end top tier….THEY are the ones who supplicate to women…look at the ‘game’ they follow…doing whatever a woman expects)

        Anyway….

        These men are very broken (a gazillion rejections by the age of 30 or whatever). Are very, very thirsty and will take anything the top tier guy rejects (the top tier guy has the luxury to do so by his looks and the like….not so for most of these middle guys).

        The loweer end….which is not 20%, its getting to be almost half in some parts of the USA. These men become the crazed Incel, lose their hope, indeed move back home into the basement……and the social skills they have regress further (thinking Star Trek is real, Star Wars obessions…..Big Bang Theory marathons…..). One just cannot say “lose some weight, get ‘confidence’ and walk right up to women and talk to them, and burp in her face…she will find you irresistable!”

        Many women DO know about MGTOW……agreed, not most……and they really don’t care about it. They would if the men looked like Ryan Gosling…….or most of the men that post in this forum (I know, I know…..all of you are J Crew models here). MGTOW is mocked mostly by women. A few “understand it” very well (Dianan Davidson, Karen Straughn) and most are indifferent.

        MGTOW is hard to classify because there are so many shades and varriances to it. This I notice is what frustrates the man-o-sphere (christian or not). They overall think in linear terms. “They’re losers / beta / supplicating to women by putting them on a pedestal / they just need someone to tell them about confidence” or the sphere wants a heirarchy of leadership, who do we talk to, we want “laws” a la Dalrock or some sort of Doctrines of it that are set in stone so we can debate it, tear it down and demand us married men access and menbership so to speak.

        Seen more hostility over the years from MARRIED men to MGTOW (married men hate being excluded from something)

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Jason,

        First some of the braggard men at Dalrock et. al. are anonymous liars (not that “alphas don’t exist – I just wanted to point out there are fakes and loonies on the internet – groups on the fringes e.g “red pill” attracts some crazies and anonymous phonies-don’t believe everything you read by people who post under goofy names in dark corners of the internet).

        Men did cooperate to establish marriage 1.0 as the norm. I’m merely saying that if you could get men to cooperate you wouldn’t use MGTOW to reestablish marriage 1.0 as the norm. Marriage 1.0 as the norm may never happen again – IDK

        FWIW, I hate the terms alpha, beta, etc. for socio-sexual rankings. I just use them because they are established terms. I see alpha as the men who generate strong, visceral, natural attraction in women. THe best guess is top 20% but who knows. I see beta as those who generate significantly less attraction, but are still attractive enough to be considered for LTRs, with some women (K-strategists) being more naturally open to LTRs with these men. THere are women who want normal looking, nice guys from the beginning – I’ve seen it. I see gamma (or whatever) as those that most women don’t want to marry at all – the homeless fat guy in the park who talks to himself or the guy who reminds her of chester the molester. I guessed it was bottom 20% based on symmetry but you say it’s close to 50%. All due respect to the host (and Vox Day) I reject these elaborate additional categorizations (sigmas, omegas, whatever).

        I think “beta” has become an insult – I think many men mean “blue-pill” as in “those chumps who aren’t wise like me” when they use “beta” as an insult. To me “beta” just means “MOST MEN”. I don’t believe you can become “alpha” through coaching or whatever, or at least very rarely.

        I understand why a lot of guys don’t want of marry, I support their decision not to marry (I think American women are mostly low quality and most have little to offer). I do not support men marrying and having to give up their friends and freedom and work a soul-killing job for access to low-quality women who probably will deny them sex. I simply don’t see MGTOW as the path to fixing females. It requires a level of male cooperation that would make MGTOW unnecessary. So yes, MGTOW as a logical choice, just not as a strategy to fix women.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        The cooperation issue arises from circumstances where it is more beneficial, materially, for men to cooperate rather than compete, when it comes to women.

        I think there is evidence in the history of our fallen race that at times that has veered towards more outright competition between men for women — when there is less competition for resources, and therefore less scarcity, and therefore less need to cooperate in order to secure resources and make advancements or at least fight off competitors trying to take over your tribe/village/etc. And then there were times when we veered towards more cooperation between men for women, when there is greater competition for resources, and therefore greater need for cooperation among men to compete adequately with other tribes, and engage in the kind of joint tribe-building effort that creates sustained advantage over others (like public works and so on).

        So when “life is harder” in terms of competition among tribes (war, conflict, need for arms race competition), men cooperate more with each other, and that always involves sharing women more equally. Conversely when “life is easier” in terms of competition among tribes (less war and conflict, less arms race competition, most people feel fat and happy more or less), there is much less need for cooperation, and therefore more of a tendency for top men to hog the women. I think women themselves lean towards preferring a situation where get to have their cake and eat it as well — in other words, where they get more access to the top men, but in a way that also provides them steady access to the resources of one man — that is a system that is kind of a hybrid where the men don’t enforce sexual access equality among themselves more rigidly (because that restricts access of women to top men genetically), but also one which doesn’t result in many women being corralled into actual harems and the sharing of the resources of one man because other men don’t have much to support them with. Women prefer a hybrid system to the “either/or” because a hybrid system is the best at giving more of them the best shot at both good genes and good provision in the same lifetime.

        The current system … is just such a hybrid. We have low conflict levels, low competition for resources (in developed countries), a lot of life comfort, and therefore the top men have almost no incentive to cooperate sexually with other men in theory … however, the entire system does rely on a relatively high level of cooperation on the economic level to sustain this degree of comfort and prosperity. That required economic cooperation is what sustained the perpetuation of sexual access egalitarianism for as long as it did … basically up until the sexual revolution.

        What happened then was that the masters of the universe discovered that since (1) the economies at the top end were moving past production and towards services as their primary source of prosperity and (2) women were becoming widely available, and amenable, to working just like men, thanks to the arrival of cheap, reliable, legal birth control and abortion, the labor “cooperation”, in terms of economic participation, could be tapped from both men and women … and therefore a more rigid form of sexual access egalitarianism among men was no longer required to sustain the required level of economic participation needed to generate the high comfort low resource scarcity life of the West. Women were now available for participation, and no sexual access “deal” among men was needed to secure their cooperation in order to sustain the economic system as a whole and the prosperity it generates.

        Not only that, but now that women were participating in the economic system in a much more fulsome way, they would, themselves, unilaterally rewrite the “deal” regarding sexual access with rank-and-file men themselves, and such men couldn’t do much of anything about it, due to Briffault’s Law. So the “top men” are able to have their cake and eat it, too, as well — they get the high economic productivity and participation needed to sustain a high comfort and low scarcity scenario without having to engage in sexual access egalitarianism, and they can have women be the main enforcers of the new inegalitarianism in sexual access, precisely because women have now been economically (and therefore socially) empowered to do so … and these women can also more or less force the rank-and-file men to continue participating in the economic system, too, and, again, not on the basis of some kind of intra-male sexual deal regarding egalitarian access, but instead resting on a female-imposed “new deal” which dual-tracks “viable” men into (a) a small set of sex class men (have sex with them regardless of other factors) and (b) a large set of dad class men whom women expect to have solid financial participation in order to be granted sexual access.

        In other words, the top men, who were the ones who once upon a time discovered that there was an incentive for them to cooperate sexually with rank-and-file men in order to create the possibility of continued growth, development, prosperity and competitiveness (and avoid being out-competed by other tribes) determined in the 20th Century as a result of scientific advances (cheap, reliable, safe birth control and abortion) and economic trends (towards a post-industrial economy in the most advanced countries) that this intra-male cooperation was no longer needed, because women could replace men in the workforce to a large degree and would also thereby become the new enforcers of a revised sexual deal (this time not one reached between degrees of men, but instead one imposed on rank-and-file men by women, after women had been enabled by the top men to do so) that would be a new hybrid system which provided women and top men with what they wanted: (1) for women, free access to sex with top men but not at the expense of being able to have an exclusive claim on the resources of one man, while also not being tied to such man — a win/win/win for women and (2) for top men, access to women for sex without worrying about the social and economic negative implications of hogging that access at least during women’s most attractive ages because (a) women would be participating in the workforce as well, which kept up participation rates and productivity levels, thereby obviating the need for such intra-male cooperation and (b) men would be subject to a new sexual deal imposed by the women themselves, and would participate, for the most part, anyway regardless of inegalitarian sexual access, because the new women would require it for rank-and-file men in order for them to have any access sexually at all.

        And that is why we have low sexual cooperation among men, and likely will for a long time unless and until the whole kit-and-kaboodle (economic and social system) crashes. That has always been the desired “Eldorado” of the manosphere, really, but is never a likely outcome.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Novaseeker

        Yeah, I’ve had the same thought about what it would take to go back – a reversion to the old economy and less prosperity.

        I see many, many broken 40-something women, alone with no hope for a relationship (I don’t say this with the gleeful spite you sometimes see in the manosphere). They go on and on social media about how they just want the happy 50-year-long marriage their grandmother had. You’d think that when enough of them reached this point, they’d start talking amongst themselves and figure out why it’s not working and tell their daughters, nieces, little sisters but that is expecting too much I guess.

        The other possibility is a lot of this is bred out (literally plus you tend to take on your families culture) e.g. what Edward Dutton is saying. There’s a huge disparity in fertility – in one or two hundred years most people will be descended from religious fundamentalists (of one kind or the other).

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Novaseeker – I admit I’m confused. You say there’s no reason for cooperation because the top 20% benefit but who are the top 20%?
        You seem to mean those who generate visceral tingles (as you say the ones whose genes women want) not the Bill-Gates-dad-with-resources. But if the new way of doing things was imposed, it was by men with power who are mostly Bill Gates types, not top 20% tingles types. It seems that most big societal changes are engineered by men with power.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Cameron —

        Yes, the older single women do suffer from lack of sticking the landing, as it were, and the rue that, but I don’t think too many of them would be very willing to trade off the economic independence and sexual freedom during their 20s that create that — they kind of want both and are sad that they only got a part of it, and not all of it. I don’t think too many would make the explicit trade, even if they could retroactively go back and do it — some certainly would, but I don’t think a majority would.

        On the breeding option — that should happen, I agree, unless … the brave new world types come up with a reliable scientific way to breed without upsetting the rest of the BNW system. Not likely but you never know with scientific development, it’s always a wildcard with big socio-cultural ripples like we saw with the sexuality technology in the 20th.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        @Novaseeker – I admit I’m confused. You say there’s no reason for cooperation because the top 20% benefit but who are the top 20%?
        You seem to mean those who generate visceral tingles (as you say the ones whose genes women want) not the Bill-Gates-dad-with-resources. But if the new way of doing things was imposed, it was by men with power who are mostly Bill Gates types, not top 20% tingles types. It seems that most big societal changes are engineered by men with power.

        It is a bit confusing, I agree because over the course of history, the sexual and economic alphas have diverged over time — so it gets confusing over who is alpha in which way and at what time. I will try to explain my understanding of it.

        The men-in-power are the ones who design the social and economic system — not the visceral tingles guys per se (other than the few of them who are also men in power .. not Bill Gates and Warren Buffet).

        In the deep past, there was convergence there at some point (jungle days — muscles and strength, and therefore alphaness, determined outcome of sexual competition AND economic power and created all-round alphas and this also generated visceral tingles), but as things developed the top men economically diverged from the top sexual specimens, although this happened rather more slowly than we think (in ancient societies, physical prowess, strength, masculine personae, were all greatly prized by the guys who were also running the show practically — at least until the ancient societies became soft and then collapsed). It was prior to this ancient society period, when there was still a significant degree of convergence between economic and sexual alphaness among men, that the sexual access egalitarian model was adopted by these sexual/economic alphas as a way for some tribes to out-compete others. Over time, the sexual alphaness and economic/political alphaness increasingly diverged, but it is still the men-in-power, economically/socially, who make the rules that govern the social and economic system, and for them, even though they were no longer the sexual alphas themselves, the system of sexual egalitarianism that had been created ages ago continued to suit them to generate prosperity for themselves and maintain their power, so they supported it wholesale.

        They then moved in the 20th to support the current hybrid system, which preserves their economic and social power, and also keeps their own sexual access intact (those guys are never going without … Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, all doing fine with women, and even the geeky ones are not incels), but brings women into the workforce, thereby upsetting the prior rule of sexual egalitarianism which formed the basis of the economic system of cooperation previously, and which therefore was the prior basis of the continued economic and social power of the ruling class of men, even though they had long ceased themselves to be sexual alphas. Simply put the rule of sexual egalitarianism no longer suited them (it was advantageous for them to bring women into the workforce — they could lower wages, access women’s specific talents for services and bureaucracies, be around more attractive women in their day to day workspaces), and they determined that could abandon it, retain economic productivity, and at the same time retain the same sexual access for themselves (at more or less the same levels it always was with that kind of money) as the non-sexual alpha but rich and superpowerful guys they were. The visceral tingles guys didn’t engineer this — they got a windfall, as did rank and file women, and rank and file men got the bill for the whole thing.

        So to sum it up, the beneficiaries by design were, in the following order: (1) the “men-in-control”, who managed to greatly widen the economic and power gap between themselves and everyone else, especially the rank-and-file men, including the visceral alphas, (2) the women, who went along 100% because they got a windfall, and it provided them with the hybrid situation they viscerally prefer, and (3) the visceral tingles men, who (to the extent that they weren’t members of the “men-in-control” group, which almost all are not) got a windfall and ran with it, gleefully leaving marriage behind. And the non-visceral tingle rank-and-file men got the shaft, more or less.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      Spot on imo. Your right that MGTOW is first and foremost a lifestyle. Also there is great variation between the people who go MGTOW and the various philosophical ideas they take from it. MGTOW men are anti-marriage, but your right that many get involved in the dating scene. I think they are ‘many’ top 20% men going MGTOW, even because paradoxically living your life by MGTOW principles will lead to a comparative increase in your SMV, namely the focus on financial freedom, your mission, and independence from women. The core premise of MGTOW is seeing marriage as a bad deal for man, too much risk and too little reward. However if you are in a religious community, particularly a Christian one that premise just doesn’t hold. Nevertheless I have found some MGTOW content to be useful in assessing the single life.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        Many MGTOWs use the chats and forums to find a “fellowship” with one another. There isn’t any “plan” to ruin women, marriage or the world going on in there. It’s just a place where they have in common the fact that for the most part they lost the “genetic lottery” in the looks department.

        Most MGTOW’s who are indeed living it, are really not in there…..they’re living their life. Kind of like the men who are “deep” red pilled, are “alpha” (use that term VERY loosely) and “and don’t even know it”.

        They don’t need MGTOW or a forum to prove it. They are just doing it

        Like

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      It seems to me that the ‘loudest’ of all MGTOW’s are those who lost out after divorce. MGTOW is a minority movement, but really is a great place for divorced men to commiserate, hence the high proportion of MGTOW men having been divorced. I agree that the MGTOW community includes a wide range of individuals, but barring the antics of the left, who might try to inter-sectionalise and fracture the community, the community will unite under a basic set of MGTOW beliefs. Again MGTOW is not really a movement hence my previous comment is a bit inexact.

      Like

  7. Pingback: Moon Day Review — The Rear View Mirror | Σ Frame

  8. Pingback: Patheological Weddingsday – When wanton treachery brings shame, not honor. | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: More on Relational Archetypes | Σ Frame

  10. Pingback: The Motivation of Desire | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: Illicit Sex Upsets the Balance of Sexual Authority | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: The Meet Cute Phenomenon (Scott’s Axiom) | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: “Flipping the Switch” is God’s Gatekeeping, not her Tingle management | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: A Ring of Gold in a Swine’s Snout | Σ Frame

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

  16. Pingback: Why is the online amateur sex industry attractive to men? | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: Something’s not right… (about Sexual Authority) | Σ Frame

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

  19. Pingback: Sexual competition continues after marriage | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Ethical Issues Surrounding the Christian Conundrum | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: Aristocratic Hypergamy | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Carousel Widow in Decline – Part 3 | 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