More on Relational Archetypes

Headship is the Christian goal for marriage.

Readership: Christians; Married; Those who hope to be married;
Note: In this essay, Headship includes the Tingly Respect model.

A Short History of the Model

Over the past couple years, I have been working on categorizing different types of relationship structures and identifying the defining elements that constitute such a structure.   I came up with two characteristic dichotomies.

  1. Who has defacto authority?  The man or the woman?
  2. What is the woman’s mindset and longitudinal habits concerning her submission to male authority (AKA her “Life Path”)?  Submissive or independent?

Once I placed these two dichotomies on two axes to form a graph, then all the different archetypical relationships clearly fell into certain areas of the graph, as shown here.

This graph underwent a couple revisions, described in the following posts.

I had a few RP principles that guided the process of forming this model.

  • Authority is sexual.
  • Power is dynamic and visceral.
  • Σ Axiom 7: The natural interaction defines the relationship structure according to which model it fits best, not what we think it is or hope for it to be.
  • Women are naturally drawn to men, and this can be expressed in many different ways, depending on her mindset toward authority and her habits of submission.
  • Rollo’s Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies: “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed, the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
  • Chateau Heartiste: The Moral Dichotomy of Women (2017 April 18)

DS disagrees with Rollo’s Cardinal Rule, but I think many relationships do play out this way, and so it needs to be considered. I think DS would agree that if both the man and the wife are aiming to glorify God in a Headship structure, then this competition should become much less of an issue.

I want to take this occasion to point out a few things that I had not described in detail in these past writings, and also to respond to DS’s reviews of this model.

One thing is the placement of Celibacy on the graph. Celibacy is a unique relational position, because the woman is independent, but she still remains under the authority of her father. I think true celibacy is very rare, because most women are sexually involved with a man at least once in their life, and this upsets the clarity of authority over her head. Secular, independent, adult women who may or may not have been previously married, may not recognize any form of male authority over her, and if this is the case, then although she may not be sexually active, she fails to conform to the Christian archetype of true Celibacy. Older widows or single women whose father has died are special cases of Celibacy, if it can be called such. I have to offer a disclaimer on the details, as there are technicalities which I have not yet worked out in great detail.

Other points are elaborated below.

1951 Studebaker Champion Starlight Coupe, heavily modified.

The Man is in a Defensive Position

It is fairly well known that the wife has much more influence than the husband towards creating happiness in a marriage.  (“Defensive” may not be a very good word to describe this, but I am hard pressed to think of a better description.)  To understand why this is, one only needs to consider the two dichotomies in the graph.

  • The man only has defacto authority if the woman has a “Thing” for him.  Besides the plain fact that there are precious few men who are able to instill the blessed Tingles and/or exert masculine Headship, this status is somewhat unstable and always subject to change (c.f. hypergamy).
  • The woman’s mindset and habits of submission are subject to her own discretion.  She can always choose to be disobedient and/or disrespectful.

Here are a couple posts that describe this imbalance in more detail.

Because of this dynamic, it is more accurate to use the husband’s happiness as an indicator of his wife’s spiritual maturity, and less accurate to trust the converse proposition as an indicator of the husband’s worth, as is customary within Churchianity.

A rare woman who respects male authority.

The Trajectory Towards Headship

First of all, I want to express my appreciation to DS for taking the time and effort to review my work.  I try to be as descriptive and accurate as I can for the readers’ benefit, and his reviews serve as a valuable quality check.  This discussion also fuels further thought as to how we can refine this knowledge and possibly improve upon it.

Recently, Deep Strength reviewed this model in two posts.

In the former post, DS said that the dotted male submission line is the same line as the female submission line. I separated these two lines because there is a grey area in real-life relationships, in which there is some degree of mutual submission depending on the issue. This is best exemplified by a Complementarian structure in which the man and wife hold traditional gender roles. The man is an authority in certain areas, such as politics, religious doctrines, and which car to buy, while the woman is an authority in other areas, such as the frequency of church attendance, choosing a school for the children, and how child rearing is to be implemented. In a true Headship, the wife consults her husband on every decision and follows his directive accordingly. She rarely (if ever) insists on having things “her way”, and instead, finds joy in discovering the purposes behind her husband’s directives.

In the latter post, DS discussed the “trajectory” of a relationship or marriage.  I want to discuss this idea a little further, because it has several components.

The nature of this trajectory carries an implication that DS and I have assumed in our writings, and that is the plain fact that a marriage may not stay in one location on the graph over time.  DS considered a few situations in which relationships change in and out of Headship.  There is much to be said about these transitions, but a full analysis would require many case studies.  If any of our readers have the makings of a case study, I invite you to write it up and mail it to me.

When people describe marriage as “hard work” or “requiring work”, I like to think they are referring to the daily tasks required to maintain or progress towards a Christ honoring Headship.  This may or may not be the case, depending on the personalities involved, but it needs to be emphasized that when we talk about a Christian marriage, we aren’t just talking about a wedding ceremony and the related legal documents.  No, a Christian marriage is defined/determined by whether it is characterized by Headship — male authority and female submission.  Any other type of relational structure is not a Christian marriage by definition.  Either or both the husband or wife may or may not be Christians, but without Headship, they don’t have a Christian marriage.

This gets sticky when we realize that it is possible for two people to be unbelievers, yet still have a Christ-like relationship.  This is true because all humanity remains under the pre-Edenic Covenant.

I do not write this to condemn Christians who have failed to achieve Headship, nor to glorify non-Christians who have.  My intention here is to draw attention to the fact that Christians who are married, or who hope to be married, should aspire to attain the Headship structure.  This necessarily indicates several itinerant “goals” for the Christian in marriage, which DS discussed in the latter post.  But reaching these goals may be far from simple.

To aid our understanding of this transition, I wrote a post titled, The Red Pill and Blue Pill as Paradigms of Sanctification and Defilement (with a mathematical analogy) (2020 November 15).  In this essay, I used a mathematical analogy to illustrate how moving from one relationship structure to another may require things to get perceptibly worse for a time.  Here, we can think of Headship as a global maximum according to the analogy, a form of sanctification that married Christians should pursue.  A few more case studies of transitions are contained in the post, Stepping up to the Challenge (2018 April 29).

1935 Duesenberg convertible

Moving towards Headship is Redemptive

Another way to succinctly describe this “move” from one relationship structure to another is carried in the concepts of redemption and sanctification.  A man’s marriage and family experience redemption when a Headship structure is attained and/or maintained.  This means that God is able to use this marriage and family for His purposes towards holiness, glory, growth, and bearing fruit, rather than it being relegated to a common, real life, sitcom drama filled with self-centered sins of ignorance.

Sanctification is also more likely to occur in Headship.  But this is a little more complicated, because the man, or especially the woman, may not find internal joy and contentment in adopting the Headship structure.  This weakness becomes more pronounced with women who are steeped in the Strong Independent Wimmin™ mindset, and/or who have a sordid sexual history and can no longer bond to a man in marriage.

Regarding the children, redemption is much more likely to occur for the children if their parents have a Headship type of relationship, and sanctification is almost certain.  The reason divorce is so destructive to children’s well-being is because it destroys their inborn hope of redemption, and transforms a sanctified home environment into one of shame and fear.

12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.  13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.  14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

1st Corinthians 7:12-14 (NKJV)

There is no guarantee that God’s glory and Shalom will come to rest on a Headship marriage, but it most certainly will not exist in any other type of relationship.

Press onward!

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 Building Wealth, Child Development, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Churchianity, Complementarianism, Courtship and Marriage, Divorce, Headship and Patriarchy, Hypergamy, Introspection, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Power, Relationships, Respect, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Sexual Authority, Sphere of Influence, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to More on Relational Archetypes

  1. Lance Roberts says:

    Unbelievers can’t have Christ-like anything as they have no Christ, they have no faith. They are ruled by their sin nature and their will is in bondage to it. The only covenant before creation was the one between the members of the Godhead; humanity wasn’t a party in it.


    • Jack says:

      @ Lance,
      God’s grace and love extends to everyone, not just Christians. People can live within the covenant order without a cognizant religious affiliation to Christianity.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Ed Hurst says:

        This why most covenants have a law structure, a way of blessing the community on behalf of the faithful. People live in a social structure, and if that structure is consistent with God’s ways, while it won’t by itself take people to heaven, it will allow the spiritual ones to harvest the blessings of shalom and create an atmosphere in which redemption is the norm.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. Scott says:

    Don’t forget this axiom:

    It is more or less impossible to generate true, heart pounding visceral attraction from a woman who was lukewarm about you in the first place

    And that which follows heuristically:

    If you marry a woman who was not out of her mind (breaking the rules for you that she sets for other men) be prepared to deal with the consequences of that at any point later in the marriage

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “If you marry a woman who was not out of her mind……….”

      Then virtually no men should marry.

      How would a man know what rules a woman set for men in her previous relationships?


      • Scott says:

        Yep. This is the kind of autistic-specrumy-I-don’t-want-to-learn-from-guys-in-successful-marriages stuff that always makes me throw my hands up and make videos like the meet cute one (which I was eventually talked into removing) or have interviews like I did with Adam Piggot.

        If you’ve never had a grown woman act like a silly crush stricken 14-year-old then you’re doing it wrong.

        If your wife wasn’t like that from the very start I can’t help you.


      • Sharkly says:

        Scott, Not everybody is a good looking 6’1″ military-hero doctor with a mansion in Montana. Cameron232 is entitled to ask questions. Name calling is unnecessary towards this brother whom you could be helping if you gave him a decent answer. Coming from another perspective his question can be viewed honestly, not as “I-don’t-want-to-learn”. For somebody who has got it all, you don’t sound very happy. Lay back on the couch and tell us what’s the matter, I’m not a real doctor, but I’m willing to play one on the internet and help you pro bono. 🙂


      • cameron232 says:

        @Scott, you missed the mark on that one. I am only a couple of years younger than you, have been in the same (happy) relationship for almost 30 years (since high school) with my high school sweetheart and have eight children with her (all my children).
        I am not here because I am a young incel or a screwed over divorced man. I am interested in what’s discussed here for my sons since I can’t bet on them being as lucky as I am.

        Your comments aren’t above criticism or even just a request for clarification.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. bee123456 says:

    “Sanctification is also more likely to occur in Headship.”

    I do not believe a married woman can completely mature unless she submits and respects her husband. It takes humility, faith, and trust in God to submit to an imperfect man that you are married to. The married woman stretches and exercises her faith when she trusts that God is directing and leading through her husband, and that God can work things together for good when the husband makes a mistake.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Pingback: Is the Christian Red Pill a Black Pill? | Σ Frame

  5. lastmod says:

    Wow…….and I thought Scott only spoke to me like this over the years 😉

    In his private practice I am sure Dr. K here never, NEVER tells a man “Hmm, let me see you wedding photos…..ahhh, see, your wife doesn’t have that viscereal look towards / at you when you getting married. Sorry. Your marriage isn’t going to work….but God loves you more than anything, and let me tell you about how amazing my wife at everything…..I am all about encouraging men. No shit.”


    • cameron232 says:

      My situation was as follows. She showed interest in me in HS by calling me and asking me out. She kissed me (a modest kiss) on the first date. And yes, she initiated “intimacy” a couple of months into the relationship.

      I don’t know if that qualifies as “out of her mind” and I maintain there’s no way to know if a woman is “breaking the rules for you that she sets for other men.” How would you know what rules she set for a man she dated before you?

      My original concern to him was this is such a rigorous standard that if men followed this almost none of them would marry. Should I tell my sons to follow this standard? It wasn’t supposed to be autistic nitpicking at his comment.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Elspeth says:

    Recognizing that submitting to your husband is ultimately an act of faith in God is a revelatory thing. It’s something every Christian wife has to come to. No matter how head over heels she is with her husband, every woman -like every other human who has ever lived- has to contend with her desire to what she wants when her authority wants something else.

    But…when that realization comes, submitting to your husband transcends beyond tingles and human dynamics. It’s a beautiful thing, and it turns a great marriage into a blissful one.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Pingback: The Motivation of Desire | Σ Frame

  8. Pingback: Relational archetypes and more insight into the false godliness of complementarianism theology | Christianity and masculinity

  9. Pingback: Theories on Single Women in the Church | Σ Frame

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

  11. Pingback: Zizek – Everyday Sexuality | Σ Frame

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

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

  14. Pingback: Lessons from the Train Wreckage | Σ Frame

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

  16. Pingback: The Futility of Justifying the Crash Landing | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: The Christian Marriage Dilemma | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: The Relinquished Life | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: A Mystical Approach to Meta Reality | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Commonalities of Successful Marriages | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: Rules and Trust | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Aristocratic Hypergamy | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Taking Headship by Force | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: 8 Things that Increase Discernment | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: The Influence of Culturally Imposed Sexuality on Women | Σ Frame

  26. Pingback: Lessons on Life and Marriage from Matthew 10 | Σ Frame

  27. Pingback: Women have sex to influence men | Σ Frame

  28. Pingback: A Volitional Model of Cascade Courtship | Σ Frame

  29. Pingback: Developing Masculinity | Σ Frame

  30. Pingback: Rights and Responsibilities within Marriage | Σ Frame

  31. Pingback: Infidelity is anything short of fidelity. | Σ Frame

  32. Pingback: The Meet Cute Experience as a Selection Model | Σ Frame

  33. Pingback: What Changes after Marriage? | Σ Frame

  34. Pingback: Sexual Authority and Sanctification | Σ Frame

  35. Pingback: Only Hunky Monks can find a Sanctified Marriage | Σ Frame

  36. Pingback: Red Pill Redemption | Σ Frame

  37. Pingback: The Ever Looming Black Pill | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s