The Meet Cute Phenomenon (Scott’s Axiom)

The Meet Cute phenomenon is an organic form of Headship!

Readership: Single Christians

A Meet Cute is a Tingly Respect structure

Earlier in February, Scott introduced us to the Meet Cute phenomena.

Recently, Scott took down his original video for several personal reasons. So I need to describe the Meet Cute idea for those who haven’t seen the video.

A Meet Cute is when a woman is genuinely and uniquely attracted to a man, and initiates a relationship by giving him frequent Indicators of Interest (IOIs). She may or may not be aware of her IOIs, and in fact, it’s more innocent (and better) if she isn’t. Men are usually clueless about detecting a woman’s IOIs, so they need a little guidance from other men on this.

Moreover, the basic formula for a Meet Cute is…

  1. The man has true Authority over the woman.
  2. The woman is willing and eager to become the man’s Helper.
  3. Propinquity.
  4. Serendipitous timing.

Thus, the structure of male authority and the female Life Path required for Headship are well established right off the bat. The challenge for both the man and woman is to get out of their heads and recognize this.

The Meet Cute is monumentally important because Headship is excruciatingly difficult to attain. In the first post listed above, Scott insisted that Headship in general, and male sexual Authority in particular, can only be achieved and maintained if it was there in the initial and developing stages of the relationship. He makes this claim as a psychologist and counselor with many years of experience. Recently, he rephrased this concept into an axiom.  (I’ll call this “Scott’s Axiom” from now on.)

Scott’s 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 (e.g. 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.”

Scott phrases this Axiom from a man’s perspective.  It might be more true from a woman’s perspective, but most women are unable to articulate visceral authority in this way.  Instead, they go mushy on the Feeelz.

A Meet Cute signifies a Christian relationship structure

As discussed before, the Meet Cute phenomenon is a manifestation of authentic male authority over a woman who willingly submits to that authority. Since I first heard Scott’s description of the Meet Cute, I’ve slowly come to recognize that this is actually a very Christian-like approach to get into a relationship, and for several reasons.

  • It conforms to the Headship structure, which is the only structure that constitutes a Christian marriage.
  • The woman is in a better logistical position to choose her Head and submit to him willingly and joyfully, than a man is to choose his Helper and hope that she is totally “on board”.
  • The relationship develops naturally and organically.
  • It allows both the man and woman to express their true personalities.
  • It allows all the nuances of the relationship to be discovered and developed with authenticity and passion.
  • It allows the relationship to develop along the lines of shared values and interests, rather than objective assessment and cognitive analysis.
  • The authentic, heart-felt interaction is conducive to humility, trust, respect, and spiritual maturity. (This is discussed further in the following section.)
  • I’ll speculate that redemption and sanctification are in the works for those who follow through to marriage.

Anyway, this authority does not arise from something the man does.  It happens because of an inherent set of qualities that the man possesses, but has little direct control over.  It also depends on the superposed gestalt of the relationship.

For example, consider the following gif and ask yourself these questions.

  1. Which pairing glorifies God as a couple?
  2. Which man would inspire her to get real and grow?

The Application

In The Motivation of Desire (2020 December 1), I wrote about how women need a visceral authority in order to grow and mature.  This is also true for men too, except that men need to develop social status and sexual authority and also submit to God’s authority.  These are the aspects that are omitted from other discussions about masculinity around the ‘sphere.  There’s a lot of talk about LAMPS, working out, developing your career, self-improvement, etc., but no one addresses how these things affect a man’s sexual authority nor his spiritual state.

For the unmarried man who seeks to be married, or the married man who wishes to move towards a Headship structure, developing sexual Authority and charisma is the whole point of these endeavors.  Confidence has received a lot of airplay, but this is only the outward manifestation of authority.  To gain authentic authority, a man has to…

  1. Dig deep in his soul.
  2. Trust God with whatever he finds there.
  3. Become authentic in his self-expression.
  4. Find and pursue his God-ordained purpose in life.
  5. Exercise discernment in his awareness of IOIs coming from eligible women.
  6. Vet her by questioning her attitudes about Headship, and checking her habits of submitting to authority.

A young person should also remember that the Headship structure is what makes it a Christian relationship (by definition), and not whether either the man or woman are actual Christians. If you find a Meet Cute, you’re practically already there!

Update

Due to popular demand, Scott has made a new video about the Meet Cute phenomenon. (2021 January 5)

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Attraction, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Desire, Passion, Discernment, Wisdom, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Headship and Patriarchy, IOI's, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Psychology, Relationships, Sexual Authority, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

157 Responses to The Meet Cute Phenomenon (Scott’s Axiom)

  1. cameron232 says:

    I think there’s a big difference between “meet cute” with its IOIs (which seems true) and what’s described in the axiom (particularly the which follows part).

    Like

  2. Scott says:

    For those who have not seen Rollos mild take down of my video, it is very long but he makes some valid points in it. The analysis starts around the 13 min mark. It is practically a point point discussion on each section of it.

    Novaseeker has pointed out that the structural/generational issue whichs are now blocking, more or less, the “natural” phenomenon of meeting this way are now calcified into the stone of our civilization. So, it may be that the “meet cute” is now a bygone artifact, the last of whom got to experience it on a regular basis was GenX. My same age friends, who are divocred/single for whatever reason STILL have them–but only with girls who are around the same age.

    Looking across the crowded room and locking eyes with your dream/girl soul mate is now creepy. (For millenials and younger). It literally happened to me at least 5 times prior to getting married in 1994, and all of them led to more or less “successful” LTRs.

    A same age friend of mine (whom I have known since 3rd grade) and I were talking on the phone last night and this subject came up. So the timing of this post is right on. He took me to task about what he perceives as a sort of aloof/cluelessess about other mens experiences with this also. His words were something like “Come on Scott. Me and some of the other guys lived our lives vicariously through you. You don’t know that? Your life was like a John Hughes film, always getting the girl at the end of the movie. It doesn’t matter if you are being shy, goofy, mean, you have to make zero modifications to your outward behavior. You have about 90% of the traits that all women find objectively attractive. This was never hard for you.”

    I don’t know. That is a tough pill to swallow, (and I have no idea what color that particular pill is, either).

    It just doesn’t seem right. There is something missing there. We’ve been over it a million times, but I can’t quite put my finger on the core of it.

    Like

    • Ed Hurst says:

      I’ve noticed that age barrier. Romance in the USA right now is a toxic wasteland. It’s why I keep suggesting that it’s a good time for those Christian men coming of age to consider bypassing the whole thing, at least dealing with American women. I think it would be a genuine miracle now for the current crop to even find a blessed path, much less put their feet on it.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Scott says:

    Forgot the video:

    Like

    • Ed Hurst says:

      I find Rollo mostly a waste of my time. His comments are valid in a realm I have rejected, because it’s outside the realm of genuine faith commitment to Christ. I did not pursue my wife, for example; nor did she pursue me. It was a divine miracle that we associated in a place where our common commitments converged. The only use I have in any way for game savvy is how a high SMV value also translates into social influence on every other important social of my life. I consider the core of game as only charisma, and charisma is useful all over the social sphere. So I’m not that impressed with Rollo’s narrative because it has nothing at all do with me and my divine calling, except for just a small portion of his narrative that could inform my broader social activities. I’ve gotten better information on that from other sources, in a much denser format.

      Liked by 3 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        I agree. I will give he and all the secular manosphere men credit for helping me ‘navigate’ my early Red Pill/Red Pill Rage stage when the pain of transforming from a Blue Pill mindset was at it’s most intense. I’ll be ever grateful for their commentary on female nature, pointing out modern women’s sexual strategies and games they play manipulating men to get what they want and hurting/destroying us. While in my opinion it was not Truth with a Capital T, but rather truth with a small t, it still helped over the course of a year or so in gradually dissolving my Blue Pill mindset. However, as I emerged from Red Pill Rage and began ‘healing up,’ the thing that kept nagging at my spirit was the undercurrent in the secular manosphere (MGTOW, RED PILL, MRA, certainly PUA, etc) of emphasizing the practice of what the Bible deems as fornication and adultery. In other words, everywhere I turned (listening to Red Pill content creators) I ran into tacit/not so tacit approval of pretty much all forms of sexual sin as a way to ‘level the tilted playing field’ society has created against men these days as a result of feminism and other cultural influences on affecting our women. I’m certainly no prude, as I’ve been with a number of women in my life while I was playing the field, ie fornicating, before my marriage, however I don’t see ‘beating’ women at their own relational game as a ‘solution’ to anything in the long run. It gets men out of the ‘lose-win’ situation with females we’ve been placed in by society and our Blue pill upbringings, gives us some sort of short term ‘Win-Lose’ results/’victory,’ however it eventually dissolves into a ‘lose-lose’ situation for both sexes. The Biblical way of the sexes relating is the only truly WORKABLE model in the long run (short run too). I’ve noticed in my lifetime, even before being a Christian, the closer I got to the Biblical model of relating, knowingly or unknowingly, the relational WORKABILITY starting rising for me. For example, when I dated a girl to get to know her as to opposed to having sex with her, the quality of my dating life improved. It was more fun, flirty and a less intense, more of a ‘get to know you’ type courtship dance, than a ‘strategical’ how to talk/flirt ‘get her out of her panties as soon as possible dance.’ But how to get back to that Biblical model in today’s societal relational shit show is anyone’s guess. We’re probably going to need a revival in the West similar to the Great Awakenings of the past, and even then, the mess that has been created is imo one hell of a mess that has to be cleaned up somehow in a way that is beyond my reasoning capabilities. Do-able supernaturally yes, ie the Lord, but I’m guessing beyond any fix(s) man can devise. Red Pill knowledge is important, but it is simply a ‘bandage on a hemorrhaging patient,’ useful in the short run, but can’t save the patient in the long run.

        Like

  4. whiteguy1 says:

    Good timing Jack, I seem to have had a meet cute last night at our Christmas party at church, which honestly is quite surprising. (Small bible church, about 50 families) I’m a little under the weather right now and yet I still got a unsolicited phone number from a young lady, visitor, she’s probably in her mid-twenties I turned 46 not to long ago.

    I’ve become the unofficial photographer at our church, this coupled the ‘laziness’ of the elders of getting the photos out to everyone has forced me to get contact info from the other families at church. So what I generally do is as I’m talking and taking pics I will ask someone to put the email address into my phone so I can share pictures and that’s all they do (just email), this young lady did that, and for some ‘strange’ reason put her phone number in there too! Ha!
    I followed up and sent her a text and was surprised when her first question was, what’s my last name!
    Interesting.
    I’m in such a strange place in my life, I’ve got a one woman who is hell bent on destroying me, and in the process her own children, and then another who goes out of her way to show me kindness, and then I’ve got all these others flirting with me.

    The only conclusion I have is that they are all crazy, and my contempt for them as a sex is justified.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Scott says:

      This is the part where you do like Peter from the movie “Office Space.”

      “I’m going to be at _______ tomorrow aroud 6PM. If you want meet me there and we can hang out, that would be great. But if not, well that’s cool too.”

      Then walk away. It’s really easy.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        If you want to come off as a little more obnoxious you can say in just that exact right tone

        “Whatever you do, I hope you have a fantastic day.”

        Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      If you’re 46 and have taken care of yourself physically, you’re going to get some meet cutes e.g. at work or church (assuming you don’t have a disqualifier like a creepy or goobery personality). Sometimes you may also get something quite a bit more explicit than a meet cute.

      An older (middle-aged) man who is decent looking checks a bunch of boxes for the female mind – I don’t fully understand the psychology behind it. So does a man who has children – go figure – women are strange.

      If you’re single, then good for you. Hope it works out for you.

      I know a couple where the guy was about 20 years older than the woman. They both had drug issues. The woman was married previously and had a couple of kids. They married and have had 5 more kids together and from what I can tell she is a good wife to him – it was a good opportunity for the guy to have a young and pretty wife (not saying this would generally work out but it seems to have for them). The woman seems to accept male headship and has a pretty sweet disposition – IDK if it’s a one in a million.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. lastmod says:

    Rollo’s response dodges the issue and legitimate points he brings up; and he gives the usual crock about “game” is men teaching them how to get sex / romance / noticed…..game is none of that. Rollo is still convinced every man is “equal” in opportunity of intelligence, genetics, family upbringing, culture, values, inheirited wealth…the usual “neg” of “I said it works, so it does”

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      He’s selling stuff I assume. Books, “coaching”, advertisement based on views. Maybe if he had a day job – I don’t imagine he does.

      Like

  6. Elspeth says:

    The fact that women have agency and a choice to make in these scenarios, in how they will understand their responsibilities as wives, in how they will behave, matters.

    I married what Debi Pearl refers to as a “Command Man”. Tall, confident, good-looking, natural leader and not a wuss (he seems to be missing that gene). He had options and dated women objectively more attractive than me before we settled down while he was still pretty young. Guess what? Stuff happens. Even to so-called alphas.

    They sometimes lose jobs. They get injured.. Their parents die. They experience the ups and downs of life and have moments of vulnerability like every other human on the planet. The longer he’s married and the more of life you experience together, the more vulnerability he’ll allow his wife to witness. No man runs on Aplha-pilot. No man should have to suffer the burden of feeling like if he has to keep an emotional wall up with his wife to hold frame lest she leave.

    Nevertheless, a wife can maintain respect, still feel intense attraction, and stay in proper alignment with her husband even through all of that. She just has to choose it. The choice is hers. Her husband can hep her by not being a fraidy cat pushover, but the choice is still hers. God’s power is the most potent help she has available to her.

    It grates against our human nature to accept that a large part of what happens to us in life is dependent on the choices of the people around us. We don’t like it because we want to feel as if we have control, and affect our own outcomes. I don’t like it either, but the reality is at the end of a the day, we’re not islands in complete control of our destinies. That’s not how this works and it’s not how God designed it to work.

    Submission to Headship is a function of obedience to God’s design. Factor obedience in, and the thing falls apart.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      @ Elspeth, I tend to doubt that women can choose to “feel intense attraction” for a man. I’m not a woman, but I doubt the tingles can be willed.

      You’re right that behavior can. Maybe that’s enough in some marriages.

      So, it CAN be done but will it be done (right behavior despite lack of tingles)? Over large numbers of marriages? Call me a pessimist but I think tingles will continue to drive behavior in an awful lot of marriages. Thus, the relevance of what the men (Jack, Scott, etc.) are saying here.

      Also, I think you underestimate how exceptional you are. And you married an exceptional man, even if he isn’t 24/7/365 alpha.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Yeah. E and I have had this discussion before. She felt that intense attraction from the very first moment she saw her husband.

        It’s either there, or it isn’t. For most couples (me included), it wasn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        I’m not a woman, but I doubt the tingles can be willed.

        Ezekiel 16:32 You unfaithful wife! You desire strangers instead of your husband.

        If she didn’t have control of that, God would be wrong to condemn her for it. No, her lust after others and her disdain for her own husband is the fruit of her whoring heart. We’re living in a generation of whores who were raised by whores.

        As an analogy, I had a ’71 Chevelle at one point that put out about 420 horsepower, with no Positraction and a transmission built to give a hard shift. When the carb was set right, and the timing was set right, and my gas was the right octane, I loved to pass people. I’d be behind some coot driving 55 MPH and floor it. Then I’d cross over into the oncoming lane as the car downshifted the engine revved up, and by the time I came alongside them I’d be going 65 MPH. As the glasspacks thundered I’d look over and make eye contact just as the car would upshift snapping my head back and chirping a rear tire at 65 MPH. What a rush!
        But at other times, when something was off, I couldn’t even peel out from a stop. I’d floor it and the engine would die, or I’d floor it and it would backfire up through the carb, or I’d floor it and there would be a lot of pinging and little power.

        Today’s women are all like that. Every single one is misadjusted, “crazy” and her sex drive is totally miscalibrated. in fact, she’s not even sexually attracted to 80% of men, and her attraction to the other 20% is feeble and will likely lose power quicklyt after marriage. You’ve got to pump the throttle(using game techniques) just to try to keep her from stalling out.
        How different from when the early church fathers wrote about how women were the sexual aggressors.
        “Women are worse than animals because they are continuously full of lust.” ~ Origen AD 184 – 253
        When women grew up being trained that absolutely all men were high above them, their engines growled to life at the presence of most available men. You can almost here their well tuned throaty roar as they hit marriageable age, “Daddy Daddy find me a M-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-N! (1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2) Sure their father might consult them on their preference, but usually, unless the man was clearly flawed, they’d be happy and content to start making him some babies, and getting on with the joyful exaltation of being an owned woman and a mother if they weren’t barren. Fathers arranged marriages that worked and insured the marriage bed was held in honor by killing fornicators and adulterers the very day they were found out. We are seriously out of tune from God’s holy patriarchy.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        I appreciate the car analogy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        (The thirsty woman raised in the frame of a man-honoring patriarchy) With high compression sportsman heads and 3/4 race cam she was made to run wide open throttle in her powerband above 3,000 RPM. She has to be tuned just right to stay running without constant throttle modulation. At idle the whole car will visibly throb and shudder in anticipation as her headers bark through dual glasspacks cheerfully popping and cackling like an anxious dragster, making clear that when given the green light, she is ready to fulfill her wildest fantasy and unleash the raw power of her unbridled passion to accelerate you to joyful speeds far beyond where control can be maintained. A man must learn how to back her down again then to have her purr along contentedly, in moderation, within the law and good propriety. She was clearly built to race and loves to blow past the limit signs, but you need to harness her to safely travel the open road with your kids along for the ride.

        Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      No man runs on Aplha-pilot. No man should have to suffer the burden of feeling like if he has to keep an emotional wall up with his wife to hold frame lest she leave.

      Alas, too many women today, even those who identify as Christians, didn’t get the memo on this, or threw it away if they did. I personally know three men (one who was family) who suffered physical and/or emotional breakdowns –one of them ultimately fatal– that were driven in large part by their m having no other choice but to play the role of Atlas the Stoic. The fatality, who was family, is an especially tragic case because even if he had been able to sustain the front indefinitely his BPD wife would still have destroyed him and their marriage (and of course she considered herself the perfect Christian wife).

      As we slide headlong into global socioeconomic catastrophe that is as unstoppable as a tsunami, and as the reality of it hits more people hard in the face. how many husbands are going to have their frame tested to beyond the breaking point?

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Nevertheless, a wife can maintain respect, still feel intense attraction, and stay in proper alignment with her husband even through all of that. She just has to choose it.

      Agree with all, except the “still feel intense attraction” part. If that attraction isn’t there from the very start, it will never be there. A wife cannot choose to feel attraction. She either feels it or she doesn’t. And we all know that in your marriage, that intense attraction was there from the start.

      For most men and women, it isn’t.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Sharkly says:

    It just doesn’t seem right. There is something missing there.
    Definitely!
    My theory is that God is missing, and especially God’s ways. Because we have blasphemed him into the image of a woman. Submission to Headship is a function of obedience to God’s design. As long as we raise boys and girls to think that women are goddesses, images of God, and thereby equal to men, women will have no concrete basis to reverence their husband, and no desire to, except for whatever lust she has for him. And if she comes well used, that lust may be pretty fickle. There is little chance she will imprint on the twentieth man to put his dick in her timeshare-twat.

    When all of society reverences husbands and fathers, As the early church once did, believing them to be images of our Father & Son patriarchal God, then it will be easier for women to keep in the man-admiring frame of mind they grew up in. Right now men are trying to pull women into a frame they have been taught to fight. You’re trying to pull them into the patriarchy they’ve been trained to smash. They are falsely taught in church that women are morally superior to men, and therefore logically are more fit to lead. Eve wanted to be like God. The church tells her she is! Then she is miserable, like the dog that chases the car and it stops and the dog has caught it, then what does the dog do? Take a leak on the car? The thrill of the chase ends in letdown.
    If women were taught that their only earthly path to the image of God, was by marrying a man and becoming one flesh with the image and glory of God, and that they would be saved through childbearing(submitting to their husband sexually completely to the point of fruitfulness) then I think things would be easier. But right now Eve’s curse gets empowered by the churches, instead of her being restrained and retrained from a child. The fools train up the child in the way she should not go, and when she is old, she is unable to depart from it. Women are trained in church and at home to devalue men, the image and glory of God. And as a result, most of them are unwilling to become a reverent wife.

    A wife cannot choose to feel attraction. She either feels it or she doesn’t.
    Bullshit! There is the woman who is worth more than rubies, who has the self control to do what is right , and to develop a passion for what God has given her. My sister has a disabled child whom she dearly loves. To me the kid is creepy and annoying. But, her mother chooses to love her in spite of all her shortcomings. So it is entirely possible for a woman to love and respect a man, if she chooses to. Women can control themselves when they are forced to. Discipline leads to self-discipline. Our society just spoils all women, telling them they are as good as or better than a man, from earliest childhood. Then they have difficulty idolizing most men. When in fact husbands are images of God, to be reverenced and submitted to in everything, as unto the lord. Women just need to be taught the right frame from childhood, not our age’s Feminist frame.

    Here is how it used to work:
    https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/horny-housewives-of-the-patristic-age/

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Sharkly, I’m with you through most of this comment (which I think is very good). But I don’t think individual women (who have already been raised in the corrupted culture) can choose/will attraction to their husbands.

      What you’ve suggested can work for women who are raised that way and I think you’re suggesting a good path forward (by going backward) for the future. But that doesn’t help with the women who have already been ruined by 21st century American culture. So, I agree and disagree at the same time.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        I agree, today’s women grew up spoiled, in a satanic Feminist frame. The best that can be done with them is to educate them on God the Father’s glorious patriarchal rule and how they should submit to it. Which is a tall order, since they have sown little but wild oats and will not likely reap a harvest of fine wheat.
        We need to repent of the Feminist ways of our churches and nation and this world and return to sowing God’s heavenly hierarchy if we ever want our great grand children to reap the pleasant harvest of a nation of righteous patriarchal families. For now we can strive to make foundational improvements, but it will be difficult plowing and the rewards will not likely be fully seen in our day.

        Without the clear chastening of God on our land, we will likely never be able to quickly turn the wicked from their ways. They will wander in their wilderness until that generation dies off and a new generation that is not fearful to conquer in God’s name is raised up. We may not ever see the promised land, but we can instruct and prepare the next generation to cross over into it. Our children will soon reap what has already been sown. We just have to work to plant a better crop for next season.

        I suspect war is coming, as a refiners fire, to burn off the flammable works of vanity and to float the dross to be scraped away. Although I won’t enjoy war and deprivation, it is the only foreseeable way to quickly get our nation to abandon their rebellious Feminist system and return to God’s holy patriarchal way. Hope and pray that patriarchal warlords will be raised up to restore righteousness after the burning and slaughter brought on by our degeneracy.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Sharkly says:

    It just doesn’t seem right. There is something missing there.
    Most definitely!
    My theory is that God is missing, and especially God’s ways. Because we have blasphemed him into the image of a woman. Submission to Headship is a function of obedience to God’s design. As long as we raise boys and girls to think that women are goddesses, images of God, and thereby equal to men, women will have no concrete basis to reverence their husband, and no desire to, except for whatever lust she has for him. And if she comes well used, that lust may be pretty fickle. There is little chance she will imprint on the twentieth man to put his dick in her timeshare-twat.

    When all of society reverences husbands and fathers, As the early church once did, believing them to be images of our Father & Son patriarchal God, then it will be easier for women to keep in the man-admiring frame of mind they grew up in. Right now men are trying to pull women into a frame they have been taught to fight. You’re trying to pull them into the patriarchy they’ve been trained to smash. They are falsely taught in church that women are morally superior to men, and therefore logically are more fit to lead. Eve wanted to be like God. The church tells her she is! Then she is miserable, like the dog that chases the car and it stops and the dog has caught it, then what does the dog do? Take a leak on the car? The thrill of the chase ends in letdown.
    If women were taught that their only earthly path to the image of God, was by marrying a man and becoming one flesh with the image and glory of God, and that they would be saved through childbearing(submitting to their husband sexually completely to the point of fruitfulness) then I think things would be easier. But right now Eve’s curse gets empowered by the churches, instead of her being restrained and retrained from a child. The fools train up the child in the way she should not go, and when she is old, she is unable to depart from it. Women are trained in church and at home to devalue men, the image and glory of God. And as a result, most of them are unwilling to become a reverent wife.

    A wife cannot choose to feel attraction. She either feels it or she doesn’t.
    Bullshit! There is the woman who is worth more than rubies, who has the self control to do what is right , and to develop a passion for what God has given her. My sister has a disabled child whom she dearly loves. To me the kid is creepy and annoying. But, her mother chooses to love her in spite of all her shortcomings. So it is entirely possible for a woman to love and respect a man, if she chooses to. Women can control themselves when they are forced to. Discipline leads to self-discipline. Our society just spoils all women, telling them they are as good as or better than a man, from earliest childhood. Then they have difficulty idolizing most men. When in fact husbands are images of God, to be reverenced and submitted to in everything, as unto the lord. Women just need to be taught the right frame from childhood, not our age’s Feminist frame.

    Here is how it used to work:
    https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2019/06/28/horny-housewives-of-the-patristic-age/

    Like

  9. redpillboomer says:

    Ed Hurst said above, “I find Rollo mostly a waste of my time. His comments are valid in a realm I have rejected, because it’s outside the realm of genuine faith commitment to Christ.”

    My response to Ed’s post…”I agree. I will give he and all the secular manosphere men credit for helping me ‘navigate’ my early Red Pill/Red Pill Rage stage when the pain of transforming from a Blue Pill mindset was at it’s most intense. I’ll be ever grateful for their commentary on female nature, pointing out modern women’s sexual strategies and games they play manipulating men to get what they want and hurting/destroying us. While in my opinion it was not Truth with a Capital T, but rather truth with a small t, it still helped over the course of a year or so in gradually dissolving my Blue Pill mindset. However, as I emerged from Red Pill Rage and began ‘healing up,’ the thing that kept nagging at my spirit was the undercurrent in the secular manosphere (MGTOW, RED PILL, MRA, certainly PUA, etc) of emphasizing the practice of what the Bible deems as fornication and adultery. In other words, everywhere I turned (listening to Red Pill content creators) I ran into tacit/not so tacit approval of pretty much all forms of sexual sin as a way to ‘level the tilted playing field’ society has created against men these days as a result of feminism and other cultural influences on affecting our women. I’m certainly no prude, as I’ve been with a number of women in my life while I was playing the field, ie fornicating, before my marriage, however I don’t see ‘beating’ women at their own relational game as a ‘solution’ to anything in the long run. It gets men out of the ‘lose-win’ situation with females we’ve been placed in by society and our Blue pill upbringings, gives us some sort of short term ‘Win-Lose’ results/’victory,’ however it eventually dissolves into a ‘lose-lose’ situation for both sexes. The Biblical way of the sexes relating is the only truly WORKABLE model in the long run (short run too). I’ve noticed in my lifetime, even before being a Christian, the closer I got to the Biblical model of relating, knowingly or unknowingly, the relational WORKABILITY starting rising for me. For example, when I dated a girl to get to know her as to opposed to having sex with her, the quality of my dating life improved. It was more fun, flirty and a less intense, more of a ‘get to know you’ type courtship dance, than a ‘strategical’ how to talk/flirt ‘get her out of her panties as soon as possible dance.’ But how to get back to that Biblical model in today’s societal relational shit show is anyone’s guess. We’re probably going to need a revival in the West similar to the Great Awakenings of the past, and even then, the mess that has been created is imo one hell of a mess that has to be cleaned up somehow in a way that is beyond my reasoning capabilities. Do-able supernaturally yes, ie the Lord, but I’m guessing beyond any fix(s) man can devise. Red Pill knowledge is important, but it is simply a ‘bandage on a hemorrhaging patient,’ useful in the short run, but can’t save the patient in the long run.”

    Like

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

  11. lastmod says:

    Scott. THANK YOU for this reboot of the “meet cute” video. I have shown it in some MGTOW and one incel-leaning discord chat. It was VERY well received.

    They admired the humility, the honesty, and actually how they were not “lied” too again. Stick around….I think this video will slowly get some more views from some unexpected places 🙂

    Thank you again 🙂

    Like

  12. lastmod says:

    “Painful Truths” from 1994. Some high vibes from when I stil had maybe a chance to “meet cute” Scott’s here take is NOT “black pill” (sorry Rollo…wrong again). It’s acceptance and honesty. For men in this situation, who have not “met cute” there will be still tough days and times, but this segemnt of men need to be told the truth. Something they were not told for decades.

    Like

  13. Novaseeker says:

    Interesting. I hadn’t seen the older video, so this one was interesting.

    What I find interesting is that I had GFs growing up (2 in HS, 2 in college) and then also once I started working, and then met my ex-wife during that period … but there were no experiences like the one Scott describes.

    The GF situations were not locked eyes across a crowded room or feeling electricity or anything like that. In HS one was someone I literally walked into a HS dance, that resulted in a 6-month deal which was pretty good, but it was clear it wasn’t “the one” or anything like that. The HS two was a girl who was very into me, whom I relented for because it beat being single. Yes, guys do that sometimes lol.

    In college, one was a friendship that developed into a relationship and then fizzled when she didn’t want a relationship and it was awkward for both of us to still be friends. Second one was a situation at an overseas campus, and those are always one-offs, based on limited time in place, and relative isolation/size of pool issues.

    After HS and college dating was much harder, because the competition was different — Manhattan, which is where I was at first, was really a terrible place for someone like me at that age. But I did date here and there, opportunistically — it was never a girl that I was electric for, however. Same for ex-wife, whom I met while living overseas (she was another expat, so another limited bubble situation in a foreign country) — there were mastery display elements at play there due to my language skills and familiarity with the local environment and so on, and a 5 year age gap, but it wasn’t electricity per se. I did like her enough, though, because I ended up marrying her. Of course it didn’t work, likely in part because there wasn’t a meet cute to begin with.

    I honestly wonder how many guys who date normally don’t have meet cutes, even from my generation (early 50s). I do question the idea that you either had a meet cute experience like the one described in the video, or you’re SOL when it comes to women. I had some success with women — I’d say it was average for my generation, but not below average. I didn’t have anything like what’s described as a meet cute though, now that I see what is meant by it.

    Like

    • lastmod says:

      Scott also alludes to with “Meet Cute” that these experiences should and have to happen in the formative years. This story is about his wife. The “Meet Cute” at an older age.

      The baseline is that these experiences must happen on and around certain times….usually or probably during the teenage years. First gf, date…….make out……having those experiences.

      By the time a man reaches a certain age…….and since I live this………a baseline is proabably mid thirties at the latest. If a man has not had these types of experiences by that age. It’s pretty much over. No ammount of “game” or “double-your-dating” or “asking jesus for a wife” or “buiulding confidence” or “building attraction” really is going to work.

      It’s pretty much over. Sure, there are outliners or exceptions…but even men who marry later for the FIRST time…usually have had some experiences with DATING…..with sex, or interpersonal relationships with women………

      Heck, even Sigma’s recent post “a pretty common experience” evidently now is that all you men have had women offer sex after a few dates….and you refused…..she lost interest.

      life is so hard for you all.

      The ones who don’t have and never did have “meet cute” for whatever reason or reasons……..they have to accept that it’s over…..and Scott does point out the truth that NEEDED to be said to these men.

      No ammount of Game or “monkeysuiting” is going to help these men. None. It will make them look creepy, foolish, desperate and rehearsed.

      This growing and vast swath of men needed to hear this without psych-babble, charts, graphs, more repackaged “game” bullshit, or posi talk about “youhave to want it” and the usual “I huess you just like being a beta cuck.”

      Scott’s tone, inflection, demeanor and delivery was just right He’s on to something……and this is coming from a man who has OPENLY disagreed with him many times over the years

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      I didn’t have anything like what’s described as a meet cute though, now that I see what is meant by it.

      Me neither. I never got much of anywhere by cold-approaching girls, either. Every relationship I ever had started as a superficial friendship. I never was a “player”, and I never had “game”. I was direct, sincere, straight up, no chaser. Sometimes it worked, other times it didn’t, but I never liked pretending to be something I’m not, so I never bothered.

      Oh well.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        You’re still missing the point. Men that don’t even have the experience of dating, getting to know someone. A meet cute. Dating. Make-out. Another meet cute……..men that never had this, and the realted experiences and indirectly never get a even a chance for a “meet cute” need to understand that by a certain age….it’s probably not going to happen.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        You’re still missing the point.

        I wasn’t replying to your point. I was replying to Nova’s point, which is why I quoted Nova. Not everything is about you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Men that don’t even have the experience of dating, getting to know someone. A meet cute.

        That doesn’t seem to be what is being described as a meet cute, though. Is any dating a meet cute? If so, why not just call it “dating”? I think something else is being referenced by “meet cute” than “dating”.

        But maybe I’m mistaken. Perhaps Scott can clarify.

        Like

  14. lastmod says:

    “I wasn’t replying to your point. I was replying to Nova’s point, which is why I quoted Nova. Not everything is about you.”

    Oscar. You replied to Nova. Yeah, that is true….but the point that you are missing in this video about “Meet Cute” really isn’t about of made or directed at someone like you.

    You go f*ck yourself with your attitude….don’t talk to me like you’re talking to your wife or some underling in teh military

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      but the point that you are missing in this video about “Meet Cute” really isn’t about of made or directed at someone like you.

      I never said that “this video about ‘Meet Cute’ really isn’t about of made or directed at someone like” me.

      You go f*ck yourself with your attitude….don’t talk to me like you’re talking to your wife or some underling in teh military

      I addressed you as a man. How should I address you?

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        No…you addressed me as inferior…like your wife or an underling in the military. Your offered your take on Nova’s point which was in refernce TO the video. Get over yourself.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        No…you addressed me as inferior…

        That’s called projection.

        Get over yourself.

        Have you considered taking your own advice?

        Like

  15. lastmod says:

    “That doesn’t seem to be what is being described as a meet cute, though. Is any dating a meet cute? If so, why not just call it “dating”? I think something else is being referenced by “meet cute” than “dating”.

    You didn’t really watch or listen to video then 🙂

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      I did. Listened to every word. I guess I don’t understand it.

      Is it talking about people who are in their 30s and 40s who have never dated? That’s one set of people.

      But before he gets into that part, he says that “if you never had something like that”, where “that” is referring to what he described as his “meet cute”. I think there’s a significantly sized group of men who have never had “that”, but have dated.

      So while I listened to every word, I suppose I am not understanding what the actual point is. Is it just that guys who have never had a date by the time they’re 30 or 40 are unlikely to get one starting then no matter what? If that’s the point, then why not just talk about that, and not “meet cutes”, because it seems obvious that plenty of men date without ever having a meet cute experience.

      I guess I don’t think the point is clearly made. Is it just never having had a date, or is it something else?

      Like

  16. lastmod says:

    Notice how Oscar just “appears” whenever I make a statement? I’m easy to bully, so he thinks he can get away with it. What’s bothering you Oscar? Afraid to accept that I may indeed know something you don’t? I may have life experinces that you don’t understand? Annoyed that something isn’t about you??? Tell us about it

    Like

  17. lastmod says:

    This is how Osacr is going to talk to his future son-in-law. Pray for that man

    Like

  18. Scott says:

    Nova-

    A meet cute is “the story you tell your friends at parties about how you became a couple”

    People say “how did you meet?” and this is the narrative that you relay.

    It is a western, cultural artifact that is going away since people are now becoming so cynical and transactional in how “relationships” are formed.

    “Dating” can be, but I guess is not necessarily a sub-part of it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      I see. Well I guess everyone in my generation who dated would have a meet cute, if it really is just the story of how you met as a couple (everyone met somehow).

      And if that’s what is meant by it then, yes, I agree that if you have never met anyone who you dated at all by a certain age it’s not likely you ever will, because there is an underlying reason for that which is likely not easy to fix.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        The phrase itself comes from romantic comedies. Every one of them has this essential feature, and some of my favorites were “16 Candles” “Say Anything” and “Singles”

        The fact that my personal life mimicked movies like that (over several permutations) is a function of multiple factors that overlap and interact on so many vectors and feedback loops that it is nearly impossible to determine its true value in the years of relationship formation from probably right around the the automobile was available to the masses to about 20 years ago.

        The stories (the meet cutes) gain traction across generations, as your kids start to ask “how did you and mommy meet” and you need to come up a cute, romantic story that indicates to your children how “right” you were for each other. The more twists and turns of cuteness to the story, the more meaning it has, the more playful it is. My kids love to hear the story. It makes them feel like they are in a home where “real ” love struck like cupids arrow.

        They become a part of the family narrative that lives on in the halls of that family as institutional milestones upon which the entire story rests or will crumble without.

        We are all here, as you know “because two people fell in love.”

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Interesting.

        My parents certainly did not have such a story that they shared with us. Perhaps that’s why it’s challenging for me to relate.

        I’ve never really had a meet cute type story, as far as I can remember. Certainly not with my ex-wife. I mean we did share with people how we met, but it was always very matter-of-fact, and it wasn’t especially romantic or cute in the typical way these stories seem to go. I never really worried that much about what others thought about this, but reading this makes me think others thought it was odd — perhaps it was.

        I’m not a terribly romantic type of person. I went through a phase like that when I was very young, in high school, prior to the first HS GF, and I seem to have grown out of it in some way after that — not in a negative reaction, as I recall (that was a generally positive experience for me), but just as a development/change in growing up a bit, I think. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

        It’s also possible that the manosphere in general has more analytical sorts of people in it than are present in the general population. I have always considered myself something of an outlier in the sphere, because almost everyone here is a STEM type of one flavor or other, and I am the opposite of that, but I am still very analytical from the verbal/analytical perspective (and so is my ex-w), and so perhaps that has something to do with it as well. Dunno. It’s interesting, though.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        Yeah. Its called being ugly Nova

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @Scott – the Breakfast Club (not a romantic comedy) was more accurate than 16 Candles. The jock and the badboy got the girls, the geek got to write the essay for them.

        Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      I have a ‘Meet Cute’ story too. It does help in telling it that others enjoy it, including my kids. What is even more significant about it to me is that when I really sit and think through ‘What Actually Happened,’ I realize God was being good to me and navigating me, and my future wife to meet. In other words, God was playing matchmaker. So, when I tell the story, I can tell it in a way that entertains others, “Oh, how cute!”; or even spin it in a more egotistical version of ‘Meet Cute,’ i.e. “This Alpha guy walked into a room…” What humbles me is the actual story, underneath it, was that God had mercy and was loving to a young man who, had he been left to his own devices, would have royally screwed everything up about it. This is an interesting thing I have to remind myself of when I listen to the secular manosphere men advising/coaching younger men on how to vet and get a woman–maintain ‘frame,’ ‘be alpha,’ ‘treat her like the bad boy would, don’t be a nice guy’ etc. etc. The missing element in all this is God and His wisdom and understanding of male-female nature. In looking back now, especially through a Red Pill lense, I can see and truly say, “God knew what He was doing.” I did not. That is really the true story behind my ‘Meet Cute’ story. It’s another reason I’m increasingly enjoying the Christian Red Pill manosphere versus the secular RP manosphere because operating in the background of everything we talk about is God, His ways, and His power. It’s not just a bunch of fallen ‘Adam & Eve’s’ trying to figure out how to make all this relationship stuff work inside of a fallen world context; in other words, attempting to ‘make the unworkable, workable.’ As I think about/read about earlier generations that seemed to ‘make it work,’ the thing that jumps out is that for one reason or another, they got closer to the Biblical model of relationships than today’s current generations are doing, or even attempting to do.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. lastmod says:

    Oscar……for oh, maybe five? Six? Seven years now…..you always….and I mean always jump on ANY comment I make, rip it apart, BULLY as a keyboard warrior kind of guy. Countless times, you have addressed comments not made FOR you directly and reply to them as if they were directed at you in these forums.

    Besides, if you wanted a PRIVATE convo with Nova, I am sure you both could banter back and forth that way. Also this forum the comments are pretty much open. People can, do, and will continue to address comments not made directly to a specific person

    Dealt with men like you my whole life. You think your’re “it” and and always have to pounce on someone you percieve as an inferior or someone who you believe is weaker than you. I’ll accept that you have anger issues….not like mine…..but you do have them, and I’m just an easy target for you.

    If I were still a “believing” Christian I would pray for you…….wait, when I was I did! You have always talked to me like an inferior, never as a brother-in-christ…..even when I was a believer and you just reinforce the sterotypes of the ‘sphere, and christians in general.

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      you always….and I mean always jump on ANY comment I make

      You replied to me when I was conversing with Nova, not the other way around. Remember?

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        read the rest of my reply dumbass

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        read the rest of my reply dumbass

        I did. None of it changes the fact that you addressed me, not the other way around. I’d have been perfectly happy to not converse with you at all. You chose to address me, so I replied to you.

        That’s not “bullying”.

        No one is “bullying” you.

        Like

  20. Scott says:

    Be aware that if you tell the mechanical “story of how you met” without including references to all the mysterious signs and wonders that were happening around (the contextual cues) that provide the plausible formula for how it was “true love” or “meant to be” you are not telling a “meet cute.” You are describing how you solved the logistical problems of getting two people in a room together . The dates, times, mode of transportation, what you did, what time it ended. This is not a meet cute and it carries no power.

    When Mychael listened to this in the car yesterday she teared up and told me later. The story in “meet cute” format has that power (admittedly over me too) when it is told. It is a bonding experience for us, 14 years later. You never forget it. Its occurrence was transcendent and magical.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      There is cultural pressure to provide a meet cute story. To “out meet cute story” the others at the party. You must have your own version of “10 things I hate about you” or “The Wedding Singer” in order for the others to see it as legitimate.

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      I may need to resort to the “10% true” formula typically reserved for war stories. So, there I was….

      Like

  21. Jeff Barnes says:

    Do you guys intentionally replace the virtue of humility with bravado when engaging on the manosphere?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Jeff Barnes says:

    Thanks Scott your video and comment do confirm that I intuitively picked up the idea of a meet cute from earlier posts and the name itself. I have had meet cutes with two different women, however the first was truly electric as well as triggering my emotional baggage such that I had to bow out of the experience multiple times because I couldn’t handle it. I have very sensitive nervous system being a HSP and an empath and so I describe my meet cutes as channeling energy and at times as you say transcendent and magical. Most communication is non-verbal seems to particularly apply when thinking about meet-cutes.

    I have had 5 (?) meet-cutes with the first women which are all vivid in my memory. Two of them were miraculous in the sense of being great coincidences ordained by the providence of God. I wanted to be single the first 4 times, so each time as a traditional women she came to in my presence non-forcefully with IOI’s I pulled away after a brief interaction. She must really have the hots for me though until recently I found it hard to believe. Seems to me though that the experience of electric energy would only happen between two people who are both very attracted to each-other and have great chemistry. With the second girl I felt calm, cool and at home in her presence (as opposed to irritating butterflies for the other one) probably because I had oneitis on the other one at that time. Now that I have been redpilled and healed my emotional traumas such that I am on a healthy developmental trajectory I do feel prepared to start dating the first one. It certainly does help my confidence and frame to know that the other-one wants me too (I know that she was trying to ‘accidentally’ bump into me recently).

    I agree with Scott’s video and for me I would say I have terrible game, and actually struggle to have intelligent conversation with these woman in person which I now see is to be expected if your both overwhelmed with feelings; the words you say are almost superfluous. On the other hand I heard some good dating advice that you should also focus on treating the other person as you would a friend.

    Oh and I am going to try engage in missional dating (between 2 very different Christian churches). Jack would you be interested in making a post about missional dating?

    Like

    • Jack says:

      @ Jeff, what do you mean by “missional dating”?

      Like

      • Jeff Barnes says:

        The person your dating either has a no faith, a different faith or goes to a different church, and your aim in addition to dating them is to bring them to your faith or church. In my case it would be trying to lead a Protestant into Orthodoxy.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        When I was a dutiful church going guy….my church frowned on “missional dating” so with the outlook I have now. It should be at least looked at as an option in a christian mans dating life……since so many have just about zero options

        Like

      • Jack says:

        @ Jeff,
        I do have some thoughts about what you call missional dating, but it’s still incubating. I expect it to come out in the next month or two.

        Like

      • Jeff Barnes says:

        No pressure from my end. I hear many stories of married couples where one discovers Orthodoxy and over time the other follows. In a headship structure it seems to me that the man should lead and the women should follow. I ask about missional dating because otherwise my dating pool shrinks to a pitiful size.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. Scott says:

    I went through a phase like that when I was very young, in high school, prior to the first HS GF, and I seem to have grown out of it in some way after that — not in a negative reaction, as I recall (that was a generally positive experience for me), but just as a development/change in growing up a bit, I think.

    This is something I hear a lot from people my age, or around my age. And something I frankly cannot relate to. I realize as Christians we are to master our passions.

    People who are married a long time are especially in danger of this happening. If anything, I feel like I have at least one mini “meet cute” with my wife, almost every day. Without it, I would feel like we had become roommates who share a mortgage and child rearing responsibilities. This would crash me into a deep depression.

    My grandpa used to tell his. In his deep woods, Ozark mountains of Arkansas drawl he would spin the tale of how he and my grandma got together, him being from the wrong side of the tracks, etc. It was very matter of fact, but seriously cute. My grandma was always down to hear the story, no matter how many times he told it, and she would get a little weepy each time. At their 60th, he stood up in front of our entire family (very large with all the aunts, uncles, cousins, etc) and sang an acapella song that he wrote for her. His voice cracking from age. You could see he was nervous putting himself out there like that. She sat in the chair in front of the crowd and stared at him like there were not 100 other people in the room. Not a dry eye in the place.

    I realize its cultural. But I can’t imagine being any other way with my wife when we are hunched over at the end of life.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. lastmod says:

    My parents had the “meet cute” and its a good story, and it was true….because it never changed. Always the same. I always loved hearing about how they met. At a gas station.

    Still gives me a smirk and smile when I reflect on it even now, and they’re both gone.

    I can understand and accept that I won’t ever have this….but it still bothers me enough to think and believe that I have indeed been “cheated” out of something. Perhaps it s the ‘sex soaked’ culture we live in. Everybody is doing it. Everyone has a gazillion experiences with dating…but…..but…the woman they married or settled with was just the “exception”

    I really can’t fault women now….no pretty gal wants an ugly guy…….still perplexed though by men my age who are married and still talk about how younger women are always checking them out though. Life is indeed “not fair”

    Like

  25. Elspeth says:

    Like Nova, I have no idea how my parents met, and my husband has no idea how his met.

    We are often asked, however, “How did you guys meet?” It does happen to be a cute story which people express interest in. However that is, I believe, mostly coincidental. Even among couples we know who have an obviously happy marriage, it’s pretty standard stuff. They went to school together, worked together, or in an especially niche case given our friend circle, worked together at a well-known parachurch organization. He asked her out, they courted, ticked the boxes, got married.

    Honestly, I think the more devout the parties are, the less likely you are to have a “meet-cute” in the same vein as a romantic comedy. More devout believers are more marriage minded and serious, which precludes some of the frivolity.

    Like

  26. Elspeth says:

    Well actually, I do know how and where my parents met, but only in the most general sense, same as my husband and his.

    Like

  27. thedeti says:

    This is utterly fascinating. I haven’t watched the video yet but I will and I will devote some time to it. It’s probably worthy of a followup post. My initial thoughts are:

    1) The comments are all over the place as to exactly what a “meet cute” is. Scott’s description of the meet cute is as depicted in John Hughes movies: A chance meeting between two people who are absolutely perfect for each other, the air crackles with excitement, the chemistry during the first meetings is flawless, and the sexual attraction/chemistry is off the charts. Everything between the two participants, from the meeting to the interactions to the compatibility to the attraction levels, is exactly right. If that’s a meet cute, some, but not many, people have had them.

    2) In my experience, at least, for a meet cute to have any real effect, you have to know that a meet cute is what’s happening, as it’s happening. Your awareness of your meet cute has to be real time awareness. I suspect a lot of guys have had meet cutes without knowing it, because they didn’t know that that’s what was happening.

    3) The meet cute concept is an invention or outgrowth of what Nova has before called the hedonic marriage model. He will correct me if I don’t describe this right. Relationships originally were for the purpose of putting together a man and woman who are at least minimally compatible and attracted to each other for the purposes of getting sex to the man, resources and protection to the woman, and protection and instruction to any children born of the marriage. That was it.

    Things did not start with a “meet cute”. They usually started when you met each other in high school or college or church or through friends of friends or your parents knew each other and decided you might be good fits for each other. Then you paired off because you’re 25 and you’ve waited long enough to get regular sex you don’t have to pay for and you don’t have to keep worrying about getting the clap like has happened once. Or it was “just time,” or he’s the guy you’re dating when you decide to get married, or you knocked her up, or your parents are nagging you about grandkids, or you can’t afford to move out on your own and he can and is willing to support you and you like him well enough.

    If affection and companionship and attraction developed between husband and wife, great, but it wasn’t required and in many cases it wasn’t there. Marriage was at its base the appropriate place for men to get sex, security for women, and safety and provisioning for kids.

    Many wives stopped having sex after the last kid was born, because they just didn’t want to have sex anymore, certainly not with their husbands. They didn’t want to keep getting pregnant but had no good ways to avoid it. Birth control was nonexistent or unreliable, men didn’t want to wear condoms and usually refused them, and most wives weren’t going to fellate their husbands (remember we talked about that in another post). Men solved this by going without, using what little pornography was available, or paying hookers. Wives weren’t happy about that, but they tolerated it so long as he kept it all on the downlow, didn’t bring shame on her, didn’t give her STDs, and she kept access to the resources and her title of “wife”.

    The point was that the kind of crackling, electric sexual attraction personified in the “meet cute” was not, and no one expected it to be, the foundation for any kind of relationship between men and women. You’re not supposed to expect the “Some Enchanted Evening” moment “across a crowded room” (thanks Oscar Hammerstein). You’re not supposed to expect the John Hughes Experience (TM).

    Now, the meet cute is expected to lay the foundation for, and be the commencement of, your relationship or marriage. Everyone expects the MeetCute, even if they don’t describe it as such. Now, if things didn’t start with a meet cute, she’s not sexually attracted to you, you don’t really care that much about her and you just want to get laid, and the marriage is doomed. If you didn’t have a meet cute you’ve been cheated out of a decent relationship/marriage. If you’ve never had a meet cute it’s because you’re unattractive or socially awkward or didn’t even know a meet cute was happening when it happened. Now, if “Some Enchanted Evening” didn’t happen for you, you’re just SOL. Now, if you couldn’t lock down someone who gave you the John Hughes Experience (TM), sexual attraction just isn’t there.

    I’ll try and flesh this out more after I’ve watched Scott’s revised video.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Forgot.

      The original purpose of marriage was the “family building block” model.

      The hedonic marriage model is the prevailing one in operation today. Our parents had this or tried to have it or expected it. Marriage’s primary purpose is for the parties’ happiness, personal fulfillment, sexual satisfaction, and self actualization. Children and their needs are decidedly secondary to the prime purpose of reaching the tippy top of Maslow’s hierarchy.

      If the parties aren’t getting all of these things all the time, they consider the marriage a complete failure. Marriages are supposed to be fun, fulfilling, completely free of conflict, hardship, or tribulation, and marked by 100% compatibility, all the time. If your marriage doesn’t look like that, you married the wrong person and your marriage has failed.

      Of course, the “hedonic” marriage is completely unrealistic, but that hasn’t stopped women from demanding that from men, and it hasn’t stopped men from demanding that their wives be sex machines.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      I think also that the meet cute is mostly a result of and manifestation of how the woman assesses the man, what she thinks of him, and her first impressions of him. It’s not about how he sees her nearly as much as it is about how SHE sees HIM. Meet cutes happen because they’re a manifestation of girls’ and women’s reflexive responses to a man for whom they have immediate sexual attraction. The meet cute happens because she is instantly and completely smitten with him, literally at first sight

      Like

      • Scott says:

        The meet cute happens because she is instantly and completely smitten with him, literally at first sight

        Mychael says she had this in the street that day, to be fair. She says it happened “the second I saw you walking out of the building toward my car”

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Mychael says she had this in the street that day, to be fair. She says it happened “the second I saw you walking out of the building toward my car”

        That’s consistent with what I thought and with my own extremely limited experiences with these.

        And I have no doubt these have happened all the time since time immemorial, since well before the Sex Rev. It’s just that, then, the meet cute wasn’t expected to be the start of and foundation for your relationship and marriage. Now, it is. Now, if you didn’t have a meet cute, it will be a hard marriage at worst; an “OK” marriage at best.

        Liked by 1 person

  28. Elspeth says:

    Now, the meet cute is expected to lay the foundation for, and be the commencement of, your relationship or marriage. Everyone expects the MeetCute, even if they don’t describe it as such. Now, if things didn’t start with a meet cute, she’s not sexually attracted to you, you don’t really care that much about her and you just want to get laid, and the marriage is doomed. If you didn’t have a meet cute you’ve been cheated out of a decent relationship/marriage. If you’ve never had a meet cute it’s because you’re unattractive or socially awkward or didn’t even know a meet cute was happening when it happened. Now, if “Some Enchanted Evening” didn’t happen for you, you’re just SOL. Now, if you couldn’t lock down someone who gave you the John Hughes Experience (TM), sexual attraction just isn’t there.

    You mean this in the sense that people who buy in to this faulty premise deny themselves what could be a perfectly satisfying and reasonably happy marriage, yes?

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      You mean this in the sense that people who buy in to this faulty premise deny themselves what could be a perfectly satisfying and reasonably happy marriage, yes?

      I mean this in the sense that the meet cute has been normalized to the point that everyone, both men and women, expect to experience it, and if they don’t, then whatever relationship springs from that is doomed to failure.

      I think people who didn’t get the meet cute can have a functional marriage. “Satisfying”? “Reasonably happy”? For whom? For the woman? Yes, probably, since she’s getting the security, status, resources, and protection she craves. For the man? Probably not. If the meet cute didn’t happen, her sexual attraction to him is diminished or lacking, and as I’ve said many times, if it wasn’t there before, it ain’t ever gonna be there, no matter what he does.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      One of the reasons I think the meet cute has been normalized and everyone expects it, is because when romantic partners meet in fictional or fictionalized stories, they ALWAYS have a depicted meet cute at the very first meeting. EVERY initial meeting between romantic/sexual partners, or future husbands and wives, is shown as a meet cute. Every TV show and film I can think of going back to my high school days depicts the initial meeting between romantic or sexual partners as a meet cute. (Come to think of it, I’ve even seen some gay and lesbian meet cutes. Brokeback Mountain shows the initial meeting between Jack and Ennis as a meet cute.)

      Meet cutes in books, TV and film are scripted events designed to make you like or sympathize with or identify with or connect to the protagonists. Meet cutes are designed to get you to say “Aww, that’s so sweet” and “I sure hope when I meet my man, we meet like THAT”.

      I am a fan of the Kevin Smith film “Chasing Amy” (1997). You should see the film. It is a great depiction of the birth, life, maturity, decline, and demise of a male-female relationship in the grunge pre-9/11 urban America. The first meeting between Holden and Alyssa, the two protagonists, is the meet cute of all meet cutes. Two witty, intelligent people in their late 20s/early 30s, who have had meet cutes before. This isn’t their first rodeo, and you can tell. Sharp, witty dialogue full of advanced vocabulary and vivid imagery. Smiles and looks exchanged. Common interests and likes explored and fully explicated in 10 minutes. Sexual chemistry so thick you need boots and so taut you can zipline on it.

      And when these two connect it’s like lightning striking the clocktower in Back to the Future. The earth moved. The angels wept. There is beauty, flowers, and rainbows all around, and so it shall be ever more.

      These things are why the meet cute is so normalized, and expected.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I think that some of this stuff (expecting lightning to strike) is more pronounced the GenXers in particular. You find this kind of craziness in thinking far more among of women my generation (40+) than younger women. I talk to younger women, as many as 10 different ones, on a regular basis. Yes, they are a specific subset, but I think their measured expectations in potential marriage partners demonstrates that they recognize that they are not living in the same mating environment that their mothers were. We’ve had several conversations, for example, about the potential even for arranged marriages to be filled with love and intimacy and all the good things, even if it doesn’t fit into the world’s paradigm of what marriage is supposed to be.

        It’s also true that TV and movies treats most romantic pairings as a meet cute, but I know for me specifically, that never registered as something to aspire to. Yes, the irony in that statement is palpable, but it’s nonetheless true. I still believe that the way our families present these things, filter them, and transmit them to us (even subconsciously) is far more powerful than even our media and culture.

        From what I have witnessed, these fantastical notions of what relationships or even life itself should be, are mostly the result of parents internalizing these things and transmitting the expectations them to their kids (mainly it’s the mothers but oftentimes dads as well, especially with their daughters).

        We have a neighbor right now who is hurting and whom my husband encourages often, dealing with his wife’s realization that her life could have “been so much more” had she not settled for him and had so many kids. These are not young people. If their daughters have crazy expectations of life and relationships, it ain’t gonna be because they watched too many rom coms.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The film Blue Valentine (2010) is a great depiction of what happens to relationships that DID NOT start with a meet cute. (Spoiler alert)

        They crash, burn, and implode in spectacularly painful and destructive fashion, that’s what happens to them.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth:

        Are all the women in the subset of 10 that you talk to, in the same general demographic as your daughters (black, middle class, under age 30, products of two parent intact homes, fathers they respect, devout Christians, and virgins)? And I know you know what I mean by “devout Christian” – actually walk the walk, not just go to church and know John 3:16.

        If so, I can believe these young women have more measured expectations of their future husbands.

        My view on this is that the average young woman of today in the US under age 30 is even more whacked out than the women I went to school with and who were marrying in their late 20s and early 30s, in the 1990s. The average young woman of today lost her virginity around age 17, uses weed regularly, is in college, doesn’t expect to marry before age 30 if at all, and does have premarital sex on occasion.

        She is also thoroughly disdainful and disgusted with the men she knows as potential husbands. She views a few men as fine as F-buddies or friends with benefits. To her, some men are fine as occasional sex partners. They’ll scratch the itch when it needs scratched. But she views almost all men as completely unsuitable for marriage. This pretty much aligns with what you and I have discussed before, where you’ve stated that the young women you know are having a terrible time finding men to get serious about. They’re fine as friends and sex partners, but dismal potential husbands – all of them.

        The average young woman of today does want to get married, mostly for status and to accumulate and preserve material wealth. Marriage is for “someday” though. Marriage will have to wait until she gets everything else absolutely perfect and squared away.

        Keep in mind, these are my opinions, and are based on what I see.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Elspeth

        It’s also true that TV and movies treats most romantic pairings as a meet cute

        When I first read that comment, I thought, “well, yeah. That’s the most entertaining way to portray the beginning of a relationship”.

        But, hang on; what about Anne of Green Gables? Anne and Gilbert’s romance grows naturally from childhood. I don’t recall any “meet cutes” in Pride and Prejudice, either. Not that I’m an expert on romances.

        What do you think? Is the “meet cute” a new phenomenon in fiction?

        Is that the reason why Gen-X-ers expect them? And is that why the current generation doesn’t (contemporary fiction doesn’t portray them, or portrays them less)?

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar

        Anne of Green Gables, Pride and Prejudice, and other stories are not products of the current zeitgeist of the post-sex revolution in which the meet cute is the basis and foundation of fictional relationships. Those stories predate the sex rev by a long time. Pride and Prejudice and the meetings between Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennet demonstrate Game, frame, masculinity, femininity, and are good explicators of male and female nature, but they predate the sex rev and so you would not expect to see meet cutes.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Those stories, now movies, from classical literature (Pride and Prejudice, etc.) date back 200 years in some cases. These stories give us a good comparison of what the MMP was like back then, compared to now. We can see that those elements that have endured are those which are fundamental to human nature (e.g. hypergamy, herd mentality, game, maintaining frame, what makes men and women attractive, etc.). We can also see how the sexual revolution has corrupted many of the mechanisms that society had put in place back then to ensure that good marriages form and society remained stable and perpetual (e.g. formal courtship, the expectation of chastity, early marriage, s1ut shaming, etc.). We can also see how the lack of those things have caused a breakdown of the MMP and the absence of good marriages now. This is partly why I encourage everyone to be well read in the classics.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “But [classical literature] predates the sexual revolution so you would not expect to find meet-cutes.”

        I disagree here. If you read many of those older stories, you’ll find many examples of young girls who went gaga over an alpha type man. However, the way it was expressed was suppressed.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Deti

        they predate the sex rev and so you would not expect to see meet cutes.

        Okay. According to Elspeth (if I understand correctly), girls today don’t really expect “meet cutes”. Is that because the sexual revolution devolved into hookup culture?

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        If E is saying that today, girls don’t expect meet cutes, I don’t agree with that. I think girls do expect meet cutes to start and base relationships on. The entire reason women are so disgusted with men today is that most men don’t even rise to “below average” in women’s estimation, don’t prompt instant attraction, and aren’t even in the same solar system as “marriage material.” So if most men aren’t even worth a second look, of course there won’t be the meet cutes they want and expect.

        In my view, from what I can see, these women don’t expect meet cutes because no one is inspiring meet cutes.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Deti

        If E is saying that today, girls don’t expect meet cutes

        To be fair, I may have misinterpreted Elspeth. Hopefully she’ll clarify.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Is that because the sexual revolution devolved into hookup culture?

        That’s where my money would be, to be honest. Just like Tinder/porn/IG have actually reduced rates of sexual activity among the young. Does anyone seriously think this is because the young are more chaste? I think not. It’s because online culture has displaced some of that sexuality and redirected it into the virtual. Hookup culture, and the same Tinder/porn/IG smartphone culture has similarly killed off the meet cute.

        In general, the theme is this: things are becoming more depersonalized, dehumanized, transactional, detached, virtual. That has many impacts, and some of them, like demise of the meet cute model and the decline in actual sex, are perhaps less intuitive but easily explained once the entire emergent context is taken into consideration.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jack

        If you read many of those older stories, you’ll find many examples of young girls who went gaga over an alpha type man.

        Right. That’s Mr. Wickham in “Pride and Prejudice”. He had his eye on Elizabeth, and she was tempted, but it was her younger sister, Lydia (portrayed as foolish and flighty), who fell madly in love with him, and even married him.

        Wickham is a classic “dark triad” type, although a loser in every sense other than womanizing.

        I find classic books very useful for educating my kids.

        Liked by 1 person

  29. lastmod says:

    You guys are batting so far out…..swinging at the big floaters, missing the ‘fat ones down the middle’ and so entrenched on game…this model, that model, that synopsis, this study…without even looking at what is just being said.

    For once……..you all are out of your element, and you don’t like it. Frustrating isn’t it? Why do MGTOW’s or incels, or the “thirsty men who are desperate and cannot attract women get this?”

    And you don’t????? You are again trying to make everything into a cold, dry, neat and clean A+B=C world…and most people don’t and never have lived like this. That human nature thing….we’re not just stimuli / response.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Let’s just get to the nub of this. What do you think we’re missing? Do you think we don’t know about this:

      Men that don’t even have the experience of dating, getting to know someone. A meet cute. Dating. Make-out. Another meet cute……..men that never had this, and the realted experiences and indirectly never get a even a chance for a “meet cute” need to understand that by a certain age….it’s probably not going to happen.

      Do you think we’re unaware that this happens? We, all of us, are aware that it happens, frequently, because the largest growing faction of what is now the “manosphere” are the incel wing and the MGTOW wing. Most of the content in the ‘sphere is geared to them. Most of the people comprising these factions describe the same experiences you describe and are in the same boat. I myself am a big MGTOW sympathizer. Almost all of us have been through periods of time in our lives where we experienced these things, even if they were temporary.

      Do you think we don’t care? I mean, I don’t even know how to respond to that. I’m not here telling you to learn Game or read this or whatever. I know you’re past that. No one is telling you they don’t care, or that you should change. No one here is telling you to learn Game. No one here is telling you to read this or that. No one here is telling you to do ANYTHING.

      Not experiencing these things is terrible. It hurts. I know it has to hurt. I’ve never experienced it, not for lengthy periods of time, but I have experienced it on a temporary basis. I got out of it and Hell if I can tell you how I even got out. To this day I am not sure. I don’t even know, really.

      Jason, you’re hurting, and it sucks. It has to. I know, because the pain comes out of every post you write. And I can sure empathize, even if I don’t have great solutions for it. I’ve even kind of been there. I’ve looked back at some of what I wrote in 2011 and 2012, and I cringe at it. I’m kind of glad University of Man is gone for exactly that reason.

      The only solution I can offer is to forget about women for the time being, forget about Game, forget about the manosphere, the salvation army, and everything else, and start figuring out how to live your best life without a woman and sex in your life. Hobbies. Your travels to the British Isles. Being the Last Mod. 1960s mod music. Your blog. Travel elsewhere. Road trips. Board games. Tiddly winks. I don’t know.

      If I were in your shoes, single, no kids, I’d probably quit my current job and take time off for a year, and travel. I’d go back to work and practice law in a less stressful position. I would probably get a commercial driver’s license so that when the law thing doesn’t work for me anymore or i don’t want to, I can drive for a living, until my 52 year old body can’t take it anymore. I would live in a condo, even though it would be hard to pick up and move, and hard to sell, because paying rent sucks. I would save up as much money as possible and retire early. I would do more traveling. I would drive, everywhere. I would drive to Alaska. I would rent a pickup and drive the Dalton Highway all the way to Barrow. I would see every state in the Union and every Canadian province. I would fly to LAX, rent a car, and spend 2 weeks driving Route 66 back to Chicago, get breakfast at the Berghoff, and stay at the Peninsula. I would fly to Europe and see most of the countries there. I’d go to Germany and Italy and see the places Dad did when he was stationed there and that he always talks about. I would go to Denmark and visit my sister who lives there and whom I haven’t seen in almost 7 years, and bury the hatchet and mend fences once and for all, because my parents are dying and she’ll never see them again and we need to fix it before they die.

      Yes, yes, I know, easy for me to say. Well, hell’s bells, Jason, I don’t know what else to tell you. It sucks. Figure out ways to make it suck less. That’s what I did, and that’s what everyone else here did. Nova is divorced. That sucked, big time, I’d bet. He figured out how to make it suck less. Scott and Jack are divorced. They found ways to make it suck less. Men out there are incels and MGTOWs. They are figuring out ways to make it all suck less than it does. My life sucked. Much of my life has not been getting to fantastic, but ways to make it suck less. Ways to make it tolerable. Ways to eke out some pleasure, some contentedness, even some fun and some joy.

      I don’t know, Jason. All I know is that it was and is my life, and if it is not going to suck, then I have to figure out ways to make it suck less and keep it from sucking and maybe even make it kind of good. I have to do that. Me. Because no one else is ever going to do that for me. And no one else is ever going to do that for you.

      I really do wish you all the best, Jason. And I hope you stick around here and keep talking and writing.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I sympathize with these men because even though it was a long time ago I remember what it felt like to feel unwanted and unloved by the female sex – it feels crushing, heartbreaking. It was awful going through it for what looking back now was a short time (it didn’t feel like a short time then).

        For partially selfish reasons I also care about MGTOW/incel because I have sons and I have no way of knowing if this will happen to them. With six of them, there’s a decent chance it will.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        @Cameron, you should tell your sons to start reading the Christian Manosphere so that they can get up to speed on what is happening. It would also be a great father-son activity for you to discuss what they learn there and your opinions and experiences with it.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Cameron

        I don’t know if your sons will be incels or have Jason’s experiences. I do know that if they’re bottom 80%ers, they WILL go through lengthy dry spells because that happens for every bottom 80%er. They WILL experience rejection and periods of singleness. For most men, “periods of singleness” means no contact, at all, with women. It means no women anywhere are interested in you in any way, shape, manner or form. Every bottom 80%er has experienced that.

        Rejection is a way of life for most men. You must prepare them for that. As bad as it was for me, it is like 10 times worse for most men now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        I don’t know if your sons will be incels or have Jason’s experiences. I do know that if they’re bottom 80%ers, they WILL go through lengthy dry spells because that happens for every bottom 80%er.

        Yes.

        My son’s strategy (early 20s) is focusing outside the US. Since entering college his GFs have all been found outside the US, either during summers there, or this year during the COVID hiatus where he’s been living in Eastern Europe now for about 7 months, doing things remotely from over there. He’s never dated a single American college girl, and he’s a senior in college this year. Yet he has no issue with university girls in Eastern Europe. Things are … rough in the US right now for young men.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        Okay. Here is my reply to this thought out reply……though my answer will not measure up beacause I am a total “dumb ass” when it comes to point / counterpoint…..especially with a trained lawyer. Also there is a very “anti-lastmod” opinion in this forum for the fact any opinion I have…..has been always deemed “wrong” or blue-pilled by you “real men” here.

        I am so glas btw that Jack here is recommending Cameron’s sons to read this stuff……they will see not how to become a loser like me evidently. Good show! But what will they learn here? Opinions? What opinions??? All it is an echo chamber here. Anyone with non prevailing opinion is torn up. I digress….

        “Do you think we’re unaware that this happens?”

        Yes. You are totally unaware. You accept that the largest part of the man-o-sphere is now Incels / MGTOW and perhaps Black Pill (which will be the biggest part in the next few years, I guarantee it). You all wring your hands, say you sympathize, claim you are fighting for men…the patriarchy…..for the Faith…..yet, yet…..the message from here just isn’t making headway. Did you ever ponder why? No. You all have “doubled-down” on the same routines. Same methods. Same phrases over and over and over. There was a great opportunity ten years ago……maybe longer for you men in this scene TO become the dominat force. You blew it. Badly.

        On Dalrock, years back any man who had seriuous problems was run off in the comments, smeared as “blue pill” and other insults. The solutions given were: Game. Bang Poland (or Czec, or Hungary….), Roosh’s webpage, which was full of insults to any man who didn’t have “amazing success” with women. To Rollo where his overt intellectual poseur stances made his information as about as boring as whale shit. Dalrock’s “amazing wisdom” about female nature, women, game, what-women-want and the like to me was: move to eastern europe, learn the language and culture…..get a good provision…..maybe you could find a wife”

        DS claimed at one point that he had to know how many “reps” (concerning weight training)
        you were doing before he would offer any advice. He also gave a ‘list” (like a WOMAN) of other areas you had to “check the box” in order for him to help you.

        You have no clue.

        This was the advice to a 48 year old man. You all hailed and applauded this “brilliant” and “reasonable” and “good advice”

        You have no clue why this vast swath of men have sworn off women, really distrust this side of the ‘sphere because you are so closed minded. You have to be right, on everything……and all ot of the bullshit that has been presented by you for the desperate men in my situation didn’t work. It was the usual “you just like being a chump” and “it’s foolproff, you’re just not trrying” and in the same breath or the next post, a general consensus that there were “no good women left” (you cassinovas and real men f*cked them all, adding to their “n count”). except for your wives of course….too bad you did marry her!

        You men behaved exactly like the “christian mens fellowship” with “another podcast” another book, another boring study. From day one…..none of the big shots on this side want “the lower 80% men” here, let alone to help them. You have no idea what is going on.

        Full on assumptions (false ones) about these men. I mean, the other day I was being told what an Incel was by someone who wasn’t one, and who had never lived as one….yes, yes….I am sure this man had a dry spell for a few months when he was 19, so he can “relate’ really really well. That is just one example.

        You stated “the only solution I can offer is to forget about……..women, game…everuthing”

        I will never end calling you guys out. The damage you have done. Forget me, but to the state of manhood. If I had the mindset I have NOW at 39….I might have been able to pull it off…date, meet cute, have something worth FIGHTING for, and maybe I would been ALLOWED to be part of your top-tier club.. No….I listened to the “christian man-o-sphere” and was stunted, mocked, trolled into argements, made to spin my wheels…..and then had the finger of shame wagged at me for not “being ike you know it alls” and making game, frame, rollo, roosh, this law, that law, this model…….trying to keep up with the gazillion acyronyms, wasting tons of TIME……and on TOP of that……my faith. The last place I expected me to question my faith was in a forum like this. Well done. I made the choice to leave, that wasn’t your fault…..but for me to even QUESTION it in a place that is supposed to be “for and about men….christian men.” Well, I do hope your god may rebuke some of you and call you a liar, and perhaps open yourselves up to some personal reflection. I doubt it. You guys are never wrong on anything.

        If you were in my shoes, at my age with my situation you would be dead. The way you all talk about the sex act. You would have offed yourself for the lack of it, and you would have. If you were the dude who had a gazillion nuclear rejections by 30……….if you were deemed ugly on a cultural standard and “not popular with women” you all would be demanding “someone” do something about this right now!!!!

        I am dumb as shit. From my mistakes career wise I made in 2002 / 2003 I am still paying for, and right now….I am just getting to the point I was back in 1996….1997. I can’t “quit my job for a year”

        You smart men have the LUXURY I suppose to do so.

        My trek to the UK I saved for almost FIVE years. I won’t explain economics here and intelligence. Dumb asses like me don’t make as miuch money, don’t have good jobs, and don’t have the skills to be a lawyer, or have two engineering degrees, or whatever.

        Men like myself have not killed themselves for the fact we know some serious scrabbles for the modern world. That is what kept us going. Not god, not any of the bullsh*t you all speak about women.

        I did make much of my life to “suck less” and I owe it not you, not to the “great wisdom” found on these pages. I found out through hard work. TONS of failure. Tons of being talked down to because I was never as smart, socially accured like you all, and ignored. You throw around the term “blue pill” here cheaply……..at men who could stand firmer and stronger on many issues that you cannot even comprehend

        I can’t argue with a lawyer or any of you for that matter. No matter what I say will be torn up, or “cut by logic” (according to you) but myself…..and many in the greater sphere really dislike what you all have done to so many………..and still you all wonder why they don’t really like you, or waht to know “jesus”

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Jason:

        I read your reply.

        I will never end calling you guys out.

        OK. Let’s say you’re right and I’m wrong. All of us are wrong. We’re full of $#it.

        How is “calling [me] out” helping you? How is proving me wrong helping you? How is participating here benefiting your life? If the info here is worthless, what do you gain from reading and commenting here?

        A prime red pill tenet is “if it doesn’t get you liked, laid or paid, don’t do it”. What does participating here do for you?

        There was a great opportunity ten years ago……maybe longer for you men in this scene TO become the dominat force. You blew it. Badly.

        I don’t know about other men, but I am not here to be a “dominant force” in the manosphere. I was never here to “defeat” incels/MGTOW or prove them wrong. Younger men are moving in that direction as more and more of them find they’re incels or gravitate to MGTOW. I’m fine with that. I and others saw it a couple of years ago that things were a lot worse with younger men. Others saw before I did that the manosphere of the early 2000s up to about 2013, designed for the AFC, was not meeting the needs of the truly unfortunate, the omega, and the incel. Other content creators have stepped in to fill that void. That’s fine with me. I’m for anything that helps men live happy, productive lives, with or without women.

        I’m for anything that gets men out of dumps and slumps, and into living better lives. For a lot of men, that means a life without women. That is just how life is for some men. It has always been like this. The only difference now is that incels and MGTOW have formed their own communities on the internet and elsewhere. And they’re finding their ways, individually. The only way out is for individual men to find their own solutions. In my opinion there’s little to be gained from telling others “Game/dating/marriage are not the way to go” or “Incel is the future” or “MGTOW is all there is”. Everyone has to find their own ways.

        Maybe you’re right that selling Game to men who couldn’t implement it into their lives or didnt want to do it or didn’t want to do the work was a mistake. OK. But what does complaining about that now do for you? How is it making your life better?

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        “didn’t want to do the work”

        You still can’t let go. You still want cannot accept the fact that game failed because men “didn’t want to to the work”

        This is what I am talking about. A slight sneer at the end too.

        What have you learned here? You seem to be telling everyone for years here “what this or that is” and no one dares ever question you. That’s “learning” in this sphere.

        Calling you out isn’t helping me. You all know well enough I am hopeless. Have been since I came out of the womb. I though will counter, and question with the hope of any man who comes here and sees ONE person who disagrees, who tried, strived, worked, and implemented “what I was told to do” and it failed. I would feel terrible that I said nothing, and let you peddle your BS and nonsense to others

        Oh????? Everyone is against Game now? When? Thanks for defending me on Dalrock…..oh that’s right none you Bobo’s did. Afraid that “people may not like you”

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I don’t know about other men, but I am not here to be a “dominant force” in the manosphere.

        You’re right, Deti. For my part, I specifically stated that I found these blogs by asking myself four questions.

        How do I improve my marriage?
        How do I help prepare my kids for marriage?
        What can I influence?
        What can’t I influence?

        That’s why I’m still here. I’m still learning from others. I have no interest in being a “dominant force” in the manosphere. Hell, I don’t even know what that means, nor do I care.

        I’m not here to “save western civilization”, or fix women, or fix men, or whatever. That’s too big a task for me. I just need ideas on how to be a Godly husband and father. That’s all the responsibility I can handle, and then some.

        Maybe you’re right that selling Game to men who couldn’t implement it into their lives or didnt want to do it or didn’t want to do the work was a mistake.

        Additionally, many of us are not advocates of “game” (whatever that is) at all. I’m not. Scott isn’t. Others have written entire articles opposing “game” (whatever that is).

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar:

        Agreed. I’m here because I needed help with something. I learned things that helped.

        I’ve stuck around because I don’t want to regress, to help others, discussing these topics is interesting and makes me think, and participating here has greatly improved my writing. That last thing is important to me because I write for a living.

        I’m not here to change the world. I’m not here to “save western civilization”. I’m here to learn, and to help those who want to be helped. That’s pretty much it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        “Help who want to be helped”

        No. Fixed: “Help those who agree with me”

        “I’m here to learn”

        No one has taught you anything

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Everyone is against Game now?

        Nobody said that “everyone is against game”.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      You are again trying to make everything into a cold, dry, neat and clean A+B=C world…and most people don’t and never have lived like this. That human nature thing….we’re not just stimuli / response.

      No, we’re really not trying to sanitize everything. We’re picking it apart, looking at its component parts, analyzing them, reverse engineering them, putting them back together, and relating them to and describing our own experiences and those of others.

      We’re doing this for the purposes of finding out what they are and how they work, and looking past what appears to be and getting to what actually is, so we can get to the truth and hopefully help other people not have to go through what we, and you, went through.

      It’s messy. Sometimes it’s ugly. We know it because we’ve lived it, or think we have, or are trying to figure out whether we have.

      Yes, actually, people do live like this and have lived like this. They’re describing things they’ve seen and felt. They’re describing their lives. It might look like a movie, but it isn’t – it’s people’s real lives. It’s OUR real lives, Jason. Human nature is like 95% of what is discussed here, so I can’t figure out how you can say we’re not talking about real things here.

      Liked by 2 people

      • lastmod says:

        Yeah…reverse engineering, putting it back together….sure….and how???? All under the “frame” of “game” and still how its foolproof.

        Your above reply, I’ll elaborate on more this evening. I work for living. I am a property manager. I make people happy, content, safe and trusted…..you being a lawyer make people miserable

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Not through any frame other than Red Pill, understanding the truth of human nature. That’s all. No one’s even trying to talk about Game here. To the extent it has anything to do with Game it would be the man’s recognizing what he’s seeing as a meet cute and then responding to it, and we’re not even at that point yet.

        The only person I’ve ever made miserable as a lawyer is myself. I’ve had much much worse invective directed at me and my profession.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        Actually Scott brought game up in the video and did talk about it. And mentioned a few other things and terms ‘game’ uses. If you are indeed a lawyer……I may have to tone it down a bit, because you can never win, point out, or even suggest any other idea to them or concept. They have it all figured out…..and your replies imply this

        Like

  30. cameron232 says:

    From previous descriptions I assumed the meetcute was the woman showing genuine desire/initiative for the man. The idea being if it isn’t there in the first place it never will be.

    Mine came as a teenager. We met over the phone through a friend of mine (she asked to talk to me on the phone). I gave her my number and she called a bunch of times. SInce I never dated, my mom thought she was a woman calling for my dad (my dad and I have the same name) and got pissed. SHe asked me on a date. At the end of the date, she leaned over and kissed me. The second date she jumped on my stomach when we were lying on the board walk at the beach at night. More things happened on subsequent dates, etc. If there’s a point, it’s that she took ALL the initiative.

    I’m glad I only had to go all this one time.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Interesting again.

      That’s a great experience, and it’s great that it worked for you.

      However I can tell you with full certainty that if most men did that — i.e., waited for the woman to take the initiative every step of the way — they would never have a single date with a woman, period.

      So, again, it’s awesome it worked for you and led to your successful marriage, but as a strategy for other men? Not useful at all, just being frank.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      I would argue that she was a ‘masculine’ women. A higher quality woman would be more feminine and not take the initiative to that degree.

      I agree with Nova.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        She has given me eight children. She is always interested in pleasing me, has literally never shit-tested me, does her best to obey me (not perfectly but she tries), wants to spend all her free time with me, makes me special meals all time, etc. She enthusiastically has sex with me when I want and comes to me frequently on her own for sex (it’s sometimes difficult with eight children). I am physically attracted to her. She prefers to stay home with the children. SHe does her best to make their childhood happy and special.

        I have my complaints (I think she is undisciplined with the children sometimes spoiling them a bit) but from my perspective she is high quality. I would be an asshole to ask for more or to think I deserve more.

        I think in response to Nova, from my limited experience the best approach is to make yourself the best you can be but look for signs the girl really wants you. THis was discussed at Dalrocks I think – Cane Caldo came to the same conclusion. Maybe you want the woman to choose/pursue you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        I think in response to Nova, from my limited experience the best approach is to make yourself the best you can be but look for signs the girl really wants you. THis was discussed at Dalrocks I think – Cane Caldo came to the same conclusion. Maybe you want the woman to choose/pursue you.

        These are two different things, though. I don’t think it’s useful to blur them.

        One is looking for a girl’s interest in you before pursuing her. That is — look for her “IOIs”. I think everyone here agrees that is the best approach, rather than “cold approach” without a girl having given you an IOI.

        The second thing, which you were talking about in your first post at least, and which you reference again here, is that the woman should pursue — because as you describe it, your wife pursued you, and not vice-versa. That, in my view, is a bad strategy for men, simply because a large percentage of women will not pursue men, on principle. Even in this very thread, Scott mentions that his wife, when they were interacting before they first met, basically told him that he had to pursue, she wasn’t going to make the move. If he had taken your approach, he never would have dated her, which would have been truly tragic given their marriage quality. She gave him lots of IOIs but also flat out told him — I am not going to pursue, you need to initiate.

        So, yes, look for IOIs rather than cold approaching. But waiting for the woman to pursue you is a recipe for failure for most men. Again, I am glad it worked for you, but it simply won’t work for most men.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      Actually I changed my mind. What we need today is more actualised persons not restricted but still confirming to traditional notions of feminine and masculine. To divide half of human qualities and label then feminine and the other masculine is stupid unless we realise people need to actualise both their feminine and masculine side but of course in proper proportion. For example Men are socialised to be less emotionally intelligent. Female to female friendships often have great emotional intimacy but male to male friendships are rare in part also because of fear of being perceived as homosexual. The idea of a stoic man who can go it alone is harmful. I have read books like the boy crisis and man interrupted which discuss struggles of the average boy and men. Our culture is toxic to boys and men in ways that aren’t discussed much. I will throw out the idea that Feminism does equal if not more damage to men than to women not sure if this is discussed much in the manosphere?

      Liked by 1 person

  31. Elspeth says:

    Are all the women in the subset of 10 that you talk to, in the same general demographic as your daughters (black, middle class, under age 30, products of two parent intact homes, fathers they respect, devout Christians, and virgins)? And I know you know what I mean by “devout Christian” – actually walk the walk, not just go to church and know John 3:16.

    No. Our girls are the only black ones. A couple of Hispanic, a Asian, a bi-racial, 3 white. Only one I would say is waffle-y in her faith but heavily influenced by 1) heavy influence from our girls and family, and 2) having parents who are very happily married.

    I see some of the more “whacked out” ones as well. It is not unusual to hear that some of the MC kids of Christian parents who went to school with our kids to be fully immersed in the culture, complete with the nonbinary designation and social justice rants on social media. It has never been my intention to claim that most young women are like mine, or that your observations have no basis in reality. They most certainly do, but as is often the case, there are always remnants.

    And it’s not that they’re having “a terrible time finding men to get serious about”. I saw what you did there, LOL. It’s that men 30 and under, are by and large (I’m sure there are remnants), no more prepared to be husbands than their female counterparts are to be wives. The same crackpot boomers and Xers that raised these flaky, self-obsessed girls also raised the unstable, less masculine boys that populate what the culture now stupidly calls “emerging adulthood”.

    Throw in the obsession with entertainment that drives silly notions of love and romance, and this is what you get.

    I watched Scott’s reboot, by the way, and while his story with Mychael is quite romantic and touching, it doesn’t have all the elements of a Romcom meet cute. Some, yeah, but it’s not so unrealistic that no one could ever experience that. I would say the same about me and my husband. Potential meet cute at first, nearly a year of “the dance” in which a true friendship developed void of any sex at all, and the eventual break in the tension.

    In other words, not like the movies where it all happens really quickly and it’s clean and the skies part and all that jazz. Life is not a romcom.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      And it’s not that they’re having “a terrible time finding men to get serious about”. I saw what you did there, LOL. It’s that men 30 and under, are by and large (I’m sure there are remnants), no more prepared to be husbands than their female counterparts are to be wives. The same crackpot boomers and Xers that raised these flaky, self-obsessed girls also raised the unstable, less masculine boys that populate what the culture now stupidly calls “emerging adulthood”.

      What? Come on E, I didn’t perform any verbal sleight of hand here. I also don’t disagree with you about men under 30’s lack of preparation for marriage. Not only are they unprepared; today’s modern woman thinks they’re completely unsuitable. She not only doesn’t like most of them, she’s disgusted by them. And, well, they are unsuited to marriage, by and large – just like today’s modern woman.

      That’s why I said this:

      [Today’s modern woman under 30] is also thoroughly disdainful and disgusted with the men she knows as potential husbands. She views a few men as fine as F-buddies or friends with benefits. To her, some men are fine as occasional sex partners. They’ll scratch the itch when it needs scratched. But she views almost all men as completely unsuitable for marriage. This pretty much aligns with what you and I have discussed before, where you’ve stated that the young women you know are having a terrible time finding men to get serious about. They’re fine as friends and sex partners, but dismal potential husbands – all of them.

      As usual, we’re more in agreement than disagreement.

      Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “I also don’t disagree with you about men under 30’s lack of preparation for marriage. Not only are they unprepared; today’s modern woman thinks they’re completely unsuitable. She not only doesn’t like most of them, she’s disgusted by them. And, well, they are unsuited to marriage, by and large – just like today’s modern woman.”

        You know, this resonates with me because when I was in my twenties back in the 80’s, it seemed like the young men were more ready for marriage, particularly as they made it to their late twenties/early thirties. When I went to my tenth high school reunion, about half the class was married, half still single. I’d say half of the singles were looking to get married. The reunion seemed to me (looking back now) a little more than just a reunion. It was also something of a quasi vetting process; or maybe better way to put it, a ‘pool of potential’ being checked out/scrutinized because of the connections from the past which was the earlier version of the same pool.

        It seems nowadays, granted I’m an ‘older’ dude now, the twentysomethings that I’ve been around in that educational program I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, are NOT marriage ready–male or female. Many of the males have not established themselves in careers or life in general, and many of the females are in their ‘you go girl, you can have it all’ phase of life. Most of them have college debt, particularly the females; and a surprising number are living at home still, or have returned to living at home after a brief stint on their own. And yes, there are exceptions I run into out there in the world, but they are just that, exceptions to the rule. Many of them have been in a relationship for 3-5-7 years running, living together, and just now getting around to tying the knot. My son and daughter fit that description. Those seem to be the twentysomethings that are getting married. The rest that are just hooking-up throughout their twenties, they seem to be the one’s entering their thirties still single, especially the females. I know quite a few of those, and everyone of them from what I can tell is struggling in their attempt to successfully ‘stick the landing.’

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        Back in the 1980’s young men were ready for marriage? Teenage pregnancy skyrocketed. Abortions peaked in 1982, or 1983. Living together became normalized, the normalization of the “young-single-mom-home” became commonplace. Welfare and other social programs actually expanded in this era. Yeah……young men were more ready. Many of these young men helped cause the problem

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      And, yes, E, women ARE “having a terrible time finding men to get serious about”. Your girls and the other 10 are having a terrible time finding men they want to have anything at all to do with. I mean, we’ve had this discussion before, haven’t we?

      Most women have a terrible time finding men who are good for anything other than casual sex, when they feel like it. That’s the driving concept behind most of what’s happening currently in the SMP/MMP.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Scott says:

    Wow what an exciting conversation this became

    It would be interesting to hear Mychaels side of this because she always says she was equally smitten in the street that day.

    But she’s done with these forums.

    Sometimes I feel like I’m actually in one of those John Hughes films and maybe none of this real.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      It’s interesting because to my knowledge, this is heretofore unplowed ground in the field of intersexual relationships. I don’t remember this ever being talked about before through a red pill lens.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      Sometimes I feel like I’m actually in one of those John Hughes films

      Let me guess… “Weird Science”, right?

      Like

  33. Elspeth says:

    No, I’m not saying that most young women don’t expect a meet cute. I’m seeing the demand for it is far from universal. I wasn’t looking for it. The fact that it happened is all on SAM, none on me.

    Of course, I didn’t see one romantic comedy of the 1980s. NOT ONE. I can count the movies I saw throughout my teen years on hand. Probably three fingers, LOL. My husband found my lack of cinematic exposure both surprising and endearing. But I just didn’t live the typical 80s/90s teen life.

    And neither have our daughters, although they have seen more movies.

    Like

  34. lastmod says:

    On the late John Hughes…..

    As much as I did enjoy his “teen / coming of age dramas” back in the 1980’s…..and I did see the “big five” in the theaters as a teenager (Sixteen Candles / The Breakfast Club / Pretty In Pink / Weird Science / Ferris Beuller’s Day Off) and the coda “Uncle Buck” in 1989 which had similar themes as the previous but was really a strict comedy…….after that he went on to make Disney family films (Air Bud / The Mighty Ducks….stuff like that)

    His movies struck a nerve at the time for the fact they were not the frumpy, campy, silly teen movies of the generation before (the 1960’s “Beach Party” movies, “A Swinging Summer” “Ski Weekend”) or in the 1970’s of stoner / colligate humor of “Animal House” and “Caddyshack” or “Meatballs” (all decent, funny movies……but something still was missing).

    Hughes knew how to tell a story. He made these movies with believable social cues that teens did have to deal with. The charcters were believable and relatable in his movies. The acting was decent. The comedy was “over the top” and the production was professional. They were good. The songs and music selected for the films was just fantastic, and it fleshed the stories and times out perfectly.

    Though for how “cutting edge” and how they were relatable….something even back then made me never fully take them too seriously.

    *In The Breakfast Club for example……….the two “cool” guys still got the girls, and the one girl was ONLY noticed by the jock when she got a makeup job done by the “popular” girl. The nerd still had
    write the paper and do the work and the rebel was somehow in all of this the “hero” of the film.

    *In Pretty In Pink, poor Duckie…….stood by her through everything and the MOMENT Andie held his hand, and yes decided she would walk into the prom with him…………he had to be the-bigger-person and encourage her to go back the guy who actually was real jerk because he “knew” he was out of her league.

    *All of Hughes’s movies had a very subtle “class struggle” in them. Upper class v lower class, and the lower class always seemed to have the insight and that “money was bad” and “it can’t buy you happiness” and yet at the same time…….the rich kids or characters seemed to have the most fun, still “won” in the end and didn’t seem to learn any lessons from the whole story

    *In Weird Science (which I actually recall in the theater clearly….full of teens throwing rolls of toilet paper around, hitting ballons around before the lights went dim) us nerds and losers who cheered the film back then were TOLD “you just have to be yourself” by Kelly LeBrock and girls will like you. Thanks for nothing. How did that turn out?

    I could go on, but I won’t. They were fun, they were entertaining…..and they have “held up” but it was never real. It was Hollywood and for some reason it reflected the real world at the time guys like me refused to accept. We were blinded by everything else in his films.

    Like

  35. Scott says:

    Here’s something rollo is right about and worth exploring.

    I bet a bazillion dollars that if you polled 1000 men and women (and they answered honestly) the men would be to ones who experience their “how we met” stories with heightened romantic emotional and meaningful content then the women.

    Consider the way I described the “magical places” on earth, to include the middle of the street in front of my apartment. That was totally unscripted. Just came out.

    What a sappy beta I sound like.

    Don’t care. That’s how I feel.

    Only men talk like that.

    See: all the romantic epic stories, songs, poems since the beginning of time until now.

    Elspeths description of hers as some kind of slightly interesting but in the end mostly pragmatic accident of logistics and timing is more typical of women. Christians are more serious and marriage minded. Dont you know?

    For me it was earth shattering lighting bolts and the entire universe disappeared in that moment.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      …continued

      Because I really want to hammer this point home. Recall, the narrative is that men are clueless, insensitive, emotionally unsophisticated animals who just want to stick in a hole somewhere.

      But the longer I live, the more I realize, this comes from a place inside women who are actually envious of the depths to which men experience bonding and emotion. Its projection. I’m better at articulating it than most, because of my education level. But it is men who feel these things as a longing, an insatiable urge to internalize and be with their beloved. It’s old married men die within a few weeks after the wives die. This does not happen in reverse nearly as often.

      Liked by 1 person

  36. Scott says:

    Weird. I am logged in with two different emails on two different devices.

    Like

  37. lastmod says:

    Scott but Dalrock and Company would tell you “because manhood / christainty was cucked by in 892 or 1123 and men were made to be beta and that is why all these stories were written like this. If we just returned to men just ‘doing as they please’ women would fall in line with their ‘masculine leadership’ and there would be no problems.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      Yeah I tried to follow that series of discussions for a few minutes once, “here’s CS Lewis deconstructing Lancelot!” but it just started to look like blurry eyewash to me.

      In the end, it seems like another take on “how far back do we rewind the clock to restore order?”

      If only men had stopped the spread of the the definitional creep in the lexicon of the word chivalry! Shit, its been a thousand years now!

      I have the same reaction when I see key words like “sexbot” and “artificial womb.”

      Like

      • Elspeth says:

        The reality is that men have been prone to submitting to women’s feelings (and women to seeking greater autonomy) since the garden of Eden.

        Biological realities without technological advancements naturally tempered those urges for a while. But they’ve always been there. Adam, Samson, Ahab, etc.

        A few men with stronger constitutions wrote a few things that indicate a difference in earlier times, but yeah.

        Nothing new under the sun…

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Elspeth

        The reality is that men have been prone to submitting to women’s feelings (and women to seeking greater autonomy) since the garden of Eden.

        Biological realities without technological advancements naturally tempered those urges for a while. But they’ve always been there. Adam, Samson, Ahab, etc.

        Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, Xerxes… yep. Husbands naturally want to please their wives, even unloved wives like Leah.

        It’s funny how feminists claim the Bible is a fountain of misogyny, when in fact it shows powerful men in the most patriarchal cultures imaginable bending over backwards to please their wives.

        Liked by 1 person

  38. lastmod says:

    Yeah…many in the incel / MGTOW / Black Pill scene are claiming that THIS (artificial wombs / sexbots) will liberate men from women…….”robots will be better women than women” kind of thing. It’s going into some areas that I cannot understand or comprehend. Just wait til some man decides he want to “marry” his sexbot or doll. Many on that side would applaud this and I have said, “Guys, you keep telling me that the upper 20% of men won’t let you ‘in’ their club, and I do agree…but with behaviors / actions / speech like this can you understand why?”

    The odd thing is I have been called out THERE on some of their pages / chats as an ‘alpha’ and that makes my head spin

    Like

  39. Scott says:

    The reality is that men have been prone to submitting to women’s feelings (and women to seeking greater autonomy) since the garden of Eden.

    Biological realities without technological advancements naturally tempered those urges for a while. But they’ve always been there. Adam, Samson, Ahab, etc.

    A few men with stronger constitutions wrote a few things that indicate a difference in earlier times, but yeah.

    Nothing new under the sun…

    If I could wave a magic wand over the whole thing, and offer something actually doable and reasonable..

    Instead of trying to build a time machine and go back and undo suffrage, or lancelot, I would ask women with daughters to make these kinds of statements to them:

    “Men are capable of incredible depths of feeling, devotion, commitment and sacrifice. All the way unto the death of themselves to protect and provide for those they love. Why not work on making yourself a woman that one of these men might want to feel that way about? Because once you find one, you will never be loved like that again until you meet Christ.”

    That statement is absolutely beyond the pale of polite conversation today because sitcom dads are retards or something.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      That statement is absolutely beyond the pale of polite conversation today because sitcom dads are retards or something.

      It’s because it’s obviated by the massive game-changing technological shifts. Two of them, both of which make the old regime irrelevant and, for most women at least, undesirable.

      The first is reproduction — the shift towards safe, cheap, legal abortion and safe, cheap, reliable contraception both worked, together, to remove the “natural check” on female sexuality. Women are NOT acting according to their natures. They are acting according to their artificially elevated sexual expression because the natural check on that has been taken away by technologically, deliberately. That isn’t a minor change, it’s a sea change, it’s an epochal, game-changing change, and one that we should expect to have permanent, irreversible changes on sex, sexual expression, and male-female relationships and, in the longer run, marriage and the nature of family life.

      The second is the continued progress of general development and economic activity away from the kinds of activities that favored male strength and towards the kinds of activities that favor brain power, obviate physical strength, and provide for a good deal of free social time. This change was just as critical as the first one, because it made economic independence, in a true sense, viable for most women in a way that it never was historically in the history of the species. The fact that this happened roughly around the same time as the first set of changes above created the kind of social revolution we saw in the 20th century — a time where the entirety of the relationship between men and women was changed or, rather, began to be changed (it isn’t finished changing yet … by my reckoning, we’re probably somewhere around the 4th inning) in a way that shifted things away from where things were for most of human history until then and into a new place.

      The final form of that new place is still very much a work in progress, because things are still changing — technology is still working massive changes in this area, whether people want to deny or minimize them or not. But in any case, we should expect that the entire attitudes towards everything concerning sex, marriage, family life, relationships between men and women, sex and gender roles and the like, would be utterly transformed and changed, because the biological check and the human economic need for the prior, immemorial, regime went away, more or less, around the same time. It couldn’t helpo but result in massive changes.

      That strongly suggests adaptation is required. It is certainly true that hoping for rollbacks of any of these developments is foolish. That generally doesn’t happen very often in history, and bromides like “what can’t last won’t last” are nice to hear, but in reality things we don’t like can last a long time. So hoping they will be reversed is not productive, in my opinion.

      AT the same time, however, waving one’s hands and saying “why can’t we just ….” when the rest that follows is something like “get people to understand that they are better off doing X than Y” is also not productive, because unless you provide incentives for people to do X instead of Y, you’re going to get Y and not X. Just how people roll. Women have no incentive to listen to that message, or any other kind of message, other than a few outliers here and there, because following the path of Y is what is incented, and so that is where they will go — it matches their biological desires (unchecked now by biological constraints, so their unnaturally freed biological desires), it matches the strong cultural messaging, it matches the common human desire to pursue one’s own pleasure, one’s own desires, one’s own determined course of action that is the essence of the sin in Genesis 3 to begin with, and which started our species down this entire road. It won’t be overturned by wishing people thought differently, or that they didn’t respond to incentives. The underlying cause is much stronger than that, and isn’t susceptible to being waved away like that.

      This is why saying something like “Biological realities without technological advancements naturally tempered those urges for a while”, while true, is distorting because the phrase “for a while” is doing an awful lot of work. In reality, “for a while” means “the entire history of the human species except for the last 50-70 years”. Their removal, again together with the nearly simultaneous economic changes, changed things utterly, fundamentally and likely irreversibly (at least from the perspective of any relevant timeframe). That means that the solutions, for individuals are either (1) adaptation to the new reality or (2) ignoring the new reality because you have a strong enough position to do so or (3) an outlier solution, if you can manage it.

      (1) is various forms of personal accommodation. We scoff at this, but it’s what most people do, because most people don’t have strong enough hands (in the deck of cards sense) to achieve desired outcomes regardless of the new system.

      (2) is the people who are the “strong hands” (in the deck of cards sense), because the strong hands do well regardless of what the rules are — they are, after all, the strong hands.

      (3) is the people who are charting a different course, intentionally going against the grain, neither accommodating/adapting to the new system, nor rising above it based on being able to transcend it by having a strong hand, but rather choosing a deliberately outlier path — these people can succeed at their goals, or they can fail to reach any of their goals, depending on any number of factors, but it is a different path with different parameters and risks.

      In this thread, in these comboxes, we have people who are in group (1), people who are in group (2) and people who are in group (3). We tend not to agree with each other about this aspect of the current scenario (i.e., what to do about it), which is sensible because we have made different choices — in part, based on the strength of our own hands (i.e., whether we are in group (2) or not, which isn’t a matter of personal choice) and in part based on what we think is a better and more viable course for us personally as between (1) and (3).

      Therein lies much of the disagreement here, it seems to me.

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Nova

        We tend not to agree with each other about this aspect of the current scenario (i.e., what to do about it), which is sensible because we have made different choices…

        I’m not entirely sure I understand your point.

        I found the “Christians manosphere” (namely Dalrock’s blog, and Scott’s “Courtship Pledge”) because I asked myself a few questions.

        How do I improve my marriage?
        How do I prepare my kids for marriage?
        What can I influence?
        What can’t I influence?

        Is that the kind of thing you’re talking about?

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Is that the kind of thing you’re talking about?

        The specifics of what each of us chooses to do about each of those things and, more generally, about the “men/women/family” issue, regardless of our situation.

        For example, not everyone here is married — some are never marrieds, some are divorced, some are in second marriages. How each arrived in those situations — including their current marriage — differs, and how they choose to sustain their current situation, or change it, also differs. They sometimes disagree about the best approaches, and have taken different approaches themselves. My perspective is that a part of how we approach this depends on whether we are in (1), (2) or (3) of my three approaches above, in a general sense (it’s a framework for thinking about these things, not a straitjacket of categories), and this will lead to some differences in perspective, which is another way of saying “disagreements”.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      @ Scott

      Instead of trying to build a time machine and go back and undo suffrage, or lancelot

      Discussions about history and literature can get tedious. I get that. But that doesn’t mean their unimportant, nor does it mean the people discussing them want to “build a time machine”.

      We’ve been discussing the “meet cute”, right? The “meet cute” looks to me like a product of the “soul mate” myth. I won’t go into detail here, but the “soul mate” myth comes from Greek mythology.

      Is that important?

      I think so, because absolutely everyone has heard of “soul mates”, and almost everyone wants one, but almost no one knows where that concept comes from. In fact, Christians try to Christianize it, even though it’s a pagan concept that destroys marriages.

      We can’t go back in time and correct ancient Greek myths, but we can (and I have) explain to our children that there is no “soul mate” out there somewhere for them. That they need to choose wisely, then love, respect, and submit Biblically.

      Liked by 1 person

  40. lastmod says:

    How about “none of the above”?

    I will try to be as polite as I can here. Again, in this realm…..in these types of forums. It is “either / or” it is “if the marble doesn’t fall this way, it must fall the other” and stuff like “it is very clear there are this many options A, B, C and let me break them down for you.” along with “I have been thinking, and this new model I have devised…”

    With your above statement Nova you seem to have worked out everything in a comment on a blog. How these group think, behave act and interact.

    Maybe this is part of the disconnect I am trying to convey……..or word properly.

    I have seen myself in all those groups at different point in my life and in different situations and a few other areas you may not have mentioned or thought of yet. Lastmod here doesn’t care about
    “Biological realities without technological advancements naturally tempered those urges for a while”
    Nor do most, and even if I pretended I did…….I have no metion or background or “deep study” of what these “biological” realities are, or how they formed, or evolved or the sociological impacts in two months or fifty years………

    It seems that all of you here do seem to understand this. I can speak for most, that we don’t for every advance or situation…..and I’ll hedge a bet that you don’t either.

    So why wouldn’t “none of the above” work as an option? These three types you are purporting…..is there some paper, study or deep research by STanford, Oxford, Heidelberg on these relationships or “models” or is it something you just invented that I must accept?

    Just asking

    Like

  41. Scott says:

    I think its probably accurate also to acknowledge that sometimes, two people have something particularly special. Even if you take it out of the romantic man/woman sphere.

    David and Johnathan were said to have an especially powerful and unique bond of love and regard for one another. It was understood to be non-sexual, but exceptional none the less.

    It may, however, be setting them up for failure when we tell our kids “just hold out for the right one to come along.” The truly special ones are just that–special.

    Most people will go on with their lives never knowing what that is like. Its a bummer.

    I also suspect that some people are built for it from the ground up (here I go with genes/heritability again). Just something about their personality, and the one they ended up married to that creates that awe inspiring bond.

    Like

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      I agree. One aspect of personality that might influence this is your Enneagram Instinct. Some people are not looking for soul-mates but more like a business relationship and there have been changes to the cultural expectations over time as well. A person with a dominant sexual instinct is going to care more about finding the ‘one’ or a soulmate or someone who they have great chemistry with. Scott you might find it the concept of instincts interesting and in particular personal stories of people with the sexual instinct as their primary one. Here is an basic article to get you started https://www.personalitycafe.com/threads/tritypes-and-instinctual-variants-sp-sx-so-explained.39871/

      Like

      • Scott says:

        I’ll have to go revisit that enneagram stuff. I thought it was very promising when I first looked at it in graduate school, then got distracted by something else. It does explain a huge amount of the variance in behavior patterns I have observed.

        Like

    • Jeff Barnes says:

      Yes I find that together that MBTI and enneagram together explain personality to a great degree. I have no doubt that enneagram explains variance in behaviour but properly understood enneagram is all about motivation which of course does lead to correlations in behaviour. In short MBTI is about cognition, enneagram about motivation. Personality is a word used in a multitude of ways. Last thing is that Richard Rohr and other protestant clergy offer a ‘christianised’ enneagram and see it as more then a psychological tool and also a tool for spiritual development. Some Christian hate it because of its supposed occultist origins and supposedly non-christian content. I don’t buy the genetic fallacy though, I take truth wherever I see it.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Not sure I am tracking “genetic fallacy?”

        Like

      • Jeff Barnes says:

        Genetic fallacy in this case would be to reject enneagram just based on its origins instead of its truth content. You do understand the definition of a genetic fallacy though right?

        Like

  42. redpillboomer says:

    “It may, however, be setting them up for failure when we tell our kids “just hold out for the right one to come along.” The truly special ones are just that–special.”
    I’ve heard to this referred to in the manosphere as the ‘soul mate myth,” i.e. that there is ‘the one’ out there somewhere, just the PERFECT fit in every way for you,’ like a custom tailor-made female. The ‘one’ that is PERFECTLY suited for you beyond all others on the planet. Here’s what I think I know from being married for 31 years, there are a lot of someone’s out there who could be ‘the one.’ My wife is great, but is she ‘the absolute one’ out of the now approaching 8 billion people on the planet? How the hell would I know the answer to that question? I guess that would be about 4 billion females our of 8 billion people, that theoretically could be ‘the one.’ What I do know is that our marriage is good, works, we love each other; so, is my ‘soul mate’ still out there? I mean have I missed the ONE in 4 billion that is the absolute PERFECT match for me? Seems like a ludicrous inquiry to engage in. I like how one Manosphere commentator put it, there are many ‘the one’s’ out there. In other words, there are many females out there in the big wide world that would work just fine with me. So, I got one of the many that ‘work just fine with me;’ therefore I found my “soulmate” for all intents and purposes.
    “Holding out for the one” seems like a process that would yield nothing but frustration. However, vetting the many possible ‘one’s’ out there, now that seems to be a process worth engaging in if a young man is interested in pair bonding. Sifting through the MMP (Marriage Market Place as opposed to the SMP-Sexual Market Place, i.e. the Hook-up culture) potentials to see if there is ‘one’ that would make a good partner for a long term, committed relationship; now that seems like an exercise a man might want to engage in, if he is so inclined to do so.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Elspeth says:

    Genetic fallacy in this case would be to reject enneagram just based on its origins instead of its truth content. You do understand the definition of a genetic fallacy though right?

    My kids are studying logic, and so I ham getting a reintroduction into a lot of things I used to know and a crash course in things I never learned. Genetic fallacies came up quite recently. Here’s the thing about all of that though.

    Before I start I need to preface that while I had come to these conclusions in a messy, inarticulate way before now, I recently heard the very insightful Joshua Gibbs put into articulate language why I think it’s a bad idea to put too much stock in Enneagrams and Myers-Briggs type personality analysis. His podcast, Proverbial, is one of my all time favorites. This error is -hopefully- not as much of an issue for the believer, but as modern men (mankind, not amen, LOL), we are always prone to this error. He puts it this way.

    When we take to seeing ourselves through the lens of psychological analytical tools, it enables us to divorce our actions from objective morality, and ascribe to them reasons that have to do with psychology and labels. For instance, say you’ve determined that you’re an introvert, as I have. But Christian charity demands that for several weekends in a row you need to be involved in activities that bump against that tendency. What do you do?

    Also, when you do certain things, concrete, morally objective identifiers (husband, Christian, etc) are much more easily brought to bear, “You’re a Christian, act like it” is far more potent than “You’re an INTJ”, act like it”. Gibbs does this far better than I am paraphrasing him, but you see my point. As a wife who is an INFJ -for the sake of this conversation- I’ve had to frequently subordinate that label to the reality that I married and ENTJ -again, for the sake of this conversation. He has done the same on occasion when he can see that despite my best efforts, I’m exhausting my ability to be chipper under the frequent onslaught of emotional demands from so many people (5 kids, extended family, school obligations, etc).

    All that to say we need to wear these labels super loosely. Just my opinion.

    Now none of this is to say that we should be ignorant about who we are and how we are built, but only to the extent that this helps us interact with others better in our day to day lives.

    Like

  44. Scott says:

    Jeff Barnes

    Man in 49 years I’ve never heard it called that. You learn something new every day.

    I’m familiar with the concept though. In theology it’s related to “general revelation” or roughly “all truth is Gods truth, no matter how it was discovered.”

    Cool

    Genetic fallacy.

    Like

  45. Pingback: Revealing the motives behind unconcealed sex and nakedness | Σ Frame

  46. Pingback: The Soul Mate Myth | Σ Frame

  47. Pingback: Something’s not right… (about Sexual Authority) | 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