Theories on Single Women in the Church

This study draws together ideas about a woman’s preferred Life Path and her desire for Authority, and offers suggestions for fathers and pastors.

Readership: Christian Men
Length: 2,100 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes
Author’s Note: This study was first published at Lexet Iustitia on 2019 February 25.  A revised, updated, and coauthored version (with Jack) appears here.
Reader’s Note: Input is requested in the form of comments.  Consider this a “working” post.
Disclaimer for secular readers: This post is based on observations of women who, to the best of my knowledge, are not leading some secret sinful life, or whose beliefs should be questioned.  These are observations of baptized, professing Christian women in good standing, and with good reputations.

Desires and Life Path

Jack wrote about a woman’s Life Path and how a woman tends to gravitate towards either dependence or independence.  But when I look around, I see several types of single women in the church,* which may be categorized as follows.

  1. Women who want to be housewives, raise their children, and keep the home (AKA “Stay At Home Mom”, or SAHM).  These women genuinely believe in what they want.
  2. Women who want to be married and also have a career.  They will either take care of their own children, or share the duties of raising children with others.  Unlike the women in category 1, they are open to outsourcing the tasks of child care or rearing, and do not have a firm opinion on the matter.
  3. Women who say they want marriage and children, but do not take this endeavor seriously.  They behave in ways that contradict what they say they want.  They do not prepare themselves to be wives and homemakers, but instead, seek out alternative lifestyles.  They become college students, seek careers, and desire social and financial independence.
  4. In reality, there is another category of women who forsake marriage and family to pursue other life aspirations.  It’s hard to say how large this group is, because there are not too many women like this who attend church frequently.  But statistically, these women will eventually get married anyway, at the ripe old age of 29.9+.
  5. Theoretically, another category should exist for women who desire a life of celibacy, and forsake family and children.  But I don’t know of any women like this.

With respect to Life Path, women in category 1 are building dependency and possibly Headship.  Very few Christian women openly place themselves in category 1.  A larger percentage of women are in category 2, which tries to straddle the fence between dependency and independency.  But the majority of women fall into category 3, which is clearly independence.

Concerning category 1, it is very rare for a young woman in the U.S. to live with her parents until she is married.  It is also rare for a young, single woman in the U.S. to devote her time and energies towards her family of origin.  (The Amish and Assyrians are pretty much the only exceptions.)  Most girls either occupy their time outside the home, or are forced out by their parents.  The families at my church send nearly all of their daughters off to public colleges immediately after high school.

Girl Blowing On Dandelion in : stockbeeldmateriaal en -video's  (rechtenvrij) 18336706 | Shutterstock

Category 2 is apparently the “safety” position until the women are in a relationship.  At that point in time they might be open about their desire to be in either the first category (dependent SAHM) or the third category (independent career gal).

Straddling the fence essentially prioritizes the woman’s perceived happiness (which is presumed to be dependent on her Marriage Market opportunities) as the deciding factor.  There are a few problems with this approach…

  1. The big problem is that it doesn’t involve any faith at all, and this spills into further problems for both the man and woman (as follows).
  2. It is a problem for men, because until they get into a relationship with the woman, they can’t really know what kind of relationship structure she is inclined towards, whether she favors dependence or independence.
  3. It is a problem for women, because this lack of faith on her behalf could backlash. To outline this briefly, if her insecurities and lack of faith prevent her from making her goals/intentions clear (which is part of an unwittingly deceptive strategy to get into a relationship), then the man unwittingly assumes that she is OK with a Headship structure.  But after she gets into a committed relationship, she then feels “secure enough” to express her true inclinations/desires for the relationship structure (which is likely to be Complementarian or Egalitarian, depending on her inclinations towards independence). If he doesn’t want that kind of structure, then he is faced with a difficult choice — to either leave her flat, or else suffer through an unpreferred relationship structure.  This problem is further shrouded and exacerbated if there is premarital sex.  Either way is not good, as it fails to achieve a Headship type marriage.
  4. It is a problem for the church, especially those that welcome home-schooling, because they have stigmatized the idea of wanting to be a SAHM in order to avoid being stigmatized by the outside world. This produces a shame-complex for those growing up in the church.

In summary of category 2, there is a cycle going on that looks like this.

lack of faith –> shame and confusion –> lack of faith

The large number of women in the third category also encounter a few problems.  A career takes them out of the home, and college debt makes it harder, if not impossible, to become a stay at home parent and housewife.  Not to mention the fact that most men do not want a career wife, and would not choose to marry such a woman.  I am tempted to call these women hypocrites, but I think they are not that self-aware.

* I’m not sure if my categories and observations are similar across evangelical circles, or if it only exists in more rigid, orthodox communities that abide by doctrine.

Spouse Selection according to Structural Archetypes

The previous discussion about the categories of desires serves to highlight how bizarre the selection methods are to achieve the dream of being a stay at home mom (SAHM). It makes me seriously doubt whether this is a real motivation for many young women.

In selecting a man, or desiring a man, there are three types of women in the church,** two of which are reasonably achievable:

  1. Those who seek a man who is an “alpha” and who can also offer status and/or resources.
  2. Those who want a man who is their “equal”, which can be translated as a man they can dig their claws into.
  3. Women who live in a Disney fantasy and desire the perfect unicorn who is a bi-polar mix of 1 & 2.

I doubt any of these women are aware of this, but their choice of a man indicates their preferred relationship structure. Or at least, this is predictive of what kind of marriage they’ll struggle to achieve.

Women who run after alphas are wanting the Headship structure, or at least the Tingles thereof.  So women in category 1 make sense, as their actions fit our understanding of Red Pill theories about the state of nature.  This also agrees with my personal experience.

Women who run after passive men show that they prefer to be the dominant person in the relationship (something other than Headship).  Category 2 women are more difficult to diagnose.  They would make sense if they were the stereotypical “post-wall” women (category 4 under Desires) who were desperate, and would settle for a guy that didn’t provide status, or resources.  But from my observations, they are too young for this to be the reason, which leads me to believe this is an acculturated preference about relationship structures.

From my observations, many (if not most) women in the Christian environment, including my church, are threatened by Alpha and masculine behavior, and take preference to more beta characteristics (men that are docile, controllable, and are not masculine by any objective standard). These women are apparently virgins of various ages who fawn after superficially “cute” guys who would be labeled soy-boys anywhere else.

Women who run after a fantasy man are… solipsistic (no surprise there), and present the worst choice for a man to have a relationship with, for that reason alone.  They are utterly confused.  They don’t know what kind of relationship they want, and they don’t know what that looks like in a man.

** I’m not sure if this is a “phase” that exists only in church circles or if it’s just the new fad. From what I have observed, some of these women come from families where there is an obvious matriarch, or where there is an absence or excessive weariness of any strong male figure. (I presume many come from matriarchal families, just based on the fact that most fathers in our society are checked out of their responsibilities.)

Terlalu Fokus Kejar Kebahagiaan Bisa Picu Depresi, Banyak Bersyukur Guys! :  Okezone Lifestyle

Some Theories

I assume these women are blindly following the Feminist cultural narrative, and are not thinking too much about what they are doing with their lives.  On one hand, I find it bizarre that someone would intentionally place barriers into their path.  On the other hand, it seems that no one cares enough to make an effort to clue them in, and even if someone tried, I doubt they would listen.  Moreover, it seems that apathy and social conformity rules the day.

That said, I have a few theories that may explain some of the behaviors described above.

  • Women raised in strict communities rebel by seeking weak men who won’t be as rigid as their father/pastor. This allows them to seek after not only their husband’s authority, but their fathers as well.
  • Another theory is that these women grew up in environments where image was everything, and the grand show was Sunday morning church shows. They seek a man who would be picture perfect for the weekly “grand show,” and want to order their life based on how they are perceived on Sunday.
  • Where masculinity is not taught, modeled, and expected to be put into practice, disorder and chaos occurs.


Going back to Jack’s graph about Relationship Structures (pictured above), there should be a match-up between what kind of man a woman desires (i.e. an authoritative type vs. a compliant type), and what kind of relationship she wants (dependent or independent). Using this structural model, we can almost predict what kind of marriage she’ll wind up in eventually.

In terms of the structure of Authority,

  • If she wants a Tingle-inducing Alpha, then she needs to plan on being a stay at home mom, find a Godly, masculine husband who provides for that lifestyle, and don’t go into debt. This is the Christian concept of marriage and family.
  • For those women who desire a more compliant man, pursuing an education and career may not interfere with that. But it should be stated that this is not an ideal Christian marriage.

In terms of Life Path,

  • If she desires to be a SAHM, and she is honest about it, then she might attract a high value/high status man. If this is the kind of relationship she actually wants, then she should be preparing herself for marriage. This is the Christian concept of Biblical womanhood.
  • If she wants to pursue her own interests, education, career, etc. (AKA postpornication), then she should expect to settle down with a less interesting husband. This is NOT the Christian concept of womanhood.

A problem comes up if they are attracted to one type of man, but this doesn’t match the kind of relationship or Life Path they are chasing after. IOW, their desire doesn’t match up with their wants. Jack said this is the makings of a curse. If this is the case, then they need to make an adjustment somewhere.

If fathers and pastors would take the time to point this out to young women, I think this could be one way to “break through” to them, and make the consequences of their choices clear to them.

Giving them a realistic expectation should make their decisions much less disappointing. At least they’ll have a clue where they went wrong.

Likewise for men, if you want a Christian, stay-at-home wife, develop your own potential, and don’t marry a stripper, or someone with debt obligations.


This entry was posted in Attraction, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Choosing A Profession, Churchianity, Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Desire, Discernment, Wisdom, Education, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Purpose, Relationships, Self-Concept, Sexual Authority, Strategy, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Theories on Single Women in the Church

  1. Lexet Blog says:

    An unfortunate reality is that men leave the church at young ages and don’t go back, meaning at best, large churches may have 1 or 2 high quality single men there.

    Most men in American churches become feminized through church culture.

    I became so sick of the emasculation in churches in my area that I doubt I will ever go back to one.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. cameron232 says:

    If I were a young man, I wouldn’t marry a woman who had an education beyond high school level.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. Scott says:

    The one that will get you and ruin your life is:

    A woman who wants to be married (status, ring, SUVs. etc) but does not want the bother of a husband (icky sex with a man who is not able to constantly turn her on).

    And you won’t know you have married this one until its too late in most cases.

    Liked by 6 people

  4. Ed Hurst says:

    Agreed. American culture, including the matching American church culture, is inherently hostile to the ideal. It’s not that Type 1 women don’t exist, but they do so because of a strong sense of internal direction that defies the culture. As noted, they are rare; I’ve traveled enough of the US working in different brands of churches to know this is quite so.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. feeriker says:

    “If fathers and pastors would take the time to point this out to young women, I think this could be one way to “break through” to them, and make the consequences of their choices clear to them.”

    While there is certainly nothing wrong with this tactic, I very much doubt that it would have any practical or measurable effect. We know that women, especially young women, are creatures ruled by their emotions. They lack the ability to consistently apply reason to their decisions, or to see the long-term consequences of their choices, many of which are lifelong and irreversible (e.g., falling for and having pre-marital sex with Fuckbuddy Rockdrummer, getting pregnant by him, then being abused and abandoned by him after he finds out that he’s going to be a daddy). Counseling by Daddy or Pastor, two men who probably have already done almost nothing to help prepare young Christian lady for navigating life in the treacherous adult world (very often not because they didn’t try, but because Mom or other church hens stymied them at every turn in their efforts) is something that no young woman with options to make her own future is likely to heed.

    What this ultimately demonstrates, once again, is that hard patriarchy is the ONLY way to keep young women on a course that won’t end at some point in their own misery and self-destruction. There is a reason why women’s choices were limited and strictly controlled throughout most of human history. One hopes that one day we as a society, and particularly we as Christians, will wake up to the realization that our forebears new EXACTLY what they were doing. Unless we’re addicted to trouble of our own needless creation (and I don’t doubt for a second that more than a few among us are), there is no reason to continue on the present, destructive course.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. lastmod says:

    Many decent women enter the workforce not because they are “rebelling against male authority or God’s ‘plan’ for them” but for the fact 99% of us don’t and didn’t grow up on working farms. Those who do “farm” today…..its a hobby farm. Sure a garden with fresh veggies in season. A blueberry patch, a few goats to show in the local county fair……some chickens……..Most are not canning their own food, making their own butter, spending six months of the year to prepare for winter…….and owners of these “hobby farms” usually have professional or para-professional work / jobs……out of NECCESSITY.

    Hobby farms are “fun” and supplement a family life in the country. Real family farming for a living is backbreaking work few in todays world could and would do.

    My point in this ramble…….which one of the fathers here is going to have “no problem” when his daughter when she becomes of age at 18 to marry the “hot” boy in the church, that gives her the tingles “hard” but he has nailed every other gal in that church or town?

    No “real men” in the local church?…so will she be the “exception” of course that should get a job or career until “mr. real tingle-inducing man who is a devout….loves Jesus more than anything christian shows up?”

    No father in here is going to allow is 18, or 19 year old princess be paired up with a 35 year old man……even if he was the most devout and holy around in the six county region.

    Jack…..I get the info and the purpose of posting this…..but in the end???? What of it?

    Red pilled men who have daughters are not going to setup arranged marriages….they are not going to “disown” their daughter if she decides on a career (usually out of necessity) and finally……….no young man in the eyes of these “real-red-pilled-christian father” in these forums honestly will believe ANY young man will be good enough for their daughter.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      There’s nothing that can be done. Western society deviated from all of history for the last 120 years, setting up a system where it was expected that people would date/marry within their peer group, which was their public school grade.

      As we have seen, the result is that each generation has become more dysfunctional and degenerate. Funny how we put our educational system in the hands of the same people who wanted to destroy Christianity and the family structure.

      They won.

      These attitudes were accepted into the church without question too.

      Nothing can be done at this point, except taking a step back, watching everything fall apart, documenting it, and hoping that some future generation learns from these mistakes and vows to not repeat it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        Nothing can be done at this point, except taking a step back, watching everything fall apart, documenting it, and hoping that some future generation learns from these mistakes and vows to not repeat it.

        Now all we have to do is come up with a species of humanity that learns from its past mistakes. That’ll probably happen after the invention of the perpetual motion machine, the discovery of how to divide by zero, and the cure for the common cold.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      I don’t know what point you’re getting at re daughters marrying alpha males but I prefer that my daughters marry a nice guy (who isn’t a total wuss). I was the nice guy type and my marriage worked out.

      IMO it’s my responsibility to work for my wife and daughters (even adult daughters) to support them (in a basic sense of having food, clothing shelter) until I die. If I have to work until 80 so be it. Standards are different for sons vs. daughters. I hate the way some men treat their daughters like sons (“you’re out of the house when you’re 18”).
      It’s their responsibility to obey me (I’m not a tyrant and not hard to obey) and take care of me in the basic sense of cooking for me, shopping, etc.

      Liked by 2 people

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

  8. cameron232 says:

    From the OP

    “5.Theoretically, another category should exist for women who desire a life of celibacy, and forsake family and children. But I don’t know of any women like this.”

    These are nuns.


    • feeriker says:

      Apparently, even among Catholics nuns are a rarity nowadays.


      • Scott says:

        Orthodoxy has monastaries and convents too, but they are almost all in Europe on the sides of totally inaccessible cliffs and other secluded places.


      • cameron232 says:

        You see some obnoxious, progressive ones that look like your liberal high school English teacher and are about as annoying.

        The Latin Mass groups e.g. FSSP and ICKSP have some very wonderful nuns and there are some others – you see them in some northern cities that are heavily and historically Catholic. Nuns aren’t quite extinct.


  9. lastmod says:

    Cameron…..if you read the OP……”spousal selction” it again, like almost every other post in the man-o-sphere says “women want alpah men”

    Still confused by this term for the fact, it claims “high status” but really menas “gives the tingles hard to women”

    Are you sons going to take care of your spinster daughter(s) if they never marry and at 80 you drop dead? No problem if that is the case…..but this modern christian “having it one way for my daughter….but everyone els’s daughter is rebelling against God and obviously was raised in a blue-pilled-cucked-feminist household” is getting old.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      I can’t force my sons to take care of their sisters after I’m dead but they should. My mom’s oldest brother is taking care of his sister so this happens.

      Also, I don’t think you have to have a high power career developed in your early 20’s to take care of yourself. Also, I don’t think a “spinster” pursuing a career at an older age has the same consequenses. Young women make a lot of bad decisions (which bad men encourage them to do). Do I have a perfect plan? Of course not – I am doing my best and hoping my children end up being happy adults. Parenting is hard and stressful.

      RE: alpha men. A woman’s sex drive is more discriminatory than a man’s ( in terms of physical, visceral attraction -whether the guy is “hot”) for biological reasons. Women also want men that provide resouces and are loyal- those resources go to them and not other women. And the relative weight women put on these two characteristics (in terms of mate selection) varies from woman to woman (just as the relative weight men put on physical beauty and agreeableness varies man to man). So I don’t say things like “all women only want alpha men.”


      • Jack says:

        In this essay, “Alpha” is used to generally refer to a top 20% man. But in general, most women prefer these men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Jack, we have evidence of that from the data from online dating sites, a biological rationale for it and speculation that it’s a natural case of the Paredo distribution. This evidence supports the idea that when female choice is based on raw physical attraction, women hold a strong preference for the top 20% of men (I say “strong” since I suspect in this context “below average” means not real interested sexually/romantically).

        This DOES matter since romantic attraction and sex does matter in a marriage, particularly now days when women can defect and/or don’t need a man economically and when men are horny as hell from constant bombardment of public semi-nudity and pornography – yet male “cheating” is still unacceptable -even to most secular people.

        Women also choose a man based on his capacity or potential for provisioning and (perhaps) signs of loyalty to her and her children.

        Women also like men who are charming and have a sense of humor, probably because these suggest masculine confidence.

        Women vary individually as to how much they weight these general factors in their choices of men. I think it is a function of both genetic and environmental factors that determine where her choices are at on the r/K continuum. And her age and options too.

        Not arguing with you Jack, just trying to state my view in its entirety.

        To try to summarize my rambling, I think women want different (and often conflicting) things in men AND tend to want these things at a higher than merited (based on their own MMV) level and are more likely to be discontent when they don’t get what they want. So the 70% of divorce thing.

        I think most men (not “alphas”) are happy with a woman who is “pretty enough” if she’s agreeable, two qualities that aren’t necessarily in conflict (if anything, I’d say really ugly women are often the most disagreeable ones).

        Yes, NAWALT and NAMALT


      • Lexet Blog says:

        “Women also choose a man based on his capacity or potential for provisioning and (perhaps) signs of loyalty to her and her children”

        I cannot say that in my observation of coworkers and fellow students/colleagues who were/are married that this is the case.

        Women often self destruct and destroy families for lust.


      • cameron232 says:

        @ lexet

        I’m sure this is common. What I usually see is the woman who picks a Cad first, then a Dad when it doesn’t work out. A common female fantasy seems to be the a-hole who secretly has a heart of gold, which only her special uniqueness can bring out. Usually, the a-hole really is an a-hole, not a heart-of-gold guy masquerading as an a-hole.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I see the reverse a lot too. Women will leave perfectly intact families for a piece of garbage.

        It’s not an alpha male thing either. It’s more of a “I hate myself so much I feel guilty unless I treat myself like total garbage” type of deal. Women who don’t feel worthy of a guy will leave him.

        It’s something I see the red pill community ignore.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Women be crazy! Except for the ones who participate here of course! Oh, and my wife!


      • thedeti says:

        This has been discussed ad nauseam ad infinitum all over the sphere.

        Lexet Blog down there has the right of it, really.

        Women want sexually attractive, “hot” men: Men who are good looking, physically attractive, narrow, deep set eyes, lantern jaw, muscularly defined, V-shaped taper from shoulder to waist, strong arms, large hands. They want confident, dominant men who don’t take BS, who have and command resources, and who are good at their jobs.

        Women WILL SETTLE for loyal providers, but only after most of them have had sex with some sexually attractive men described in the previous graf and only after they prove unable to secure commitment from one of the sexually attractive men she had sex with, and only grudgingly and resentfully.

        This is true of Christian women as well. Most Christian women have had sex with at least one sexually attractive man.

        This is why a large percentage of marriages go into failure. This is why Christian “ministries” like Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, and thrice-married twice-divorced Steve Arterburn’s “ministry” tell men that these women are “slow cookers” – they just need “time” to get sexually “warmed up”. No, they don’t need time. They need sexual attraction, and they don’t have it in their marriages, because they married men they’re just not all that sexually attracted to.

        I don’t mean to be condescending about this, but this is pretty basic stuff, really. It’s an enormous problem in the SMP/MMP today, and it’s why it’s gone into total failure. Donalgraeme had a series of posts back 3 or 4 years ago about this.

        Liked by 3 people

  10. lastmod says:

    This is a joke, funny right?

    “Women also like men who are charming and have a sense of humor, probably because these suggest masculine confidence”

    Funny how? like a clown or trained monkey? Because most of the male humor I witness on a day-to-day thing borders on the juvenile / pranked-the-toilet jokes. If women view this as “male confidence” we’re in deeper trouble than I ever imagined.

    Funny how? The ‘sphere seems to have ZERO sense of humor


    • cameron232 says:

      In surveys, women often describe “sense of humor” as an attractive thing. While that alone isn’t enough, I don’t think they’re lying. I think they like the Bill Murray type of humor & charm. Bill’s not a looker but a lot of women are attracted to him (the fame helps too). I don’t mean the Caddy Shack Bill Murray sense of humor, but some of his other movie characters.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        Oh…so now we’re going to believe women when they say something they like about men. I have been hearing for three and a half decades from women that “looks don’t matter to them” and we all know they do. A lot. Moreso than men in many circumstances today. And the man-o-sphere believes this statement for some reason as well…..”but for everything else, women are lying and not to be trusted…don’t believe them”

        And Gamers claim their “Game” based on “science” and “facts”. This game shifts streasm faster than a trout in heat.

        You’re all reading from the same playbook…..everyone says “Bill Murry is very unattractive, but women LOVE him”

        Really? If Bill Murry in his prime is considered “unattractive” I throw my hands up, because I just thought he was average looking. I didn’t see women throwing themselves at him, not did I see them repulsed…”he’s funny but soooooo ugly”

        That never has happened, nor has been said by any woman.


      • cameron232 says:


        I’ve never taken that tone with you. Rather I have tried to treat you with the respect you are due. For some reason I irritate both Scott and you (a manosphere guy and an anti-manosphere guy I guess).

        I am not “the manosphere.” If you are responding to me, please respond to the points I make.

        Just like men, women are attracted to more than one characteristic. Just like men, DIFFERENT WOMEN WEIGHT THESE CHARACTERISTICS DIFFERENTLY, probably based on personality and background as well as cultural influences. In general, women like handsome, masculine men (just like we like beautiful, feminine women). Women like confidence and a charming sense of humor. Women like men with resources and the willingness to share them with her and her children.

        Bill Murray has an unattractive face and a pot belly. He became a viable romantic male lead in a variety of romantic movies that were successfully marketed to women. This was based on his humor and charm. My wife has said that he is funny and charming (even when he is acting like a jerk in movies like “Kingpin”) and that this is attractive (presumably she doesn’t want to run off with him). Being famous doesn’t hurt either.


      • lastmod says:

        “Different women weight these characteristics differnetly”

        Yeah, technically true. Never saw ‘kingpin’. The Bill Murray movies I have seen are “Caddyshack” and “Meatballs” (which was funny to me because I could relate to it, the summer camp I was sent to at the end of the 1970’s and into the early 1980’s matched it a little too well, today in 2020….’Meatballs” is just another dumb, slap-stick movie that fit the times)

        Women also thought Liberace back in the 1950’s and 1960’s was an attractive man. Welsh brethern of mine, Sir Tom Jones is also deemed “good looking” by many, many women even today……so I have zero clue or understanding by what women mean.

        If Tom Jones never was a singer, crooner (and Cymraeg has an amazing voice, like any good Welshman should) and was working a fish n chip shop. He would have been a life-long single. As would Prince Harry, William, and Prince of Wales, Charles…or would have to have taken what was available…..probably a raging Celtic hausfrau with bad teeth and personality


      • Lexet Blog says:

        I’m pretty sure women can be gaslit to fawn over a celebrity or a perceived celebrity.

        There are a couple of people who tested this out in YouTube pranks too- they get fake crowds and actors who treat them like celebrities in order to get women to approach them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        No, sense of humor is attractive only in men who are already attractive in other ways. The only men described as being attractive because they have a sense of humor are men who are famous and have money.


      • lastmod says:

        Hyperbole aside Deti……..probably true in your statement. Bill Murry didn’t just “wake up one fine Canadian morning” and decide he was going to be “funny”.

        It was years and years of standup. Training. Timing, and talking about what he knew and saw. He has had his big floater moments and stupid routines….and something he that was funny in 1978 maybe wasn’t funny by 1987. He’s an interesting guy. He also just had something called talent in this area….but it also took hard work. “Hey just be funny…..women love that” is a bit trite


      • cameron232 says:

        What can I say? – it’s a purple pill day.

        Both sexes have screening criteria. Men find a feminine personality attractive. Men don’t generally find an obese or a really ugly woman with a feminine personality attractive.

        The bad news is women’s screening criteria for physical attractiveness is stricter than men’s is. The good news is there’s a wider range of things that women find attractive compared to men. We’re mostly about “hotness” (with our criteria for hotness lower than theirs). For us, the thing that’s in the tradespace with hotness is agreeableness.

        They vary and we vary, individually, as to how much weight we place on these things. “Alpha” males often place more weight on hotness over agreeableness probably because it’s in their nature (being short term relationship oriented) and because they instinctively know the have plenty of quality options if the disagreeableness becomes too much.
        The tradespace for women is masculine handsomeness, charm/confidence, resources and signs of loyalty/defection, etc.

        Both sexes can also add Christian piety to their tradespace if they want to.

        It is sometimes useful to think in terms of what women select against rather than what women select for. Women select against (sometimes brutally): short men, ugly men, poor men, men with creepy or submissive personalities. Of course ,we can be pretty brutal towards fat and/or ugly girls.


  11. lastmod says:

    Parenting hard and stressful????

    I have zero empathy for that. You had the ability and the opportunity to CHOOSE and HAVE that lifestyle. The countless millions upon millions of men in the West and Japan who have been “deemed” worthless by fickle womens standards and are indeed childless and “genetic losers” won’t have an ear for you. If we just learned game. If we just had LAMPS. If we just had been plate-spinners. If we were just “more funny” and “exuded male confidence” if we had just “prayed harder” if we had “meet cute” experiences… goes on.

    The fact now that more and more men (who are NOT basement dwellers, mouth breathers, nor un-masculine……..I know every man here looks like a J Crew or Chippendale model on this forum) are finding and have found themselves locked OUT of this…..and its a problem. The reason why they are not buying the answers given for the most part……..well, kind of a hard sell when twenty years have passed and these men have no results and are still told “you are blue pilled cuck, pedestal worshiping woman type of man”


    • cameron232 says:


      I only mentioned parenting being stressful because I’m trying to describe to you what it’s like to raise a child in this day and age where going along with what everyone else is doing isn’t likely to work out well for your children. I mentioned it because you are critiquing the choices I am making with my daughters – I was trying to make you understand that it isn’t easy and I’m doing the best I can to ensure they’ll be happy. I did not say that to whine and get sympathy for how hard my life is having a wife and children. I am sorry that rubbed you the wrong way -that wasn’t my intention.

      I have said before I’m nowhere near an alpha male. I am average height, average looks, small-frame. I had little interest from females before my wife (high school). I have only dated and had sex with one woman (the one I married). I had crooked teeth and I haven’t taken my shirt off in public since I was a teenager. I wouldn’t pass for a male model. I only make a five-figure salary. Couldn’t be a player if I wanted to.

      Did I do something “right” or did I just get lucky? I don’t know. I ended up with a girl from a poor background, no father and an awful mother (three kids by three different men – no marriage). Some girls from this background end up just like their moms and some of them entirely reject what their moms do. It’s almost like they go through their “epiphany phase” as young girls – picking the opposite of what their mothers pick when they see their mother’s life results and have to deal with a-hole stepdads. I wish every man could “get lucky” the way I did. I feel sympathy for the men that are divorced/screwed over and the men who it never worked out for. That’s not me – I assume I am still allowed to participate in these forums even though I’m not “alpha”, a divorcee, a man who didn’t/couldn’t marry.

      I don’t know if these forums are full of braggards but I am not one.

      I have expressed sympathy for you on this forum and others, and I never try to give you advice on what you should do, how you should get better at game, whatever (I think a lot of that is bullshit).


      • lastmod says:

        Understood. I appreciate your explanation.

        I am very happy for you. I won’t say you were “lucky”. You got a marriage in a traditional sense that just happened, and was textbook. Like my parents and grandparents, countless aunts and uncles…….

        I cannot fault that. I cannot break it down and determine that you had some “amazing Game” or you learned the secret cues, signals, and norms of what made your wife fall for you. Truth be told, most of the men purporting that kind of thing didn’t practice this either.

        As for sympathy……..if you have expressed it, perhaps I have not read it correctly. Also, I don’t need it, or expect it 🙂

        My role in all of this is not to troll (despite what others believe). It is to make them understand that their “game” their “plate spinning” their “day, ltl, night, inner, dread, personal, pua, new, classic Game” isn’t a science. Isn’t foolproof, is grounded on many things that could be half-truths and that men are not peg-boards with stimulus-response answers / solutions. Nor are all women (well, except their wives of course) somehow part of some gynocentric conspiracy to upsur men and contol them. If that is the case….well, all of this is indeed useless because all men should just go MGTOW or whatever.


  12. redpillboomer says:

    New here. Just checking to see if I’m able to comment. Thanks.


  13. redpillboomer says:

    Thirty years ago, I attended a large Christian single’s group (300+) in a fairly decent size city that met on Saturday night’s. It consisted of a worship service and sermon geared towards being single. and having a strong faith walk. Afterwards everyone met at a restaurant just down the street. I was 30 at the time, single of course, and doing well for myself in my career. I also looked good physically (5′-10″, 185) and drove a nice car (Pontiac Firebird), so I got considerable IOI’s from the ladies pretty early on. I was also fairly serious about my faith. From the ‘three types’ of women listed above, I observed no Type 1’s, mostly Type 2’s, and some Type 3’s in this large Singles group. Mind you, this was thirty years ago, well before the Internet dating scene, and only about 20-30 years into the feminist revolution. Already the church was devoid of Type 1’s, and the early generation of Type 3’s was beginning to emerge on the Christian scene. Even though I had some Alpha qualities, I was still Beta or Blue Pill in my mindset towards women, even a bit Chivilraic. I was thinking at the time, “I want to meet a nice, attractive girl who would make a good wife and mother, and was sexy to boot” as I was ready to begin the process of forming a family. I seemingly had my pick of the litter, so I dated quite a few of them. Much to my chagrin, the Type 2’s I dated seemed more interested in me as a ‘catch.’ They had their checklist of 20 things they wanted in their ‘ideal man’ and I apparently checked off enough items on their list that they would begin early in the dating process pressing me on where this was going? Turned me off immediately because it seemed like I was primarily a potential husband-object to them (and women complain about being objectified!). These Type 2’s were near my age, 26-31, and were in what is now called by some, the ‘epiphany phase.’ They were also probably all CC riders, current, former, and those looking to jump, with moderate-to-high N-counts. These women gave me indications that they wanted to withhold sex until they had a ring on their finger, another turnoff. Not like I was trying to bed them right away, I wanted to date them and get to know them first, then see where it would go from there, if anywhere. However, the idea that they had been freely giving it away to Chad, and now it was conditional on marrying them first, seemed absurd to me (illogical). I also dated a couple Type 3’s from this group, these ‘Christian’ women were a turn-off because they were ready to have sex on the first date. I guess if I was a player-type, this would have been heaven on earth, but I wasn’t. They occurred intuitively to me as ‘not the type I want to marry.’ After a few months I was ready to leave the group in disgust. Just as I was about to leave, a genuine Type 1 showed up on the scene. She was 21, still lived at home, going to school, and a still a virgin. She also was pretty and had a really hot body. Raised well in a two parent Christian home with morals, plus she had an added situation that her father was very ill, dying of a brain tumor, and that situation kept her from going feral at college like some of her friends had done. I did an about face, dated the Type 1, and eventually married her. Still married 31 years later with two grown children. She’s still a great wife. I really feel for the young men today. I feel fortunate that I was on the dating scene 30 plus years ago and not today. But even back then, everything you wrote about was already happening with the Church women, and many of these women became the mom’s of the twenty and thirty somethings of today. Not a pretty scene whatsoever. Very sad.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Thanks for sharing.

      Your experience sounds too familiar, even 30 years later.

      There are some cat-1s out there, but many are 2/3s in disguises because of parental pressure. So true number of 1s is super low and very rare.

      Christian men have tough choices
      1- marry a slut
      2- and/or fornicate
      3- live a celibate life praying you will find a decent wife.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Most girls and young women, 17 and up, who profess Christ, are not virgins. It’s probably better than 80% of unmarried Christian women who have been or are sexually active. Most of them are having sex with nonChristian men, and certainly not men they attend their churches with. Sexually active Christian girls are quite careful to compartmentalize their sex lives away from their home churches because they want to maintain the facade of chastity, modesty, and observance of Christian morals.

        Most pastors and older women in the church from what I can see are still trying to run interference for young women – covering for them, excusing and defending their conduct, and rationalizing it for them. Calling single moms “heroes”. Circling the wagons around any prodigal woman who returns to the church after getting pregnant with a bastard or divorcing the father of her child(ren). You’re not allowed to criticize or point out facts. You are allowed only to revere and lionize her. And you’re required to sell her to the young men. There are demands that one of the young men “man up” and “step up” and marry her for her “ready made family”.

        It’s still going on. It’s pure evil what’s being done to young men in our churches.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Of 8 church marriages of people in my age range, only two pairs met attending the Same church for a long time. I’d bet a ton that one of them is going to last a short time. Every other instance: different denominations, or dude came to a new church to find the women.


    • thedeti says:

      Seriously – good story. And it pretty much matches up with my experience.

      The difference between then and now is that now, men are talking about this. Then, men weren’t talking about much at all from what I could see and hear. And men definitely were not talking about this at or around church. Women were always right, you see, and we men were expected to give them whatever they wanted. If they wanted marriage, it was men’s duty to give it to them. If they want kids, it’s men’s duty to give those to them. If they wanted to be SAHM’s, it was men’s duty to find a way to make that happen.

      And you better not want sex, see, because that’s wrong and evil and bad and perverted and sick and criminal. These women are paragons of sweetness and virtue, and if they have sex it’s because bad men tricked and duped them into it. And you had better not be a bad man who wants sex, because if you are, you’re not a real Christian and you’re going to hell. And you need to date the unattractive women, because God looks on the heart and not the “outer man”. If you don’t do that and you want a good looking woman, then you better check your heart, because you’re not a real Christian and you’re being mean and cruel to these girls who are SO NICE!

      That was the narrative at churches I grew up in and around in the mid 1980s, around the same time you were meeting your wife. I was one of the fools who believed this. It was an extremely effective lie/narrative fed to us to keep us beta. And no one talked about women’s true nature – hypergamy, filtering logic through their feelings, and that they want sex just as much as men do. Absolutely NO ONE was talking about what women were really doing and what they’re really like. Now? It can’t be concealed anymore, not when the slut of 1985 is the common, ordinary Christian girl of 2020.

      Liked by 3 people

  14. redpillboomer says:

    Yes, agree. Back then, there was no ‘manosphere’ to educate one another on female nature and all the lessons learned by men; unfortunately many the hard way and sometimes brutal way. No red pill to speak of. I feel fortunate. A combination of God guiding me, and some intuition along the lines of “this just doesn’t seem right here, just doesn’t quite fit my romanticized view of how women should be in a relationship. Where are all those ‘good, wholesome Christian girls’ that are supposed to be in the church?” I dodged a bullet, but could have easily gone down if I’d just said with any one of those Type 2s and 3s, “Oh well, let’s make this work somehow.” I’d have gone down like many men have. I think back to those women I dated in that singles group, none I’d be married to today.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. lastmod says:

    When I was a member of The Salvation Army, our local Corps (church) was mostly men. The few women that were there always lamented “there are no real men here”

    I always smirked at that because most of the women there didn’t really drive a guy with desire to pursue…..they just came off that they didn’t want to be pursued by the men there; and most of the men in my Corps were actually very busy with standard church duties and mission. Even if you were smitten (I was with one at the time) there was never any time, and of course I was still getting back on my feet and I had “no business doing that kind of thing” until I was provider, a leader, funny, had my next fifty years planned out, had money in the ban, had a house, had a car, and you know……..just became “good looing”

    Which is very easy to do evidently

    In the Corps we rarely saw each other in street clothing…..any ministry, works, Salvation Army related duties required us to be in Uniform……and as iconic and noticeable it is….it is hardly a flattering Uniform on the men and women. It was a place if one wanted to be indeed busy in His name, there was plenty to do….and the men did just about all the major ministry street work, food, repairs, upkeep to the Corps and vehicles.

    Looking back…..and I still call The Salvation Army my “home” church / denomination to this day…..but if you are indeed a man like myself at the time (recovering addict, which the Salvation Army attracts); who need structure, need routine, and need stuff to do…..well, it isn’t a bad place to be. Otherwise…..unless you have a calling to just be “busy” seven days a week aside from your job…….probably not the best place to meet a “nice church gal”


  16. Pingback: The Masculine Dilemma | 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