The Masculine Dilemma

She might be a plain Jane, but will she cook and bang?

Readership: Men
Audio: Listen to this post on BitChute. (Thanks Oscar!)

In this post, I want to present an idea that will probably not be too popular, but it’s an important heuristic thought experiment for us to consider.

Over the past month, the overriding theme here and at Christianity and Masculinity has been about the Headship structure — authoritative men and females as their submissive helpers. This perspective has redefined the ontology between men and women. It cuts out the distractions of sex, romance, and attraction, and focuses on the basic structure and functionality of the relationship, and whether it glorifies God.

We men are quick to be critical of what we find attractive in women, and how women fail to match up to our standards. Christian men are also aware of how they don’t measure up to the Biblical standard.

Most men want to choose a woman based on her attractiveness, and then we expect her to become a respectful, submissive wife. This is similar to a woman who wants to bag a Chad, and then magically transform him with her lurrrve into a faithful breadwinner.  We’re quite aware of how ridiculous the latter is, but the former comical notion is seldom addressed.

Why not turn this around the other way?  Why not choose a woman based on how respectful and submissive she is, and then watch her attractiveness bloom?

Suppose a man were to choose a woman based on how good of a helper she is, or would be. This situation would be very reminiscent of a boss hiring a new employee. Education would be a plus, good health would be a plus, initiative, problem solving skills, hands-on abilities, social dexterity, all positive traits. Personality traits like openness and agreeableness would also be pluses.

A Strong Independent Woman™ might actually be a positive characteristic, if she could be trusted to do the job she was assigned to do, be submissive and respectful about it, and not go Renegade.

On the other hand, her physical attractiveness would fall towards the bottom of the list, in terms of practical importance.  If we are completely honest with ourselves, the type of woman who is outwardly attractive to men — the young, feminine, high SMV, and of course, sexy hot girl — is typically rather immature, impertinent, and unreliably flighty. A woman who passes the boner test with flying colors may very well have no real ability to perform as a respectful, submissive helper, and thereby fulfill her role in a Headship marriage. This truth is more obvious when we admit that a woman’s ability to incite sex appeal is correlated with her sexual experience (up to a point).

A very unpleasant truth it is!  I can already see the comments pouring in now…

Buhut, ah don’t wanna marry no ugly girl, no matter how good she is.

But hold on, why do we think a submissive, respectful girl must also necessarily be mud ugly?  Perhaps this is a smokescreen from Satan, designed to get us to reject this mindset out of hand.

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, Building Wealth, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Power, Headship and Patriarchy, Introspection, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Relationships, Respect, Self-Concept, Sexual Authority, Strategy, The Power of God, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to The Masculine Dilemma

  1. cameron232 says:

    I have always been the type that classified women into attractive and not attractive, my natural attraction assigning very few additional “points” for a woman being above the screening critera. If she passes the screening criteria (attractive) then her personality is what matters. I think it is much easier to love a woman who has a “sweet” personality. The cute enough nice girl next door is infinitely preferable to the difficult “10” you meet in college. The soft personality, the soft voice, kindness and compassion, these are very attractive in a woman. Your “boner test” – I can’t imagine an average looking young woman can’t create sexual attraction in her man. We go on and on about how the Chads do the deed with average girls all the time.

    All very “beta” I suppose.

    Most young girls (when they should marry) are attractive if they simply control their weight (say, keep it below approximately 60-65 kg). Yes, there are some who just have an unattractive face or are very large without being overfat-not real attractive. I guess this is where natural mate sorting occurs – in the old days, a 1 married a 1, a 5 married a 5, a 10 married a 10.

    Like

  2. cameron232 says:

    Even with unattractive women a good personality makes a big difference. Told this story before but there’s two obese girls at work, who work closely together. One (the less fat one) has an ugly, nasty personality with the tatoos to match. The other (fatter) one has a sweet, jolly personality, smiles a lot. Her husband is fat too – no big surprise – but they seem like a happy couple.

    Very few men prefer their women fat. But at least with the 2nd one you would have a woman who has some nice things – sweet and fun, happy, smiles. If you were marred to the 1st one you’d probably want to kill yourself.

    Remember cousin Eddie in Christmas Vacation (describing the “Yak woman” at the carnival):

    “She’s ugly as sin, but a sweet gal, and a hell of a good cook!”

    What gets me are the fat and/or ugly ones with the tats, the nasty personality. They literally have NOTHING attractive about them. I can’t imagine any man, even the most desperate one, wanting anything to do with them. But they do.

    Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      What gets me are the fat and/or ugly ones with the tats, the nasty personality

      This phenomenon only exists in a gynarchy, like the one we’re now living in. Notice that in the days preceding 2WF, such women as you describe existed only in traveling carnival sideshows.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. whiteguy1 says:

    I’m running this game plan right now. We shall see how it turns out.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. feeriker says:

    “I’ll take a submissive, loving 5 with domestic skills over a bitchy, contentious entitled 9 with no domestic skills. It’s no contest and a no-brainer.” ~ Generic man with common sense

    Liked by 3 people

  5. redpillboomer says:

    Yes, in my experience years ago, the younger women who easily passed the ‘boner test,’ in looking back on it now, none passed the marriageable test. I however, being young and led by my lust, always wanted the one’s that passed the boner test and not their less attractive girlfriends. There were these two girls that I knew who were close friends, one I’d say a 9, the other a 6-7 at the most. It was my pre-Christian days, I was after the 9 and boy did she prove to be flighty. I wanted to bed her so badly, but she proved to be a big tease. Her friend and I went out on a couple dates when the 9 was out chasing Chad. We had a great time, but all I could think about was she wasn’t as hot as her friend, the one that gave me blue balls. I still remember how nice she was, great company, actually her sexiness grew on me as I spent a little more time with her. We did end up making out and it was really good. She was a great kisser and she gave tremendous head in an almost worshipful manner. I should have stayed with her, but I couldn’t create the same desire, aka lust for her as I could the other one. My mistake, my regret.

    Like

  6. RichardP says:

    submissive helper is redundant.

    To truely be a help, one must submit their will to the one being helped. The helper must focus on the agenda of the helped rather than on their own agenda.

    God made Eve to be a help for Adam. There is a reason God never told Eve to be submissive. Submission is baked into the term “help” or “helper”

    It is always useful to keep the following in mind. Jack hinted at this in what he said above:

    One can be “submissive” without being a help (passive-aggressive anyone?)

    One cannot truely be a “help” without being submissive. The one helping submits their will to the one being helped.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Novaseeker says:

    I think it is normal for people to seek to optimize, within their “looks band”. Once you’re inside that band of looks (not higher than it or lower than it), you can then select based on other things like personality. I think though that very few people of either sex are going to be selecting people outside their own looks band unless they feel they have no other options, and often they are not happy with the relationship when they do this (there are men who do it, too, not just women, because the men are the types who don’t want to be alone even if they aren’t that attracted to the woman they are marrying).

    It is easy to say “pick personality, not looks, as long as it’s above a low binary threshold”, but most folks, in my experience, don’t work that way. Either sex. At least not until they feel that they have to compromise.

    Added to the complexity of the current situation, I think, is that the laissez-faire marketplace currently means that women who want to shoot above their band, looks wise, for short term or to try their luck at the lottery (i.e., the hope that they can get lucky and snag a higher band guy through sex) become accustomed to men of a certain looks standard, and can then be quite difficult on the “back end”, even once they realize that they can’t marry one of those guys, likely. That is, even when a woman like that comes to the cognitive understanding and acceptance that she isn’t actually in that band and needs to seek men in her own band, the visceral residue is still there — that is, it is hard for her to accept that the men in her own band are really the “looks matches” for her — after all, hotter guys were sleeping with her. The fact that men and women have different criteria for short term liaisons physically makes a lot of mischief here, and its impact can’t be ignored.

    So, yes the world would be a better place if people stayed within their looks bands and then selected based on compatibility and personality within that group … but that train left the station decades ago, I think.

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “That is, even when a woman like that comes to the cognitive understanding and acceptance that she isn’t actually in that band and needs to seek men in her own band, the visceral residue is still there — that is, it is hard for her to accept that the men in her own band are really the “looks matches” for her — after all, hotter guys were sleeping with her”
      Alpha Widow syndrome?

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Novaseeker, yes this is true as far as some women being accustomed to selection within a higher band. It’s easy for them to mate up (short term) since the male sex drive is less discriminating than the female.

      The flip side of this is the female sex drive is more discriminating. There are now women in academia claiming (in a girl power way) that the female sex drive is just as strong as the male sex drive. In a way, I think they’re correct. The woman can be quite out of control with the “right” guy.

      When you point this out, women say they pick men for other things besides raw physical attraction. While this is true, the inequality in visceral, romantic attaction is a big deal, leading to a lot of discontentment in both sexes when they are married.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        While this is true, the inequality in visceral, romantic attaction is a big deal, leading to a lot of discontentment in both sexes when they are married.

        Yes, but this isn’t new, really. That is, throughout history a significant percentage of women were “stuck with” (or rather considered themselves to be) husbands for whom they had little to no visceral attraction. This was “ok” because the entire model of marriage was different — it was based on duty/role/family rather than individual happiness/fulfillment. Of course everyone preferred to be in a marriage that was also happy and fulfilling, but this wasn’t the foundation of marriage, culturally or socially. So the mismatch in erotic desire between the sexes didn’t have the same impact on marital formation and marital stability, although there were quite a few women who were “stuck” in erotic situations they didn’t like, to say the least.

        When you change the model of marriage to the current one — personal fulfillment/happiness — which is basically everyone’s model today, including de facto for almost all Christians, regardless of what they mouth about values — the sexual mismatch in erotic desire becomes a big deal, because it acts to undermine both marital formation and marital stability. The hedonic model of marriage is at odds with the disparity in sexual desire as between the sexes, because it means that there is a limited pool of men who can be erotically satisfactory/fulfilling to women so as to satisfy the hedonic model’s requirements. Hence the lowered marriage rate and the elevated divorce rate.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Women, as a group chose this. This is what they wanted.

        They’ll cite the bad old days when there was the (occasional) abusive monster-of-a-husband but you have to wonder how much of it was about being free from the dreaded dependency-on-a-beta-male.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        They’ll cite the bad old days when there was the (occasional) abusive monster-of-a-husband but you have to wonder how much of it was about being free from the dreaded dependency-on-a-beta-male.

        Yes. The “bad old situations” kind of slew them all together, both the truly abusive and the merely “is this all there is” type of “problem that has no name” a la Betty Friedan.

        On balance, in a situation where (1) women can economically self-provision, (2) they can obtain adequate support, financial and otherwise, for child-bearing, and (3) other women’s peer pressure, status games and societal pressure in general don’t strongly encourage women to marry for the sake of being married, women will prefer to be single rather than to marry unless they can marry one of the truly attractive men.

        In Europe, (1) through (3) generally apply in many countries, and so we see a rather low marriage rate as compared with almost anywhere else in the world.

        In the US, (1) applies. (2) is a work in progress, and women are always going on about it — it should be recognized for what it is, which is another pillar in the edifice that supports a more or less total decoupling of women and their life priorities from unattractive men. (3) is a problem for women in the US, where marriage still is the “gold card” of social acceptability, especially above a certain education level. This is why the US also had the greatest push toward marriage for gay people, while many European countries opted for other non-marital unions. In the US it had to be marriage, because anything less than that, among the highly educated, is second class status. So the push had to be for marriage. In Europe, that isn’t the case, even among the highly educated, and so the terms and institutions used were less critical than providing a bundle of rights to gay couples, because many of the highest ranking straight couples were not themselves married anyway and suffered no social status “hit” for being so.

        So in the US, women will still tend to marry, even though there are pressures against it, because the status and social pressure exerted by (3) remains quite salient in the US, even among very secular people. It’s one of those interesting cultural differences between Europe and the US that puzzles people. It’s also unclear how durable the difference will be, however — if millenials and zoomers break the trend on marriage, the US could, in a generation or two, no longer be a place where (3) applies, and we would then see trends more closely match the European ones in terms of very low marriage rates.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Someone said this, I think it might have been you. Women are their own beta-males now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Marriage is THE status symbol/achievement for women, especially if they’re college educated. Unmarried women and divorced women are looked down upon by their married peers, and women know it – both the judged women and the women doing the judging. Women MUST have legal marriage because (1) it gives them the status and social acceptability they crave; and (2) it gives them a legal claim over their husband’s future provisioning even if she doesn’t stay married to him.

        Like

  8. Ed Hurst says:

    I feel like a total outsider, because I broke the rule and married for mission compatibility and frankly ignored the issue of her looks. We were both chaste and it’s still working out really well after 40+ years.

    Liked by 7 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I was physically attracted to her and could tell she had a compassionate heart. She came after me and I said yes. That’s the way it often works. It’s not like there’s a lineup of women you pick from. One shows interest and if you like her you jump. When/if the marriage works out, you look back and know that you wouldn’t have picked another even if you had your choice. This is how you know you love her.

      Liked by 4 people

  9. rontomlinson2 says:

    ‘The Twits’ school of attractiveness:

    I basically agree with this though it doesn’t take fertility into account.

    I don’t think a Christian could find a cold-eyed woman truly attractive, though the rest of her body be genetically perfect. On the other hand he may be attracted to a woman with less than perfect genetics.

    FYI my ISP in the UK (BT), which has a basic filter in operation, won’t allow me to directly access sigmaframe. Same for Sharkly’s whitewater church site, more’s the pity. These must have been flagged in some way.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Joe2 says:

    Imagine if this song “If You Wanna Be Happy” recorded in 1963 by Jimmy Soul was released today –

    Like

  11. bee123456 says:

    Submission is sexy. When a woman serves a man cheerfully this can melt his heart and increase attraction. This is one reason you often see politicians attracted to a campaign staffer and why you see managers attracted to their secretaries. (Yes, looks and youth, are also factors.)

    Better to marry a 6 that wants to serve you, and please you, and that respects you than to marry an 8 who is haughty and selfish.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Better to marry a 6 that wants to serve you, and please you, and that respects you than to marry an 8 who is haughty and selfish.

      Yes, very much so.

      There are some men who can manage the 8, and if they can, it can be a better situation for them. There are very few of these men, however, even among “objectively powerful, high status, attractive” men. It takes a very strong combination of looks, personality, presence and charm to do it.

      One example is Ryan Reynolds marriage to Blake Lively. She’s very attractive, but seems rather difficult at times. She publicly shit tests him, and fairly often. Reynolds, though, is at or near the top of the list in most male attractiveness categories (handsome, fit, high status, charming, funny) and he is very adept at publicly dealing with her tests in a way that I am sure not only deflects them but adds to their relationship by keeping it a bit tense, and by all accounts they appear to have a good marriage and she seems happy being his wife and the mother of his kids. But she still tests him, a lot, and in public (!).

      Now that works if you’re Ryan Reynolds. If Lively were with some other guy, even a lot of the Hollywood guys, most of whom have looks/status/money in abundance, that guy would have a 5 alarm fire on his hands every single day of his life and would probably end up with the familial house burned out, figuratively speaking, sooner rather than later, because Lively is obviously a lot to handle. If you can handle it, great, otherwise … best go with someone you can handle better who is still attractive enough, and leave the hot 8 to someone who can manage her, or who is better suited to take the risk.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. thedeti says:

    I’ll take some issue with the point of this post. At the outset, let’s talk about what “attractiveness” is to men. “Attractiveness” to men is one thing, and one thing only: Hard sexual attraction. She passes the boner test. She is a woman he wants to have sex with.

    Jack, I think you’re criticizing men for not picking less attractive women for sex and marriage, when in fact they do this all the time – mostly because if they want sex and marriage, that’s what they have to do, and they know it. When men are marrying, they’re not just looking at getting a regular sex partner, though that is part of it. They’re assessing for everything else too. You’re suggesting they aren’t, or are giving it short shrift, and I don’t think that’s true.

    Second: Men are not being overly picky or selective based on physical appearance for sex or marriage. Most women are physically attractive enough, and “attractive enough” is all that’s required. I know women don’t like reading or hearing that because they don’t want men sleeping with them or agreeing to marry them in part because they’re “attractive enough”, but it is true and everyone knows it. At least, men know it. And men have sex with and marry women at and above HB4 all the time.

    In fact, men are so thirsty that they’ll take just about anything. Everyone knows this too. Men have been exceedingly forgiving in what they’ll put up with in terms of physical and sexual attractiveness. They’ll put up with chopped off hair, crappy makeup, marked obesity, terrible taste in clothes, you name it. If men approached sex the way women did, only about 20% of men or women would ever have any sex, and the human race would be lots more physically attractive and less populous than it is today.

    Third: in suggesting a man select a wife based on this:

    Why not choose a woman based on how respectful and submissive she is, and then watch her attractiveness bloom?

    You’re suggesting that men should just start ignoring a woman’s physical attractiveness from the outset. Men are not going to do that, not ever. All she has to be is attractive enough, but if she can’t meet even that very, very low standard, he will do without. For men, it is totally binary, an “attraction floor”. You’re either “attractive enough”, or you aren’t. A very hard line separates the two. He will not go beneath that line, or below the attraction floor – not for sex, not for marriage, not for anything else. He will not take a chance on a girl below the floor in the hopes that other attributes will get her above the floor.

    This is the same as telling women they need to pick men they don’t want and aren’t attracted to (and for women, “attractiveness” in men is whatever they mean at that moment, everything from hard visceral sexual attraction, men they want to have sex with, to “marriage material” to “he would make a good father for the kids I have/want to have”. For women, “attractiveness” means whatever she wants and needs from a man at that particular time in her life.). Because we know what’s happening, and it has been a complete and total disaster: Women having sex with lots of men they’re really hot for and excited about, and then marrying men they aren’t all that hot for or excited about.

    I think you’re suggesting things that aren’t really happening, that aren’t a problem in the SMP or MMP, and that wouldn’t work if they were implemented.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      Been in these forums for ten years………most men here talk looks first and everything else second, third or fourth. Jack had brought up something that actually needs to be discussed or looked at or at least brought up

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        In some cases, it’s probably male self- inflation. If you talk about “hot chicks” all the time it makes it sound like:

        You’ve had ‘em

        and/or

        You have prospects with them.

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Deti you make some fair points. One common complaint, which I think is valid, is that women are (physically) of really low quality. I mean YOUNG girls that are obese with tats, weird piercings, intentionally ugly or freakish hair. If that’s what they look like when they’re young …………

      E.g. I frequently see young blue-collar men, usually strongly built and masculine (from hard work) decent looking guys almost invariably with a VERY big fat girl. These are YOUNG girls so I don’t mean the middle aged frumpiness that’s hard to avoid (for men too).

      My wife showed me an example of a friend of hers – her friend’s young redhead son (decent looking, normal sized white guy) married a morbidly obese black chick with a huge tattoo on her arm (sorry if that’s a bit racist but I’m working from the assumption that most white men prefer white women but maybe that’s no longer the case).

      But all the talk of “hot chicks” also makes you wonder what guys expect. I really don’t know what goes through the mind of the average young man – does he think he deserves a “hottie” and only a hottie will do?

      I’ve been shown examples of dating profiles for fat guys where they specify “no fat chicks” – whisky tango foxtrot.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I don’t mean the middle aged frumpiness that’s hard to avoid (for men too).

        It’s not that difficult.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I guess it depends on the level of “frumpiness.” My natural “Army fit” weight is 155 lb (when we met). I’m now 205 lb. Some of it is extra muscle, some of it fat.
        At 46, if I am a bit bad in my eating say Thanksgiving to XMAS, it’s harder not to gain bodyfat compared to when I was 26. Just like it’s harder to gain muscle & strength and you sometimes need more days to recover post workout. 40’s ain’t the same as 20’s.

        While pregnancy doesn’t make a woman fat, a woman’s body takes a beating from age and repeated pregnancy. If you look at old black and white photos from the 1800s, even back then middle aged women’s bodies were different than twenty something’s bodies, even though that was long before the obesity epidemic.

        My main point was even among of teen and twenty-something women, a large number are now obese.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        This is the usual mistake again…….Jack nowhere said “men……you gotta look at the very unhealthy gal, with colored hair, tats….she may be worth it!”

        Most “hotties” physically are not going to bother with most average men today. Now, DS will tell us, get muscles, be confident and they will be attracted to you. It was bad enough when I was a young man (late 80’s early 90’s) but I work with professionals in property management in their twenties. Dateless. Single. 28, 29, 30, 32…………..

        It’s not because they are “lazy, obese, live-in-moms-basement” types………women, the “hotties” will have nothing to do with them. Even if many are indeed above average looking.

        You guys have to get over that every man who is single is some sort of beta-cuck, wimp who “just needs to learn game” and “get some confidence” and “walk right to girls and talk to them”

        It’s not even that world now. Many men are indeed thirsty and they will settle for anything becaus there are no options really for them…or they are all like you men….and have had it all woman-wise since being teens or young men. The divide is getting wider. What many of you and Rollo are purporting may have worked a bit better twenty years ago. Not so now.

        I think Jack (and I know he’ll correct me if I am wrong, which is most of the time according to him) is looking at this like……”hey, you see a woman in church or ministry or the like…..she’s easy on the eyes…but nothing outstanding or striking….but has the qualities to be a good wife, mother, partner, friend…….perhaps you may want to observe, watch, and notice more…..”

        I don’t think is saying “settle” but why is it if a woman is deemed “hot” Christian or not……..she is assumed to be “good” or “would be a good wife”

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        My main point was even among of teen and twenty-something women, a large number are now obese.

        Agreed. I also agree that staying in shape is more difficult at 45 (my age now), then it was at 25. I’ve put a lot of rough miles on my chassis in 28 years of Army service. I’ve had four orthopedic surgeries. I get it.

        But it’s not that difficult.

        Sure, it requires more diligence, and better time management, but we’ve developed those qualities with age, have we not?

        Too many men (and women, but I’m speaking to men here) use middle age as an excuse to indulge in gluttony and sloth. It’s just an excuse. Nothing more.

        Obviously, an otherwise healthy person in their 20s has absolutely no excuse for getting fat. That’s true. But we middle aged men need to lead by example, and not make excuses for ourselves, either.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I’d also differentiate between having somewhat too much bodyfat and being really flabby fat.

        Offensive tackles have quite a bit of bodyfat, but way different from Jabba the Hut levels.

        My wife prefers if I’m a bit overfat but have more muscle compared to when I’m lean but less muscle. I don’t have the bulking and cutting (without losing muscle) thing down.

        She calls the former a “beefcake” look. She grabs on me more when I’m like this.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      Thought you might find this interesting, deti. It’s a viral video in certain circles which I don’t usually frequent, but I’m related to people who frequent it.. LOL. It’s relevant to this comment and certainly not relegated to any particular ethnicity of women.

      https://worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhl0vkpbMLOzA3XL3p

      Like

  13. lastmod says:

    Using “science” and “math” all these 8,9, and 10’s of women are a SMALLER segment on the scale a la “bell curve” and yet…………..so many men in the man-o-sphere seem to have dated them, bedded them, had a turn with them, have had plenty of interest by them shown to them.

    Boggles the mind…………

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Oscar says:

    Obesity doesn’t count, because obesity is a choice that reveals character.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Oscar says:

    If it seems too good to be true….

    Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      Gag!!

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      For anyone who hasn’t been keeping up with the news, the cutie with Jabba the Hutt is a Chinese spy. That’s why she’s “taking one for the team”.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        ha ha now I’m picturing her in the princess Leia bikini chained to him with that little muppet thing picking the ticks off him.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Well, there’s a reason why she was so popular with dumbass American politicians (yes, plural) thinking with the wrong head. I wonder if her spy masters taught her to do that shy shrug / head tilt / smile thing she does in every single photo.

        Like

  16. lastmod says:

    No, no…this man “the former mayor of Fremont, California” (a dump of a town might I add) obviously has excellent Frame, Game, is cocky-funny, great style, great attitude, exudes confidence, and is very masculine all his attributes……..

    The real answer? he went to a “Green Card” party (which were very common in the Bay Area when I lived there). Tons of barely legal women from China, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines all just wanting an American to marry “right now”

    I am guilty. I went to one ONCE in 2003. I was invited through a singles thing in San Francisco. You walk in, pay $100.00 and watch the scene. About 200 men who looked like the man in the above picture……….no one my age (early 30’s at the time). All the women wanted to know “what kind of job / how much money / when can we get married” it was very creepy for the fact all the men were forty to fifty at that time…..built like breadtrucks and were just slovenly

    Like

  17. Joe2 says:

    It was bad enough when I was a young man (late 80’s early 90’s) but I work with professionals in property management in their twenties. Dateless. Single. 28, 29, 30, 32.

    I knew the dating scene was bad for young men, but it’s much worse than I could image.

    A singles group (located in Boston, MA) recently sponsored a Dating App Zoom Masterclass by Boston’s Top Dating Coach. The class was free and was intended primarily to help the men in the group. Basically, it was learning the “secrets” of using dating apps to get dates. Over 100 signed up for the class.

    So in today’s world a young man now needs a professional dating coach….

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      Sad if that’s the case, needing a dating coach to date. Back-in-the day, for the average guy, it was about drumming up enough courage to approach a girl, and maybe get a conversation going or asking her to dance in some cases. Dating coaches and PUA coaches, I never came across any of it. I did get my hands on a pick-up line book one time. Tried it out, none of it worked. I found just going up to them and saying, “Hi, my name is John, can I sit with you?” seem to work just fine. More often than not I’d get a yes, I threw my pick-up line book in the trash. lol

      Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Dating happens mostly from apps now, so it isn’t generally a case of walking up to girls, unless the guy is very obviously great looking. Normal dating almost all takes place through apps.

        Like

  18. Devon says:

    There is an excellent documentary on Youtube about how bad online dating and dating in general is for men in their twenties. It has lots of relevant research and facts about the gender imbalance for young single men on dating sites and in general.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      Bunk….we all just have to learn game, go up and talk-to-girls-cause-they-just-want-confidence. looks don’t matter……………..(sarcasm)

      Like

  19. If we are completely honest with ourselves, the type of woman who is outwardly attractive to men — the young, feminine, high SMV, and of course, sexy hot girl — is typically rather immature, impertinent, and unreliably flighty.

    This describes at least half the Eligible Women that Jane Austin ever wrote, and despite the her dull writing and the earnest efforts of anti-enjoyment Literature Curricula, it’s probably why Pride and Prejudice has been filmed so many times, and even Sense and Sensibility is still “A Classic”.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Pingback: The Masculine Dilemma – Light A Fire In Your Mind Then Your Heart…

  21. Jeff Barnes says:

    Hi, I guys I am back just to say that I am no longer going MGTOW. Don’t think it is God’s will for me to be a monk. Anyway I found a ‘unicorn’, very attractive, feminine, intelligent and has a great personality who I had a ‘meet cute’ with, ignoring my irrational doubts she is interested in me and we have great chemistry. Oh and I had a 10 year long crush on her throughout school and beyond. After working on myself I see myself as easily in the top 20% of men for my age, and I think my greatest advantage that provides both alpha attraction and beta promise is my intelligence, I did some intellectual endeavour and then I was getting IOI’s from half a dozen college girls who I suppose hypergamously want someone they perceive as more intelligent then them. I am not trying to force anything just trying to submit to the will of God for my life but it seems to me has opened a path before me that I must walk. The church community where I am still at is very much insulated from the toxic culture you describe so there is plenty of decent godly women there. Redpill knowledge in a biblical framework, second to working through my psychological traumas, has been the most helpful in preparing me for dating and marriage so just want to thank you guys for spreading quality knowledge. If any of what I said sounds like bragging I humbly confess all my gifts come from God, and that a few years ago I was so unhealthy and despondent that I thought I was going to be a ‘single loser’. One of the things I see lacking in our hyper-competitive culture that influences Christians too is celebrating each other joys, so I thought I would move closer to the ideal with my comment.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Jeff Barnes,
      That is great news! I am proud of you and what God is doing in your life!
      In response to “celebrating each others’ joys”, I am going to write up a summary of your testimony and post it sometime after the New Year.

      Like

      • Jeff Barnes says:

        Thanks man! I look forward to reading it. I am currently in a real transition period, I feel like I have scaled a mountain, now I need to come back down and then I plan to walk back to the shire!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jeff Barnes says:

        Hi Jack, things have changed in my life for the better, but I would actually prefer if you did not make a summary of my testimony as I am trying to pursue more anonymity on the internet. Oneitis really is a bitch. I now found an orthodox girl who is both a better match and would make a better helper in my opinion. I can clearly see God’s providence in allowing me to make certain mistakes or go through certain experiences to prepare me for a committed romantic relationship with this person who I would claim to be another unicorn. She is the only young (in her 20’s) single orthodox women in that community (also a recent protestant convert), but she seems to be the right women for me, so I think God is laughing at my attempt to maintain a larger dating pool. Oh and I am perfectly content to be a monk again, its just before that decision was made from a place of woundedness or fear.

        Like

  22. redpillboomer says:

    “If we are completely honest with ourselves, the type of woman who is outwardly attractive to men — the young, feminine, high SMV, and of course, sexy hot girl — is typically rather immature, impertinent, and unreliably flighty. A woman who passes the boner test with flying colors may very well have no real ability to perform as a respectful, submissive helper, and thereby fulfill her role in a Headship marriage.”

    Yes, it’s not a perfect correlation, i.e. Hot=Lack of Submissive Qualities. When I dated and then eventually married my future wife, she was an 7.5 to 8.5, probably a 9 to me (beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that), but she had a pretty submissive attitude because of her Christian upbringing and life choices up to that point. Of course, it helped that she was only 21. I got her right before the temptation to go the route of her college friends kicked in; she by her own admission later on, was teetering on the edge of joining them in the party scene which would have included the carousel. She was working and going to school at the time, plus dealing with her father dying of brain cancer. Her part-time job was waitressing at a small restaurant just off campus. I referred to her co-workers as the ‘gathering of the beauties’ most of them were very good looking. In fact the one she was closest too was probably a 9-9.5, who also took a passing interest in me. Both of the girls passed the ‘boner test,’ however the 9.5 chick additionally passed the ‘blue balls’ test–easily men’s magazine material with her looks, curves and large rack. I had enough presence of mind back then, thank God being 30 years old and not my 22 year old self, to not purse Ms. Blue Balls, instead went for Ms. Good girl. Dodged a bullet there! Not only was Ms. Blue Balls a CC rider, but she was high maintenance to boot. I didn’t really fully grasp the whole CC concept back then because of my Blue pill mindset and some of the early indoctrination of equalitarianism, but looking back now, I can clearly see what was going on. My wife’s co-worker friends, ALL of them (three or four total), fell into the ‘Hot Babe’ category. All CC riders eventually plowed through by plenty of Chads, and later on all divorced with kids in tow collecting nice child support and alimony from Mr. BetaBux. I guess the point to all this: If she is an HB 8-10 babe, you better be careful-Vet, vet , vet her. Not impossible to get a submissive girl or at least a trainable one, but the world of the HB 8-10 women does not pull for them to develop that way. Those early years 18-25/26 or so, they are getting so much attention from so many men, it’s damn near impossible for them to develop ‘wifely qualities.’

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Pingback: Why is the online amateur sex industry attractive to men? | 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