The Sexual Market IS the Marriage Market

Young people must run the gauntlet of the SMP just to get into the MMP!

Readership: All
Length: 2,150 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes

Introduction

In a previous post, The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market (2021 February 17), I reviewed how economic and technological changes, as well as shifting social norms and undying human nature have all created a lopsided mating market which generally favors women over men, apart from the very top level male participants in the market.

To recap briefly, the rise of the most influential “objective” factors of cheap, reliable, and legal contraception (and, later, legal and safe abortion) and economic independence for women, in turn led to the emergent imbalance of power and female dominance within the nascent “sexual market place” (SMP), and the interrelated “marriage market place” (MMP), which we see today.

While the adage that “a rising tide raises all boats” is probably true of the current SMP in general in that most people overall probably have more pre-marital sexual encounters than they did in 1950, the distribution of even these sexual encounters is wildly uneven, due the hypergamous skew of the liberalized market.

Due to the inherent link between the SMP and the MMP, the process of finding a suitable marriage partner has become significantly to substantially harder for both sexes under the liberalized system of the SMP/MMP/”dating market” than it was under the “old rules” and their related pressures, prior to the sexual revolution.

This post will describe the dynamics of how the old system was replaced by a liberalized market, and how the sexual market has stabilized as the new marriage market.

The Old Market vs. the New Market

A market is liberalized when the rules which govern the market are relaxed or, in some cases, removed, thereby permitting more “freedom of action” to market participants. Any market that is liberalized tends to get dominated by the strongest hands in the market, because freeing market participants from the “rules” permits them to use their natural strengths and advantages more freely for their own benefit in the market. In the “old” mating market, the system featured a number of restraining rules, such as:

  1. “You break it, you own it” (pregnancy results in marriage, not all, but most of the time).
  2. Open caddishness and open sluttery was far less socially tolerated (far less anonymity, far more people being “in your business”, far more scrutiny of young couples).
  3. The clock is ticking, for both sexes (obvious for women, but also for the men — “better not think of being a cad long term, son, or that promotion … is going to the guy with the wife, and not you!“).
  4. Parental pressure to marry was strong, at a slightly younger age on daughters than on sons, but it was exerted on sons as well — long-term singlehood was generally not tolerated, celebrated or serviced culturally, socially or by families, except in the cases of persons who were obviously unacceptably unattractive (using a low bar), obviously unacceptably eccentric, or presumed to be exclusively homosexually inclined — in which cases bachelorhood/spinsterhood, perhaps a religious vocation in some cases, was the socially accepted role.

All of these rules created pressures that worked to tamp down the advantages enjoyed by the “strong hands” in the market, because they were under the same pressures to marry as everyone else was — as hard as it is for us to picture this from the perspective of how the world works today, prior to the liberalization of the mating market, these people weren’t exempted from the rules simply because they were very attractive. They had more attractive options than others, of course, but they were pressured to take those options early in life, and thereby take both their choice in a mate and themselves out of the market. This behavior had a domino effect on the entire market that heavily favored assortative mating up and down the curve by removing people from the market who were most attractive early in the process.

In the current market, by contrast, these pressures do not exist, because the “rules” which created the pressures have been removed. In fact, they have not only been removed, but they have, in some cases, been replaced with different pressures that operate in the opposite direction, creating substantial pressure to delay marriage, to engage in extra-marital sex and, for women, to date hypergamously until a better-than-assortative mate expresses an interest in committing.

In effect, what was, under the “old rules” a unitary “mating market”, was recast by the sexual revolution into two new, and separate-yet-linked, markets:

  1. A “sexual marketplace” (SMP) that applies from puberty until (and, actually, even during) marriage and after divorce, which features mostly “dating”, but also has other forms of coupled encounters; and
  2. A “marriage marketplace” (MMP) for market participants who have specifically decided to search for a spouse.

And further, as explained below, these two markets are separate-yet-linked because the MMP is actually a subset of the SMP!

Churchianity has Failed to Respond

Beyond the “objective” factors of contraception/abortion and economic independence noted above and in my last post, the general attrition of Christianity in the broader culture, which has been accompanied by a slow decay in the practice of Christian values and norms, both in the broader culture and among Christians themselves, has also played a substantial role in the rise of the emergent SMP/MMP, and its quick and almost ubiquitous adoption by American Christians of all kinds.

Therefore, from a Christian perspective, a substantial underlying cause of these developments is a rather broad and obvious spiritual malaise, above all in our churches and families, which permitted the sexual revolution to take place to begin with. A society that was as interiorly Christian as it outwardly claimed to be, prior to circa 1965, would not have changed so dramatically in such a short period of time in ways that were fundamentally antithetical to well-settled Christian moral doctrine (although it does need to be pointed out that much of Christianity — but not all of it — seems to have grossly misunderstood the broader impact of widespread availability of contraception downrange temporally as an early warning of what was to come in the subsequent decades).

Ed Hurst wrote about this dynamic in his post, A Full-Blown Apocalypse (2021 February 13), which was a response to Scott’s post, We can’t plant seed in the middle of winter. (2021 February 13). Ed writes,

“The reason it’s a real apocalypse is because we are not allowed to teach our children, and we are not allowed to build a community in which people of faith can actually expect to find other people of faith. Do you understand that it’s normal when churches are filled with people who very much need to learn how to walk by faith, because they still struggle with the flesh? That’s okay, because church is where they are supposed to learn faith, but having those same people lead the church is a serious problem. And that’s what we have now. Churches are so institutional and so professional that genuine faith is actually a hindrance to the system.”

“What makes this tribulation and persecution is that it is technically illegal for me to build something more amenable to my faith. Think about this: How many judges are willing to shut down an SJW complaint? How many judges would protect a genuine statement of biblical faith about gender and family structure? We shouldn’t care what people do to themselves, but we pine for the freedom to make different choices for ourselves. And it’s really not just judges, but the people who hold the actual power in making things possible in the current situation. How many state governments, ruling over education, would tolerate a home school curriculum based on heart-led faith that disparages materialism?

“Pro-family cultural norms are increasingly illegal, and impossible to promote even in private — there is no privacy. We are not allowed to have a closed community, as would be entirely necessary, in order to create the atmosphere for passing on biblical values to our children. [Jack’s and Scott’s] emphasis is that men and women of genuine faith can’t find each other and marry to raise children that way, because the system is so corrupt. By the time we have come to this understanding of faith, we would be too old for a clean first marriage that produces children. The faith community can’t get started because the members have to pass through a hellish landscape of immoral relationships first.

And that’s what they pass through when they start out in churches!

The “hellish landscape of immoral relationships” is the emergence of the SMP/MMP arrangement, which applies with equal force to Christians who are looking for mates (and, eventually, spouses) in the current environment.

Running the Gauntlet

The original meaning of the expression (to run) the gauntlet has often been applied to various less severe punishments or tests, often consisting of consecutive blows or tasks endured sequentially and delivered collectively, especially by colleagues such as roommates, teammates (in sports), or fraternity brothers. As these do not usually cause serious injuries, only bearable pain, the rituals are sometimes eagerly anticipated by the initiate as a sign of acceptance into a more prestigious group.  The phrase running the gauntlet has also been used, informally, to express the idea of a public but painless, ritual humiliation such as the Walk of Shame or Perp Walk.  In this post, the phrase describes the experience of passing through a series of successive relationships, which in the SMP/MMP’s culture of “dating”, invariably involve sexual liaisons. These liaisons are inevitably followed by periods of disappointment and heartbreak and, over time, lead participants to incur increasing amounts of lasting spiritual damage. Even for those who resist having intercourse, they are still exposed to suffer extreme temptation and pressure to do so.

This is the case because in the current mating market, almost all couples — whether they are seeking a mate in the SMP or the MMP — meet each other through participation in the process commonly known as “dating”. “Dating”, in the current SMP, is a polite euphemism for coupled interactions which, in virtually all cases where the dating process proceeds for more than a couple of meetings, involve sexual encounters which can only be described as casual by any normal meaning of the term.

In fact, dating is, in itself, the core vehicle of the SMP for virtually all participants. Likewise, dating is also the core vehicle for almost all participants in the MMP. Thus, the MMP is embedded in the SMP due to the MMP also following the process of “dating”, which is an SMP process. In other words, the entrance door to the MMP is, for most people, located in the SMP, such that one must successfully navigate the SMP in order to enter the door of the MMP.

Furthermore, since the MMP selection process runs through “dating”, which, as stated, is itself a process that is inherently sexual in nature, it is therefore subject to the sex skew of the SMP, as discussed in my last post. It’s important to note that the sex skew exerts a strong impact on both the SMP and the MMP as well. This is because one’s sexual market value, or SMV, plays the primary role in one’s “competitiveness” in being selected in the competition of bid/ask interactions in the market for dates — again, this applies no matter whether one is participating in the SMP or in the MMP.

The MMP is not ensconced in the SMP for *all* participants (some persons practice arranged marriage or semi-arranged marriages via matchmakers and the like), but it is for almost all of them, because for almost all market participants, the MMP is embedded in the SMP and its conventions. This remains the case even for participants who are actively seeking a spouse rather than a boyfriend or girlfriend.

ConclusionThe Christian Conundrum

To summarize, entering into the MMP requires one to successfully run the gauntlet of the SMP. This reality spells out a difficult conundrum for Christians, to wit:

  • Under morally orthodox Christian teaching, Christians should not have sex outside of marriage.
  • Under contemporary social practice, as described above (namely the linking of the SMP and the MMP), including for most Christians, men and women will face substantial difficulties securing an attractive mate for marriage without having sex prior to marrying.

What I have written thus far on this poignant dilemma only scratches the surface of this issue. Neither this post, nor the preceding one, have addressed the implications of this situation, but have only explained a portion of the contours of the current marketplace and what leads to the issue facing Christians in this area today.

We’ll be examining this conundrum and the related questions in a series of occasional posts over the next month or two.

Related

This entry was posted in Attraction, Boundaries, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Desire, Passion, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Enduring Suffering, Faith Community, Female Power, Feminism, Game Theory, Hypergamy, Male Power, Models of Failure, Organization and Structure, Purpose, Relationships, Running the Gauntlet, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Society, Strategy. Bookmark the permalink.

133 Responses to The Sexual Market IS the Marriage Market

  1. SFC Ton says:

    Open caddishness and open sluttery was far less socially tolerated
    ………

    Disagree

    A man had to at the tip of the alpha spear but Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra etc sure got away with it

    Liked by 4 people

  2. SFC Ton says:

    A society that was as interiorly Christian as it outwardly claimed to be, prior to circa 1965, would not have changed so dramatically in such a short period of time in
    …….

    In a very real way Christianity died in 1865 when the full force on northern progressivism took over.

    Not long after that all the various Christian veneer cluts started popping up all over up north, including various utopian poltical ideals. Large number of immigrants brought those various left wing poltical ideas with them.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Elspeth says:

      You know I have an affinity for you, Ton, being the good ol’ boy that you are. And I’m a proud southern woman, but there is a pretty big misconception in your statement.

      Hearthie covers this beautifully in a recent post of hers, where she asks if there has ever really been a society that is sincerely Christian. She puts it this way:

      When has it been true that most people in any culture searched for Jesus, devoted themselves to pleasing Him, and loved our Master? Never. What changes is what guise The World wears.

      She’s 100% correct.

      I’ve studied enough to know that the Civil War had some serious Constitutional implications. Whatever my personal thoughts about the sin of slavery or potentially being a slave myself, the Southern states had a Constitutional right to secede. The Constitution and the liberties it protected took a serious hit in 1865, but Christianity was never as strong here as most Americans like to believe. Those are two different subjects.

      Liked by 4 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Legit all the way round and I’ll post a more serious reply when I get the free time

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Took a serious hit isn’t strong enough language. The entire meaning and intention of the constitution was quite literally reversed during the War over Secession and it’s immediate aftermath.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The butchery of the constitution was literally done by a pro slavery court (most post war were pro southern, pro democrat). They were anti black. So when cases about the 13-14 amendment started popping up in post war southern states, they deliberately started interpreting the amendments to mean anything except what was written on paper.

        Those mistakes set up a precedential snow ball that plagues us today.

        Good job south, your forward thinking (lack thereof) was your downfall over time (hey let’s treat 1/3 of our populace like they aren’t human for 200+ years so our great grandchildren can bitch about their negative behavior towards them). Worked out well.

        Also-

        The pre war south was such a bastion of liberty that they would take freemen working in their shipyards, enslave them, and imprison any lawyers who tried to fight for their rights in court. Good people.

        the confederate constitution created a tyranny. No state could secede from it once they joined. Good people.

        The only correct comment made was the liberalization of the church post war. That has a lot to do with women having influence in the Republican Party and various social movements (abolition, temperance, franchise, etc).

        Starting in the 1880s, missionary boards started sending more women on missions, and women started funding and controlling the boards. By the 20s, they had gained so much power over denominations that some started splitting over the issue (especially high church Presbyterians)

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        When has it been true that most people in any culture searched for Jesus, devoted themselves to pleasing Him, and loved our Master? Never. What changes is what guise The World wears.

        She’s 100% correct.
        ………….

        Yup she is right. Never has this country been as Christian as folks want to pretend but, way back when I was research it, it sure does seem yankees and the north started throwing off those pretensions after the war.

        Religion up north was unforgiving and SJW like from the get go. As in you believe in God in the exact same way as they do or else. Heck there were religious…. well not wars but certainly battles fought up north

        Most of the north was established by round heads and that’s how they operated under Cromwell…. it’s in their DNA
        ######

        The war wasn’t over slavery. In linlocns own words. lincoln was willing to protect slavery in the South with a Constitutional amendment etc etc as long as the South kept paying the taxes that feed the railroads that paid linlocn and the republicans
        The war wasn’t started over slavery in grants own words (both of their wives owned slaves). Charles Dickens didn’t think the war was over slavery, nor did Karl Marx or what’s his name Spooner who was a leading abolitionist up north.

        But I certainly understand your position. On occasion I host a man who is a leading Southern Nationalist ( clearly he has a small group of followers) who’s fore fathers were slaves and who fought for the Confederacey. Dealing with certain realities isn’t easy on my friend either

        One of his things is how slavery isn’t a sin in the Bible and that effects his faith on occasions

        Thank you for the kind words. You are a rare woman as your near on constant grace and steadfastness in the man o sphere should prove

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Scott says:

    The faith community can’t get started because the members have to pass through a hellish landscape of immoral relationships first.

    Andy Dufresne, the man who crawled through 500 yards of s@$# and came out clean the other end. — Red

    Whereas the prison and the 500 yards for men is the extreme, unbearable, emptiness and loneliness we experience in the absence of our beloved. (Even if that “beloved” is nothing but a future abstraction. I started to feel that hole in my chest around 12, I think).

    And further, that women, especially modern women simply cannot relate to that emptiness because 1. they aren’t built that way, (It is not good for the man to be alone) and 2. that which Novaseeker refers to “surplus male attention.”

    Like Andy, who could not believe the things he was capable of while trying to escape to freedom, men today descend into a cesspool of fluid exchange and all other manner of things they know are wrong, (even they aren’t Christian don’t feel right) hoping to find one that will bond to him and say “yes” to marriage. All the while, the Sheila Gregoires of the world shame him for the way is built, and the most strident married men in the manosphere offer him no quarter, or even the opportunity to discuss alternatives. How easy it is for us who have stable loving marriages to look down our noses at those left behind because they weren’t “alpha” (or self-disciplined) enough to succeed at this retarded game.

    Myself, fortunate enough to have a decent sized helping of these traits, dove in, swam around in the mud and found mine, and now live like the Eloi, pretending that there is nothing to see here.

    It’s all why offer no prescriptions. No solution that an individual can deploy against such a system.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      I have quoted Michel Houellebecq a couple times here. His novels are all about men set adrift in the “cesspool of fluid exchange” to some degree or another. Anyone here who hasn’t read any of his books yet (and has the stomach for it) should do so. He demonstrates that sexual market is much worse than it once was but also that we can’t back to the old way of doing things.

      I’ve had mixed results recommending his books to a Christian audience. At least one normie Christian (well, a Seventh Day Adventist) told me he got halfway through one of them and then quit reading because he thought it had no redeeming value. I was more amused than anything.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        I’ve read The Elementary Particles and Whatever.

        Houllebecq is insightful, but hyperbolic at the same time. His main point — “la extension de la domaine de la lutte” (the French title of Whatever, translated more literally as “The Extension of the Domain of the Struggle”) is true in the sense that he means — that the dynamics of the market, and the inter-human struggle it implies, has been extended to the realm of sex and relationships, the core of human life, with disastrous results. It’s a core insight and a key one. But much of the rest of his stories are hyperbole, I think, in illustration of points he is trying to make — he’s like the patron saint of the black pill.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Patron Saint of the Blackpill is an accurate assessment.

        His subsequent books posit a few different things that could conceivably come next.

        In Platform, it’s Third World sex tourism.

        In The Possibility of An Island, it’s transhumanism and cloning which does away with sex altogether. The Elementary Particles also ends that way.

        In Submission, it’s Islam.

        All of those solve the problem in a certain manner of speaking. But I don’t think I’d call any of them an attractive solution.

        Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      There was a guy named Paul C. Maxwell who tried to talk about this stuff – the intersection of the church and masculinity. He had a channel called Selfwire.org, which is now defunct, but a lot of his stuff is still online.

      Here’s one of his best: “Evangelical Culture is Beta Culture”

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      hoping to find one that will bond to him and say “yes” to marriage.

      On a more fundamental level, most men are hoping to find a woman who wants him, on a visceral gut level, the way he wants her. Most men want a woman who wants him the same way he wants her. He wants her to respect him. He wants her to want to be there. He wants her to give a f**k about him.

      They want this because that’s how they’re built. Then, people like James Dobson and Dennis Rainey and Steve Arterburn tell them they’re wrong for wanting that.

      Liked by 7 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Most men want a woman who wants him the same way he wants her.
        …….

        Read somewhere that the appeal to porn is porn gives men a sense of that illusion

        No idea how to quantify that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “Most men want a woman who wants him the same way he wants her.
        Read somewhere that the appeal to porn is porn gives men a sense of that illusion”

        Don’t even have to read it anywhere – it’s one of those self-evident things. The vast majority of male-oriented porn, is “desire porn” (I made that phrase up). Straight men don’t look at porn because they want to see some dude’s butt and junk. They watch porn because subconsciously he’s putting himself in the place of the man who generates genuine desire in the woman (yes, a hot woman). This is as close as most men can get to this – so the popularity/fantasy of porn. If men just wanted to check out the most beautiful women, they’d have stuck with Playboy.

        Porn films indicate what most men want. Romance novels indicate what most women want. Socio-sexually.

        Like

    • Like Andy, who could not believe the things he was capable of while trying to escape to freedom, men today descend into a cesspool of fluid exchange and all other manner of things they know are wrong, (even they aren’t Christian don’t feel right) hoping to find one that will bond to him and say “yes” to marriage. All the while, the Sheila Gregoires of the world shame him for the way is built, and the most strident married men in the manosphere offer him no quarter, or even the opportunity to discuss alternatives. How easy it is for us who have stable loving marriages to look down our noses at those left behind because they weren’t “alpha” (or self-disciplined) enough to succeed at this retarded game.

      Myself, fortunate enough to have a decent sized helping of these traits, dove in, swam around in the mud and found mine, and now live like the Eloi, pretending that there is nothing to see here.

      It seems like most people think I am too optimistic/unrealistic in the ability of most men to improve themselves anywhere close to let’s say male 6-8/10 that could have a solid successful shot at a godly marriage.

      I am curious about everyone’s thoughts on this. Basically, I want to know what people think optimistically, realistically, and pessimistically are the chances a man can have a godly marriage.

      https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2021/02/22/optimism-and-pessimism-in-the-current-christian-marriage-milieu/

      Liked by 1 person

  4. thedeti says:

    One of the prime pieces of evidence that the MMP is coextensive with and subsumed into the SMP, is that virtually all women are having or have had sex – including Christian women.

    There are no functional differences between Christian women and nonChristian women. All women, including Christian women, have the same standard issue basic operational firmware and software. They are NOT different.

    There are not a lot of chaste Christian women out there. There are a few, but most aren’t or haven’t been. So most women are coming to relationships with Christian men having had more dating, relational, and sexual experience than the men who will seriously consider them for marriage.

    This is one of the things that will cause most women to be severely disappointed in the men who will consider them for marriage – they don’t bring the sexiness and swagger and bravado and “game” that these women like and that got them into bed in the first place. Women sleep with those men because they’re attractive, because they push those women’s arousal buttons, because women very, very much want to have sex with attractive men, and because while they’re Christian women, they’re still women.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      I think I’ve pointed out before that I read about a survey where 60% percent of women said they weren’t willing to date a man who was a virgin. Christian women who are still virgins would probably be fine if the man they were dating was a virgin. But I suspect that the Christian women who aren’t virgins will have similar attitudes to the women in the survey.

      Look at romance novels geared to women. Pairings between virginal women and sexually experienced men are ubiquitous. Fifty Shades Of Grey even went with that.

      In Christian romance novels its rather common to have the male lead be a widow or something similar.

      Meanwhile scenarios where the female lead is sexually experienced but the male lead is a virgin are almost unheard of.

      Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        Look at romance novels geared to women. Pairings between virginal women and sexually experienced men are ubiquitous. Fifty Shades Of Grey even went with that.

        The common theme there is the woman inspires uncontrollable lust and boundless love. He is the unicorn Alpha Bux. The Perfect Man. He cannot help himself in her presence- he just HAS to have her! But he’s in complete and total love with her – she has him wrapped around her little finger. And she’s a Plain Jane – a woman who could NEVER in real life get such a man.

        In Christian romance novels its rather common to have the male lead be a widow or something similar.

        He’s an upstanding, kind, Godly father. But he has a Deep Dark Secret. He has a Deep Personal Wound That Is Preventing Him From Realizing his Full Potential and Continually Injures Him. He doubts God. He has walked away from God. He has not Prayed in Years.

        He needs the love of a Good Woman again to Set Him Free. Along comes Plain Jane Widow or Spinster, who Has Exactly What He Needs. Now he can Love Again and his relationship with God is Restored. She, not Christ, is his Savior. She is his Own Personal Jesus.

        “And ye shall meet a woman, and she shall set ye free and lead ye into all Truth…..”

        Meanwhile scenarios where the female lead is sexually experienced but the male lead is a virgin are almost unheard of.

        Because she doesn’t want to admit she’s a slut or that she is going to give anything to a hopelessly unattractive man.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        They inherently know that a ltr with nv female with v male = male getting jealous and eventually “getting even”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        The only time you really see an inexperienced man/experienced woman pairing is the MILF scenario in porn and teen sex comedies ala American Pie. The older woman shows the younger man how to really please a woman, etc. That’s a specifically male fantasy though.

        Depictions of a inexperienced man/experienced woman pairing who are around the same age? Niche at best. There are probably a few women out there who get hot at the idea of “corrupting” the innocent boy. But I suspect it’s rare.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        There are women who hunt for v cards. Not necessarily relationships with those guys though. Saw that firsthand while in a fraternity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think I’ve pointed out before that I read about a survey where 60% percent of women said they weren’t willing to date a man who was a virgin.

        Who cares?

        Unless the survey was of “Christian women” and particularly of those who “take their faith seriously,” Christian men shouldn’t be dating those women anyway.

        These are things that are good to select and rule out women if you’re a Christian men.

        But I suspect that the Christian women who aren’t virgins will have similar attitudes to the women in the survey.

        This is the problem here. Based on what exactly? Common manosphere wisdom which can be wrong?

        Most of the Christian women I dated before I was married were resigned to the fact that most Christian men have looked at porn and/or have had sex even though they preferred that they did none or at least had a low N-count.

        This is like the same thing of taking secular manosphere advice trying to go dutch during a date when most Christian communities (men and women) still expect that the man will pay for the date. Some are so put off by a man not paying that they won’t give you a second date even if they liked you.

        I’m not saying do or do not pay for dates or anything like that, but you gotta understand the various context of the communities you are talking about.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        On a different note, in the “Christian” community, women will equate their promiscuity to a mans pornography consumption as a way to get on even ground with men.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “But I suspect that the Christian women who aren’t virgins will have similar attitudes to the women in the survey.
        This is the problem here. Based on what exactly?”

        Probably based on what Deti mentioned above:

        “There are no functional differences between Christian women and non Christian women. All women, including Christian women, have the same standard issue basic operational firmware and software. They are NOT different.”

        I would say “no” is too pessimistic but recognize his basic point.

        “Unless the survey was of “Christian women” and particularly of those who “take their faith seriously,” Christian men shouldn’t be dating those women anyway.”

        Walk into virtually any church on Sunday and you’ll see all women’s heads uncovered. They don’t listen to the Bible when they don’t want to. Why assume they’re any different?

        I agree that you can do better than average by attending a very conservative denomination/parish but men situations vary in terms of what’s available to them.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Depictions of a inexperienced man/experienced woman pairing who are around the same age? Niche at best. There are probably a few women out there who get hot at the idea of “corrupting” the innocent boy. But I suspect it’s rare.

        Yes, I was thinking about that when I was in the car earlier.

        Even with age differences, a scenario like “The Graduate” really isn’t appealing to most women in the way that it’s kind of a “trope” for men (older attractive woman showing young guy the ropes sexually). The “cougar” thing is real, but the male targets of cougars are sexually experienced, buff/attractive/endowed young men — not inexperienced virginal males.

        I do think that there are some women who seek this out in peer-age men — and generally where you find them is in very conservative religious settings. I do think, however, based on personal experience and observations of similarly situated others, that n=0 is unfortunately not a silver bullet, even among religious people, when it comes to marital success in today’s culture. Many, many of the most successful Christian marriages I know did not start with n=0, or even without fornication in the relationship itself, in fact.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Cameron

        “But I suspect that the Christian women who aren’t virgins will have similar attitudes to the women in the survey.
        This is the problem here. Based on what exactly?”

        Probably based on what Deti mentioned above:

        “There are no functional differences between Christian women and non Christian women. All women, including Christian women, have the same standard issue basic operational firmware and software. They are NOT different.”

        I would say “no” is too pessimistic but recognize his basic point.

        This is not an AWALT point though. AWALT is like hypergamy — all women are attracted to power, status, athleticism, looks, and money.

        Virgin/non-virgin is more of preference just like some men like different size boobs, butt or different color hair. Yes, some (typically promiscuous) women tend to correlate it to being better in bed & pre-selection which they prefer since they’re not waiting to have sex until after marriage. Other women don’t.

        It’s similar to men in the manosphere understanding that N-count is a big risk factor for divorce and preferring a virgin. Most non-Christian and even Christian men don’t care about it.

        I’m not saying I’ve never seen it be something that Christian women weren’t looking for, but at least among the chaste Christian women I’ve dated and others I know it’s typically not the norm. Same with paying for/not paying for dates.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        My own anecdotal case demonstrates that with my virgin, good girl, deeply Christian wife I got six years then cheated on.

        Neither me nor Mychael were virgins at 36 and 32, she was not identifying herself as a religious person at all and I was marginal. We set up our marriage as secular and egalitarian.

        We have more than double outlasted my first one, no infidelity. We are bonded to each other like super glue.

        Liked by 8 people

      • thedeti says:

        We have more than double outlasted my first one, no infidelity. We are bonded to each other like super glue.

        Because you chose to love her and Mychael chose to respect you. Because she is highly sexually attracted to you.

        Most men love their wives. Most wives do not respect their husbands; because most wives settled for their husbands and don’t see them as worthy of respect. Most wives don’t think they should have to respect their husbands, because at law and even in Church, women are men’s “equals” in every significant way. Women see this and conclude

        “I do not have to respect him or anyone else. If anyone wants my respect they have to earn it, every day, and that includes the guy who pays for my food clothing and shelter, and sleeps in my bed. I don’t have to respect him until he earns it.”

        A husband doesn’t have to earn respect. He’s entitled to it by virtue of his position – the position his wife chose to put him in. She demands sacrificial love even unto death; but makes him earn respect every day. And that is NOT how it works.

        That’s why we are where we are.

        Liked by 5 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Christian women who are still virgins would probably be fine if the man they were dating was a virgin.
        …….

        20 bucks says you’re wrong

        Liked by 3 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        “20 bucks says you’re wrong”.

        That’s a bet I would probably lose… I probably should have worded the statement better. I imagine that a woman who was a virgin (especially if she was a Christian) would be somewhat more receptive to dating a virgin. How much more receptive, I don’t know. Virgin or not hypergamy means that women are attracted to success, including success in the sexual arena. Virginal women still want Mr. Alpha Player, they just want to lock him down permanently. “Out of all those women he was with he, chose me”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Virginal women still want Mr. Alpha Player, they just want to lock him down permanently. “Out of all those women he was with he, chose me”.

        Yes, this is the correct understanding. Women have the luxury of this position because they simply do not have the same visceral, throw-up-a-little-in-my-mouth reaction to the idea of their mans previous sexual relationships. When I was dating, and eventually married to my first wife, I never had to do battle with those images in my mind. And I was already on N=7 at the time. It was the one and only time I have had that kind of relationship peace.

        Of course, in the end, she destroyed it. But it was nice all the same.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        “they simply do not have the same visceral, throw-up-a-little-in-my-mouth reaction to the idea of their mans previous sexual relationships”.

        Women are the biggest enforcers of the old Double Standard, as statistics show.

        Ever notice that there is no explicit requirement for male virginity before marriage in the Old Testament, while there is a requirement for female virginity? Probably related.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Women have the luxury of this position because they simply do not have the same visceral, throw-up-a-little-in-my-mouth reaction to the idea of their mans previous sexual relationships.

        Yes. In fact, in most women it’s the reverse.

        That is, they get that feeling in the mouth or the pit of the stomach when confronted with a virginal man because not only is there the absence of the visceral tingle that is triggered by the pre-selection by other women, but at the same time there is a voice inside them needling them that “maybe he isn’t actually a virgin because he is holy, but because he’s just a loser, and you don’t deserve a loser, do you? I mean all guys have had sex by now if they aren’t losers…” and “what if he’s just really bad at sex? I mean I’ve read a lot of other women say that a lot of (most) men are really bad at sex, so if he has no experience isn’t that a bad sign that he might also be really bad at sex, too?”.

        As a practical matter, almost all attractive men have had sex by a certain age, and women are well aware of this reality. There are outliers like Tim Tebow, and his thing cost him relationships among Christian women, too, if what he said was true (not holding him out as some exemplar, by the way … just as an example).

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @DS:
        “Virgin/non-virgin is more of preference just like some men like different size boobs, butt or different color hair. Yes, some (typically promiscuous) women tend to correlate it to being better in bed & pre-selection which they prefer since they’re not waiting to have sex until after marriage. Other women don’t.
        It’s similar to men in the manosphere understanding that N-count is a big risk factor for divorce and preferring a virgin. Most non-Christian and even Christian men don’t care about it.”
        I’m not saying I’ve never seen it be something that Christian women weren’t looking for,…”

        I don’t think women “look for it” (the way I might look for a girl with this or that quality) per say, it’s just that they’re generally more attracted to it. The preselection thing. The other woman’s man thing.

        The meme Jack displayed a couple of posts ago in: “Sexual competition continues after marriage” the single guy who gets a girlfriend and suddenly women want him. It’s true. I got zero interest before I met my wife (girlfriend for 5+ years). After her, I’ve received interest at various levels from flirting to flat out having them move on you. I didn’t do any of the self improvement stuff you talk about (at least not until fairly recently). I didn’t get more attractive. Only common denominator – I was taken. Women are attracted to other women’s men – they just are. This applies to men in a relationship and it applies to men who have had sex with other women.

        I don’t doubt that some pious Christian who are raised correctly can cultivate a desire for a virgin male. And I don’t think every woman is exactly the same. And yes, you should select from the best group of Church girls you can find. But we can’t become Amish.

        “Most non-Christian and even Christian men don’t care about it.”

        I think there is a natural male preference for virgins that is displayed by Scott’s words below. Preference when you’re talking permanent relationship. If it’s a short-term relationship or one that you can get out of for another, then, yeah men go for the hottest chick they can get – who cares about the V-card? Additionally, it’s not something that’s available to the vast majority of men anymore (why care about something that’s not available to you). Additionally, white-knights are taught it is wicked to care about it and shamed into thinking they’re insecure little men for caring about it. “Not caring about it” is also probably a psychological coping mechanism to deal with the feelings Scott describes below (“visceral, throw-up-a-little-in-my-mouth reaction).

        Liked by 2 people

  5. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    UNnleash the hotties! WEROCK!,YOUNGAT79,WILD&FREE!WEROCK,ALL OF US 79 YEAR OLD KNOCKOUTS who call in the SGT.PIBBS LONELY HEARTS CLUB radio show hosted by ROLLO&professorGBFMtm2021while produced by BO GOLDEN! asking for their pickle pics!After I saw that 79 YEAR OLD HOTTIE above all of you did’nt expect this from myself?All of you still helping all the 79 year old knockouts I see too!GOODJOB!NOVASEEKER your the best at stirring up 79yearold knockouts even better than myself&ROLLOTOMASSI!Tell me why you stir up these virginal hotties forbidden desire NOVASEEKER?I&ROLLOTOMOSSI can’t help it thats just how it is!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      @ Professor GBFM:

      The whole 79-year-old knockout thing was seriously misinterpreted back when that discussion took place. I recall it because I am quite familiar with the woman who was used as an example. This is her, and she was 78 or 79 in this photo (she’s also been married more than 55 years so she’s not out there in the SMP looking for a husband):

      https://www.dallasnews.com/news/healthy-living/2016/09/27/this-amazing-80-year-old-trainer-and-body-builder-says-i-want-to-do-this-until-my-day-is-done/

      I don’t remember the scope of that conversation, but I think it was framed around the fact that a woman can look pretty good for quite a few years past 30 and certainly can still maintain her husband’s attraction with just a reasonable bit of effort, especially f they married when she was very young.

      I don’t think anyone with a brain would claim the average 70+ year old woman is a “knockout”. Although…

      I had a lengthy, 60 minute+ convo with my brother yesterday. He’s trying to extricate himself from an unhealthy, 5-year long LTR. He’s 58, She’s 63, and she looks really good for 63. I certainly wouldn’t have assumed that she was older than him if I didn’t know it.

      Times have changed. We worship the body and looks now, and people pull out all the stops to maintain what they can for as long as the can. I was looking for a makeup case yesterday while out running errands. I couldn’t help but notice the swarms of women in the cosmetics section of the store I was in. I marked it and thought, “Wow. Look at this.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        ELSPETH, Your right !But when somebody says KNOCKOUT their thinking anywhere north of 29 years old?All of us gen x’ers, don’t think like this?We grew up with all this MILF stuff since AMERICAN PIE in 1999?Or did we grow up with AUNT BEE & MRS.GARRETT?Did these super-sexualized latter day gen Y&ZS grow up like we did, ELSPETH with a whole lot less sexualization of women?I don’t doubt older women can look good but is that what the term KNOCK OUT meant in the 1980s&90s while we were watching stuff like MAMAS FAMILY(Remember how silly that granny beauty pageant episode was back then?) on VHF STATIONS?This is why I like MANOWARtm, it dos’nt have any of this especialy last 20 years of none-sense included in it especialy since the only MANOWAR stuff I listen to is from the 1980s and up to 2002’s ”WARRIORS OF THE WORLD UNITED”!That predates all this GRANNIES GONE WILD stuff in all this porn that gen y&z has been exposed too!Even MONA on WHOS THEBOSS dos’nt look as silly as this stuff does!You were also right on how MASTERS were suppose to treat SLAVES also!Were OLD-SCHOOL right ELSPETH?Any of these people over the last 20 years think like us who grew up in the 1980s do?ELSPETHP.S.You sure those SWARMING WOMEN were not wearing spiked gauntlets &chains?

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        For the record prof GBFM, I wasn’t judging those chicks at the makeup section. I was there because I needed a case for my own makeup, and I’m stuck at home today with a head full of henna, LOL.

        At least those women were in a discount store. I spend an obscene amount on my own makeup, which is why I don’t wear it every day. Gotta make it last.

        Yes, a “knockout” should mean a woman under 30 for the most part, but when you have women like J-Lo, and Angela Bassett, and even Ernestine Shepherd running around, it gives women a false impression of how you can be and still command attention. I’m going to combine my responses to your two replies to me in one, if that’s okay.

        I recognize that Mrs. Shepherd is an outlier, especially since she never even exercised before her 50s. She’s got good genes helping her out to be sure. And she puts in a ton of work.

        I think, aside from before I had kids (meaning age 21), the best shape I had ever been in was when I was 44. I’m 49 now, so that was 5 years ago. But I was running every. single. day. without fail. I was lifting at least 3 afternoons a week, and I had a fairly strict eating schedule.

        We had a pretty devastating loss in our family and I pretty much stopped it all in my tracks, and am just now getting back in the swing. But I’m still not sure I’m willing to work that hard now. It’s a commitment, as Scott can attest.

        We black chicks are known for letting our weight get away from us, so it helps keep me from letting myself go completely, but it’s still work.

        I remember Mona from Who’s the Boss! Wow. Flash from the past. And Blanche from The Golden Girls too!

        Yeah, the whole grannies gone wild stuff is a bit much. And we live not too far from the senior swinging capital of the U.S, 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        ELSPETH
        I remember ernestine, I think she was on good morning america or the today show!But she is outlier,How many men do anywhere as much as she did/does?I know what life is like when your an outlier,you walk around wondering if your in a dream!Why does other people not do/know as much as I do!Like when I was getting along fantasticaly with the beautiful&talented CAPRICE & my 68 year old EX-VEITNAM,JEHOVAH WITNESS black man buddy at physical rehab while seeing all this chaos in the streets a few years ago &last year!Whats everybodys problem?Thats I on most issues in life!People can’t get along why?But as you can tell I don’t take most things that serious!Why?This life will be over sooner than later any way thats how I see lifeELSPETHP.S.You know my 68 year old friend knew REV AL SHARPTON was right that BILL CLINTON put more black men in jail in the 1990s than REAGAN did in the 1980s mainly through of course stuff like VAWA!

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Senior swinging village…. ahahaha. Yeah that place is modular homes, golf carts and STDs. Go get the early bird special, go home and do it with your old girlfriend, watch Wheel of Fortune together and pass out in your recliners. Oops – forgot to take out your dentures. Hope her heart’s still tickin’ when you wake up at 3am.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        You know we laugh at those old folks, Cameron, but it’s actually kinda sad. I’m thinking about it a bit more because Hearth just put up a short audio recording on our fledgling site historicalfeminity.locals.com.

        In it she makes the point that the stage of life when we are most sexually desirable is not the only stage of life. It’s not even the longest stage. I’d add that it didn’t used to be. That there are many other stages, and we’ve pretty much neglected them in favor of a perpetual SMP. High school forever, to borrow from Nova.

        So the folks in The Villages who go there and swing, they really are an affront to the wisdom and honor and maturity that should come with being older.

        I’m no paragon when it comes to a proper balance here. I’m not fasting twice a week only for the sake of spirituality or health. I want to look better, even though I have an awesome guy who already thinks I am beautiful.

        It’s like we’re all trapped in some weird matrix, even as believers, that utterly ignores all the pitfalls and Biblical warnings about much of the folly of youth. We place such a premium on sexual desirability, even as mature people.

        Joshua Gibbs says one of the reasons children should be seen and not heard is fully evident all around us. We have been letting the kids yell and scream for the better part of 60 years, and look where listening to their noise has gotten us, LOL.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        I recently had a client–one of my veterans applying for disability– early 70s.

        Guy has married to the same woman, the only woman, since he was like 22. He started to develop some prostate related issues, so they performed a surgery (I think they removed a part of his prostate, but not the whole thing). They assured him that after recovery, he would regain full sexual function. But it botched it, and he has total, complete ED. Nothing works. No amount of viagra, or external mechanisms.

        He was crying in my office from the devastation. He said that although age made it so they were no longer doing the “swinging from the chandeliers stuff” they were still quite active in the bedroom, right up to the surgery. His wife is understanding, but she misses the connection that only sex could bring.

        As a trained psychologist, I am supposed to be able to detach from the clients stuff. But I was heart broken for this man. Imagine having a satisfying sex life with the same woman for 50 years, then all of the sudden it stops.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        And my point is, sex isn’t everything. But it is irreplaceable as a bonding agent. No matter how old you are.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Eric Francis Silk says:

    If you’re a Christian the mating process has two additional requirements above and beyond any requirements that others have. Namely, you have to marry a co-religionist and you aren’t supposed to have sex before you’re married. The unregulated sexual market is already difficult if you aren’t a “strong hand”, but those two extra requirements put you at a massive disadvantage compared to people who don’t have those same requirements. Of course, in earlier times most people were at least nominally Christian and premarital chastity was the norm. So nearly everyone had those requirements as well as whatever other requirements existed. Now it just narrows your options considerably.

    It shouldn’t be a surprise that some would conclude that those requirements should be loosened.

    We know that, statistically, Christians aren’t doing much better than the general population at not having sex before marriage. The only difference is that it’s swept under the rug and there’s a lot of guilt and angst over doing something that is natural but you’re nevertheless not supposed to be doing.

    Liked by 5 people

  7. feeriker says:

    We know that, statistically, Christians aren’t doing much better than the general population at not having sex before marriage.

    Or at keeping their marriages intact when they ultimately do marry. Thus the glee expressed by churchians over the fact that “Christians” have a divorce rate of “only” 38 percent compared to The World’s 50 percent. I’m inclined to believe that the gap is actually much narrower than that, as the “38 percent” figure is at least a decade old.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      If they are so happy in their 62% successful marriages, why aren’t they promoting it in their own churches ???

      Liked by 3 people

    • Random Angeleno says:

      There is the same poor rhetoric in the Catholic Church. Several years ago, on a Catholic forum, the 28% rate of divorce among Catholics was celebrated. Should have seen the furore that ensued when a poster who I’m sure had read Dalrock et al riposted that a one in four chance of a marriage breakup was nothing to celebrate and that said odds still represented a very poor risk profile for ordinary men.

      Moral of the story: most women are women before they are Christians, Catholics, whatever. Sure some posit the presence of chaste women. I’m not denying they exist, but as far as most men are concerned we may as well be talking about unicorns.

      Liked by 5 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Rowdy-time WOO!When I was going through the airport today,all the stewardresses were saying model DEREK RAMSEY WHO?I have to be calm here!I don’t want nobody saying I’m peacocking here!You have to be born a champion!Blond hair!Styling&profiling!I wear $600 custom-made lizard shows!If your watching I’m 40,000 feet in the sky!Some think I’ve lost my mind?Your talking money,women,franchise,kiss stealing sonofagun!If its here & you want it!We’re in town for a party GIRLS!
        RANDOM
        You know truth!My first g.f.,she was 6 years old came up to me!Why?Tallest boy in class with my styling&profiling blond hair like ric flair&originalricflar&hulk hogan known as SUPERSTAR BILLY GRAHAM!She was pre-pubscient remember!Yet still same story as usual!Don’t think they taught me most of what I needed to know about women when I was only 7 years old!?I have to tell you she became a professor interested in masculinity studies!?She was studying that at age 6 with me!See the professor in my name?THAT!I taught one of the great professors of american universaties all she needed too know about masculinity from my 7year old styling&profiling!Now see why I identfied with GBFMtm?I had natural GAME at age 7!Why would I need to learn game?MORALOFTHESTORYP.S. See my knowledge&styling&profiling!?P.S.Everbody wants to come over to my place later for a party!?You know what I’m talking about right!?RANDOMP.S.From the bottom of my heart I love you bro!Thank you!!!

        Like

  8. Pingback: Optimism and pessimism in the current Christian marriage milieu | Christianity and masculinity

  9. Oscar says:

    The reason it’s a real apocalypse is because we are not allowed to teach our children, and we are not allowed to build a community in which people of faith can actually expect to find other people of faith. ~ Ed Hurst

    Except that people of faith are doing exactly that which they’re “not allowed” to do, and is supposedly “impossible”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Farm Boy,
      Your post, “Divergence”, argues that the SMP and MMP used to be the same, but now they have split.
      Here, NovaSeeker’s post argues that the SMP and MMP used to be separate, but now they overlap.
      Are we talking about the same thing? (The discussion under your post never addressed this.)
      I think your post is talking about the collection of traits that contribute towards one’s SMV or MMV — not the SMP and MMP. Yes, the traits relating to SMV and MMV have diverged, because sex and marriage are no longer regarded as concomitant.
      I found some data from OK Cupid that revealed this divergence between SMV and MMV.
      https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/dtfcupid/

      Like

  10. info says:

    The Manichean infection from way back has created a vulnerability that persisted until or even after the sexual revolution:

    Quotes from the Manichean books which is a sampling of their beliefs:
    http://www.thebodyissacred.org/origin-sexual-desire-creator-adam-eve-manichean-religion/

    Augustine retained a lot of the Manichean errors despite repudiating the sect formally:
    http://www.thebodyissacred.org/origin-st-augustine-sexuality-sin-sex-pleasure/

    Catholic analysis of this pervasive persistent heresy:
    https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2020/02/modernity-return-of-manicheanism.html

    Like

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      I recently read about Augustine’s dispute with the Pelagian bishop, Julian of Eclanum. Say what you will about Pelagianism but Julian had Augustine dead to rights when he accused him of remaining a Manichean at heart.

      In regards to sex, one of Augustine’s biographers describes Julian’s views thusly:

      “Julian spoke boldly of the sexual instinct as a sixth sense of the body, as a [morally] neutral energy that might be used well…delicately poised between reason and animal feeling.”

      In Julian’s own words:

      “We say that the sexual impulse—that is, that the virility itself, without which there can be no intercourse—is ordained by God.”

      I had never heard of Augustine’s dispute with Julian until quite recently. There is a lot that they don’t teach you in most churches.

      Like

      • info says:

        Interesting.

        I think this error of the inability to distinguish between healthy Eroticism and Lust. Needs to be addressed once and for all. And solved so that this Manicheanism is permanently extinguished as much as possible.

        While many people at the time and even down through the ages dispute the Canonicity of The Song of Solomon. I believe its Divine Providence to help guide us out of this error God knew we will have a very hard time rooting out.

        That selecting one’s wife and vice versa on the basis of physical beauty in addition to character isn’t lust but part of healthy eroticism.

        Alongside some of the verses of the book of Proverbs.

        Promiscuity is much more easily recognized and dealt with. But this evil that disguises itself as Chastity is far harder and Thomas Aquinas was one of the first attempts to deal with this issue which persisted through the Reformation onwards.

        This ironically reinforces promiscuity by corrupting what is good and allowing the evil one to give the junk food version to sicken those who desire what is meant to be for good.

        Like

  11. info says:

    My previous comment may have been spammed. Could you take it out of moderation?
    [Jack: Found and released!]

    Like

  12. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    EVERYBODY,
    While others think their getting over I bust a move as smooth as CASANOVA or at least NOVASEEKER! See I&JACKSON BROWN cruising the BLENINGAME BLVD last night?While BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN said he wished he looked as good as JACKSON&THEPROFESSOR?Did’n’t know how EXTRADEEPSTRENGTH my musical knowledge is?All the hottest MUSICOLIGISITS know my REPUTATION!!All the young 79 year old knockout hearts be FREE TONIGHT with all us YOUNG TURKS as they have those MAGGIE MAY HOT LEGS!This is’nt a REHASH of MEL GIBSON is it?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Elspeth says:

    @ Ton:

    One of his things is how slavery isn’t a sin in the Bible and that effects his faith on occasions.

    A lot of people use the Old Covenant’s writings about slavery, as well as Paul’s writings, as a support for the fact that slavery isn’t a sin. But here’s the thing, since I’ve studied this as well.

    In Scripture, God gives some pretty clear boundaries and guidelines for how slaves were to be treated. Nothing about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, how it was conducted, and how African slaves were treated in America squares with how Scripture says masters were to treat their slaves. It was, in many ways, an affront to even compare what happened here to what was allowed in Scripture.

    This is why I have no problem calling what happened in the U.S. “the sin of slavery”. Consider, for instance, Exodus 21:26-27, and Exodus 21: 20:

    “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.

    “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.

    There’s a principle here worth noting, and that principle is that foreign slaves are still human beings created in the image of God.. In the U.S. black slaves, in many instances, were viewed as the equivalent of farm animals.

    There is even a command against stealing or kidnapping someone for the express purpose of making them a slave (Exodus 21:16):

    “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

    This was a rampant practice in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It would have been more “moral” for Europeans to conquer their neighbors and make slaves of them, which the Romans and the Ottomans often did. But that’s not what happened here. In Africa, tribes created whole industries based on kidnapping young healthy people from other tribes and selling them to English and American buyers.

    Nothing about what happened in the American South can be condoned using Scripture.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      @Elspeth

      From memory, Zippy wrote about this. What (I think) he suggested was that by the time of American slavery, Western Civilization (or at least American civilization) had a flawed understanding of property which was applied to slaves. The idea of a person as chattel property. The whole memory is vague – if I find it I’ll pass it along. Certainly, the Catholic Church (with all the slavery in Latin America) had to deal with this issue.

      So many fascinating discussions about slavery and I’m not learned enough to know what’s true. I read somewhere that there was no such thing as a chattel slave in English common law – only indentured servants w/contract. A freed African man was able to sue in the Virginia courts and claimed chattel slavery was customary for his people (Africa) and the court sided with him allowing him to own chattel slaves. Based on that decision, others (black and white) followed his example. But I have no idea if this is fact or fiction (or even where I read it).

      LoL – I hate being served at restaurants even when I’m a paying customer – the owning a slave thing – not real appealing to me. I’m descended (paternally) from German Catholic peasant farmers – we plowed our own fields.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I think Zippy argued that NT slavery and medieval serfdom were practiced with a different understanding of ownership and property – again from memory.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. redpillboomer says:

    “We know that, statistically, Christians aren’t doing much better than the general population at not having sex before marriage. The only difference is that it’s swept under the rug and there’s a lot of guilt and angst over doing something that is natural but you’re nevertheless not supposed to be doing.”

    Found this out many years ago the hard way. I was 25, a Christian for three years when I got my first Christian girlfriend who was 21. Her best friend, also a Christian, was 24. Everything appeared as it should be with those two, regular church attendance, Christian singles group participation, Bible reading, Christian service, mentoring by one of the older woman in the church in a ladies group, etc. I was with the 21 year old gf for one year before the relationship went long distance when I went into the service. During the year together before long distance, we kissed fondled outside her clothing, kept it ‘righteous.’ Four years later, me now 29, she 25, visits me where I was stationed and I get dumped. I believe she visited me to satisfy her curiosity about how well I was doing in life, which was a whole lot better than when I first met her. So, I get dumped, and later find out that she had been riding the carousel all four years, plus she rode it between 18 to 21 before I met her. Her Christian girlfriend who seemed to be the deeper of the two spiritually, she too was riding it to an extent, not as much as the gf, but enough to get her CC rider badge. I was dumbfounded. I was that Blue Pill at the time. I couldn’t equate their ‘spiritual life’ with their ‘sexual life.’ It was like…. How do you do that?

    But now, being Red Pilled and looking back, I get it. I really get it now; but back then, it didn’t make any sense to me at all.

    Now I look at the young women in my church, some very attractive, and wonder, hmm??? Are they having sex, or even possibly riding? Projecting no more halos around any church girls heads these days.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      I couldn’t equate their ‘spiritual life’ with their ‘sexual life.’ It was like….How do you do that?

      The thing is, almost all guys, if they had the same sexual opportunity as women do at that age, would be doing the same thing. The culture is steeped in sex, it screams that sexual satisfaction is one of the most important things in life and, in the case of young women, it screams at them to do whatever they please without criticism. That is going to lead to most of them riding the CC at least a bit. The ones who don’t are outliers (most of them due to religious convictions) or not attractive enough to ride the CC (which in most cases means also not attractive enough to be interesting for dating for most men). This is just 2021 reality.

      It isn’t just the “sluts” who are doing this, it’s almost every girl. Under the old definition, the “sluts” were the girls who were sleeping with every guy they dated more than 2-3 times.
      Under the new definition, every girls does that so that isn’t “slut” anymore (it has no more meaning if it is almost every girl), so under the new definition, the “sluts” are the ones who have a lot of very short term relationships/ONS/FWB type of things. Average girls have a little bit of that — a few ONS is not slutty, maybe one FWB at a time — while a slut has this kind of thing as a steady diet. And the definitions are, and will continue to be, a moving target over time as the mating market and the world relating to sex continues to change, develop and morph, including the OASIS we talked about last month. Today’s “slut” is tomorrow’s “average”. Again, there are always outliers, but they are outliers.

      And, again, men would be doing the same thing if they could.

      Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “Slut” to women can mean “woman who steals or tries to steal MY man.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        It can also mean (to women) “those women who are looser than I am.” It’s still (sometimes) used to differentiate themselves from “those types of girls.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        “men would be doing the same thing if they could”.

        This is proven quite well by the anecdotal and statistical evidence for high rates of promiscuity among gay men. It’s male sexuality without any gatekeepers.

        I’ve read about people doing an experiment where they make a Tinder profile using a photo of average looking guy. No matches. Then they use the same photo on Grindr. Tons of matches.

        If there are gay bathhouses then why aren’t there straight bathhouses? Simple answer. Same reason why swinger clubs don’t let in single men. The place would be flooded with single men and all the women would get scared off.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “This is proven quite well by the anecdotal and statistical evidence for high rates of promiscuity among gay men. It’s male sexuality without any gatekeepers.”

        Maybe. I’m not sure gay men are just like straight men except liking it with other men. Something is broken there, psychologically, spiritually, IDK. Really broken. If you’re a straight guy, it’s sometimes hard to imagine that gay men even exist – WTF?!!!

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        It isn’t just the “sluts” who are doing this, it’s almost every girl. Under the old definition, the “sluts” were the girls who were sleeping with every guy they dated more than 2-3 times. Under the new definition, every girls does that so that isn’t “slut” anymore (it has no more meaning if it is almost every girl), so under the new definition, the “sluts” are the ones who have a lot of very short term relationships/ONS/FWB type of things.

        At the risk of getting too pedantic:

        Women object a lot to the “CC” and “carousel” and “slut” terminology because it lends an air of illegitimacy, seediness, dirtiness, and low character to their conduct. It is what it is, I suppose, but it is riding the CC and there is sluttiness going on.

        With that out of the way, almost all girls are having sex. That doesn’t mean they are all sluts. But, and this is important: Almost all girls are “trying out” sluthood for a short time. Almost all girls are taking a spin or 3 on the carousel. Almost every girl talks about having a “ho phase” (and the ones who don’t talk about it, had one, but just do not want to admit it). Just a rumspringa- like episode in her life for a few months, probably less than a year, where she is having some slut sex with a series of men in relatively rapid succession, some of which men she really doesn’t know very well.

        I think nearly all girls are “trying on” sluthood for size, and most are finding it doesn’t suit them. But most of them are settling into the routine of

        Meet – have sex – decide if she likes him well enough to keep seeing him – continue having sex – get serious – get exclusive – break up – lather/rinse/repeat.

        Christian girls are doing a lot of this too. Not all, but definitely a solid majority.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Homosexuality is a complex mental phenomenon.
        You are right that they aren’t just like other men.

        My point was that I think a lot straight men would do stuff like cruise public washrooms for sex if only women would play ball, pun intended.

        It’s worth noting that Grindr predates Tinder. Ostensibly, Tinder is supposed to be Grindr for straight people. Men install Tinder hoping for quick, easy hookups. Of course it doesn’t quite work out that way. It’s much, much, harder (as a male) to get hookups on Tinder than it is on Grindr.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        It’s worth noting that Grindr predates Tinder. Ostensibly, Tinder is supposed to be Grindr for straight people. Men install Tinder hoping for quick, easy hookups. Of course it doesn’t quite work out that way. It’s much, much, harder (as a male) to get hookups on Tinder than it is on Grindr.

        I’m ready for the colonization of Mars

        These are my criteria for climbing aboard

        Good looking
        Straight
        IQ over 125
        Not weird

        Whose with me?

        Liked by 6 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Maybe. I’m not sure gay men are just like straight men except liking it with other men.

        I was going to use the gay analogy in my comment but I decided against it because I anticipated a comment like yours, and I thought it would lead to an unhelpful tangent. But now that such a comment has been made …

        It’s more similar than you think. Yes, not all straight men would do things like bathhouses, but not all gay men do, either. The difference is that even the “sedate” gay men, who don’t do sex parties and bath houses and anonymous sex and the rest of the “party gay” lifestyle tend to have lots more sex partners than straight men do, and that isn’t generally because straight men generally prefer fewer sex partners.

        I think it’s correct to say that even if women were like gay men with vaginas that straight men wouldn’t have sex exactly like gay men do, because the dynamic between men and women is always going to be very different — among other things, roles in actual sex are pre-determined and so on. The point, though, is that a large percentage of heterosexual men would have a lot more sex — a LOT more sex — if women treated sex the way that gay men do. That’s just obviously true by looking at the way that men who do have access to that level of sex from women behave, never mind straight men. Porn’s main fantasy — that women are as hot for sex-qua-sex as men are — reflects the same reality.

        The comparison is inexact — yes, of course. But it’s still directionally true. The main constraint on the exercise of female promiscuity — pregnancy — has been removed. The main constraint on the exercise of male promiscuity — female sexual selection and its inherent pickiness — can’t be removed, which is why it acts as a hard constraint on the ability of most men to be promiscuous. Remove this constraint, and you get more promiscuity. It wouldn’t be exactly like it is with gay guys, no, but it would be directionally like that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        It’s worth noting that Grindr predates Tinder. Ostensibly, Tinder is supposed to be Grindr for straight people.

        Yes that was where they got the idea. The creators obviously knew that it couldn’t work exactly like Grindr because Grindr doesn’t have women on it, so they adapted it, and have continued to adapt it, but the basic idea came from a gay hookup app. And that model has been spooled out to all of the other dating apps now, as well, including the ones favored by women like Bumble and Hinge.

        I’m ready for the colonization of Mars

        Pretty cold out there.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Sure, women aren’t wired to want sexual variety, they’re wired to want perfection. Seems to keep their sex activities in check (other psychological mechanisms do this too I’m sure).

        Men are wired to want variety and some would have a huge harem if they could. It wouldn’t be like the gay thing because the harem would be exclusively his with females unable to defect.

        The basic asymmetry discussed so often here stated a different way: The husband, whose base instinct is towards variety, still wants his wife. The woman, whose base instinct is towards perfection (alpha-bux), doesn’t want the guy she settled for.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Seems to keep their sex activities in check

        It keep’s men’s sexual activities more in check by means of women’s sexual selection. The main check on women’s own sexual activities is pregnancy. The secondary check is the ability to attract the top man that they desire. If they have that ability, since pregnancy is now opt-in, there is essentially “no check” … which is why we see women (1) flocking to cities, where there are more “top men”, and (2) behaving as they do. It’s also why there are so many men who are being left out, as we often discuss.

        It wouldn’t be like the gay thing because the harem would be exclusively his with females unable to defect.

        Not really. The top men who are having a lot of sex generally … aren’t typically insistent on “exclusivity” with the numerous “side pieces” they are bedding. Mostly they don’t care about that at all. One of my best friends in college was/is a true “natural”/ladies man type. They don’t care about having a “harem”, they care about the sexual access, and there always being a new girl. Harems arose to deal with male attrition in a context where pregnancy was the regime, and womb space was scarce due to infant mortality and women dying in childbirth (didn’t want the “excess women” going to waste, so they became “extra wives” and bore children for you). The male sexual utopia isn’t harems, which involves provision for tons of kids, but unlimited sexual access. It’s porn, and porn implies nothing about the women being bedded “belonging” to the guys doing the bedding — to the contrary, the main fantasy in porn is that the sex is contextless, in that women are just down to have sex whenever and however men want, no context required. That is the male utopic fantasy sexually, not harems.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        So you RP geniuses, riddle me this one. A (former) friend of my wife (housewife with kids, attends Christian mom’s group) told me she likes to watch male-gay-porn. Blew my mind. No clue other than assuming it’s probably hunky dudes or whatever.

        Best explanation I could come up with: what caught her eye was masculine dude conquering another masculine dude which is like masculine dude conquers strong, defiant woman but on steroids. Woman’s totally hetero btw.

        That one was weird.

        I grew up in a house where mom’s favorites were Little House on the Prairie and the Waltons. Adulthood never ceases to blow my mind.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Could be. I’ve seen it claimed that female defection from your harem is psychologically damaging to the man, that many players (including male porn stars) are really screwed up by this: drugs and sometimes suicide.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        I’ve seen it claimed that female defection from your harem is psychologically damaging to the man, that many players (including male porn stars) are really screwed up by this: drugs and sometimes suicide.

        That depends solely on how dark triad they are. The ones who are more narcissistic (clinically) don’t have that problem — they run through life like sharks in the water do. Again, one of my close college friends is like this. No dysnfunction like that — no suicides or substance abuse or anything. But player to the Nth degree, and he plays “catch and release” 100%. Not ONS, but not long term, she starts to get feelings or possessive and he’s gone. Now, he’s quite dark triad, I would say.

        But again, that’s real world. Fantasy land is different. In fantasy land noone gets pathologies, and noone gets pregnant. The fantasy of porn, again, isn’t hogging all the women so that they all only have sex with you — that literally isn’t a theme in porn. It’s unlimited, frictionless, contextless sex because women want to have sex all the time with everyone at the drop of a hat and are always horny. That’s the fantasy .. and it’s not that unlike gay guys.

        she likes to watch male-gay-porn. Blew my mind. No clue other than assuming it’s probably hunky dudes or whatever.

        That’s been a thing since forever. Like going way, way back. When women watch porn (and more watch now than ever, something like ~35% of total viewing is now female and it is much higher the younger you go), they tend to favor gay male porn, followed by lesbian porn (there have been some data released on this by porn sites).

        The reasons are not only that the men are in great shape, but also that the sex is not as obviously fake to the women viewers — straight porn is so obviously fake to women in particular that it is basically ruined for them, at least most of the professional porn that is aimed at straight men. The women are not acting anything like women actually do during sex, and that makes it very unappealing for most women. Gay porn doesn’t suffer from this, viewed from the perspective of a straight woman. I am sure that gay porn also isn’t quite like gay sex (no idea, but I would guess so), but for a straight woman those differences aren’t obvious, so it feels more authentic to them than porn’s version of straight sex does, plus those male bodies.

        I do think that there is something to the idea that women can get off on watching one man dominate another (and gay sex always involves this, by definition) — one man becomes more hypermasculinized for her, and she probably “identifies” with the “male bottom” — perhaps a kind of more empowered, at least physically, incarnation of receptive/feminine/”bottom” sexuality.

        Women also have a strong preference for amateur porn for the same reasons — it is much less fake, and therefore more credible for women. Real looking and real acting women they can relate to better.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Nova, I don’t know what disturbed me more – the fact that she watches that or the fact that she didn’t feel any shame in bringing it up to her friend’s husband.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        The definition of a s1ut continues to morph.

        In a previous post, Bon Mot of Slut Science (October 13, 2017), I examined how men and women have different definitions for a slut. If a woman has more than three to five lifetime partners, a typical man would consider her to be venturing into slut territory. Whether she is a Christian or not, doesn’t make any difference at all to men in determining this label. This is because this assessment is rightfully based on how a woman’s sexual history affects the marital relationship.

        Not only is there a sex selective dichotomy of self-perception between men and women, but there is also a difference of perception among women having varying degrees of sexual experience. My post, Hamster’s Hierarchy of Sluts (October 11, 2017), describes how women use the term “s1ut” loosely, and their appraisal is largely based on their personal experience relative to their social standing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @Cameron232

        “Maybe. I’m not sure gay men are just like straight men except liking it with other men. Something is broken there, psychologically, spiritually, IDK. Really broken. If you’re a straight guy, it’s sometimes hard to imagine that gay men even exist – WTF?!!!”

        Not to mention the utterly disgusting treatment of what is meant for exit for human waste as a sex organ. Leading to disease and injury even when they try to use “protection”

        Even technical heterosexuals still ended up adopting this practice through the porn industry. And it is just as disgusting and destructive.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Novaseeker:

        “The male sexual utopia isn’t harems, which involves provision for tons of kids, but unlimited sexual access. It’s porn, and porn implies nothing about the women being bedded “belonging” to the guys doing the bedding — to the contrary, the main fantasy in porn is that the sex is contextless, in that women are just down to have sex whenever and however men want, no context required. That is the male utopic fantasy sexually, not harems.”

        I’m going to disagree. I think for the average beta male (not an alpha with dark triad/elevated-subclinical-psychopathy traits) an exclusive harem is the (base and unchristian) ideal. Let’s say for a K-selected/strategist man. I mean “us” more or less – most of the guys here I’d guess.

        When I was in college it was popular for a guy to put on a VHS porno in the background while we hung out at his apartment playing our geeky military board games or whatever. This was porn oriented towards your average red-blooded American male not weird fetish porn. It’s true that the sex wasn’t in the context of a harem of women you loved and cared for but it wasn’t one guy banging chick after chick. It was one guy banging one chick then another separate scene with another guy (not the same guy) banging a different chick. Each time I think the point was that you put yourself in the place of the (new) guy banging the new chick. Yeah, not “marry them” context but not one guy banging them sequentially and chucking them either. Rather, each and every one was a guy’s novel, initial encounter with a new woman with no reference to what happens afterward (left to the imagination).

        Reaching inside and summoning my basest instincts I can imagine, trying to imagine promiscuity as a lifestyle (which doesn’t come easy or natural to me), the basest I can get is having a small number of wives. Say 7, one for each day of the week. Going back to each of them on a different day of the week. Raising their children along with your other wives’ children. This is the biblical Patriarchs right? It’s been said here that the Patriarchs were very beta not alpha. Beta males have instinct to raise their children. That’s a major part of what makes us beta. This is the K-selection/strategy. None of this really matters – just some hypothetical thoughts.

        No I’m advocating polygamy or saying I want a harem.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      I’m not sure gay men are just like straight men except liking it with other men. Something is broken there, psychologically, spiritually, IDK. Really broken. If you’re a straight guy, it’s sometimes hard to imagine that gay men even exist – WTF?!!!

      I suppose that could be true. The point is that promiscuity happens with gay men because they’re men having sex with other men. They are gay, but they’re still men, with male views and attitudes toward sex, the male sex drive, bodies with testosterone – everything masculine and male except that drive is directed at other men who want sex with them as much as they want sex.

      Roissy posited that women don’t have a sex drive like men do, but if they did, the world would stop. If women wanted sex like men do, nothing would ever get done, because human beings would be doing nothing other than having sex. There would be sex happening in public. At “work”. At church. At homes. People would have sex with others’ spouses and relatives. Sex would happen with neighbors, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. People would stop having sex only to eat, excrete, and sleep. Sex would be taking place literally everywhere, all the time, and the world would be one enormous San Francisco gay bathhouse/STD clinic.

      Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Women want sex more then men want sex but it takes high level of masculinity etc and peak fertility to elicit that response. Sex, child production, doemstic chores and manipulation are all the tools they had to surrive through most of history. That sub programming is still running the bus most of the day

        Most men never get to experience that part of the equation though

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        Women’s sex drive goes through cycles in accordance with their hormonal cycles that happen monthly.

        It isn’t constant like Men’s sex drive.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        The male sex drive is constantly present, all the time. It requires very little external stimuli to get it going.

        The female sex drive can be cyclical, but even then it lies dormant until it is aroused. The female sex drive requires a lot of external stimuli just to awaken it. Most often, an attractive man has to be and do things to arouse it. “Push her attraction buttons”. Find and pull her attraction triggers. Part of that is what he does, partly what he says, partly how he looks, partly how she feels about herself, and a lot of it is how he makes her feel at that time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @deti:

        “The female sex drive can be cyclical, but even then it lies dormant until it is aroused.”

        We have enough experience now with free-market sexuality to understand how it works. Alpha male opportunities cause the panties to drop quickly regardless of the time of the month. This is well attested to.

        Meanwhile, the betabux has to hope that at that one, special time of the month, the planets align properly.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Committed betabux husband I mean.

        Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      I don’t know what disturbed me more – the fact that she watches that or the fact that she didn’t feel any shame in bringing it up to her friend’s husband.

      Yep, but women are bullet-proof right now when it comes to any man. I mean there’s literally no response that you could have that would be negative for her without being overwhelmingly so for you if she chose to make it so. Bullet-proof-ness leads to brazen-ness.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        I don’t know what disturbed me more – the fact that she watches that or the fact that she didn’t feel any shame in bringing it up to her friend’s husband.

        Yep, but women are bullet-proof right now when it comes to any man.

        Oh yeah, men aren’t allowed to criticize women. In this particular case, you’re not allowed to question her watching gay male porn or her mentioning it to you. Because a man criticizing a woman is judgment and this violates the 11th Commandment according to the Book of Oprah: Thou shalt not judge. No one is allowed anymore to identify right and wrong, good and evil, beneficial and detrimental, beautiful and not-beautiful At least not publicly.

        Applied to women, you’re not allowed to express any judgments anywhere, anytime, about a particular woman and her conduct or speech, or women in general. Because that’s hurtful and mean spirited and patriarchal, and that will lead to the second worst social crime in the US right now: Misogyny.

        In particular, men are not to say anything about a woman’s sexual conduct, good or bad. You’re to discuss it neutrally in bland, anodyne terms, and really, you should not say anything at all. If you say anything “good” or “approving” about it, you’re making sexual advances. You’re sexualizing the conversation and you’re now a sexual harasser, a pervert, a sexual criminal, and a misogynist. If you say anything bad or “disapproving” about it, see above- you’re critical and judgmental and a misogynist. You’re not allowed even to suggest she should not be discussing her sexual proclivities in public, because again – criticism and judgment and misogyny. Judgment is always bad, especially when men do it. And women are allowed to do and be and say anything they want, anytime they want, anywhere they want, with and to whom they want.

        See, this is why we have women taking swings at men in public. This is why women think they can go all Scarlet Johansen/Black Widow and take out 10 large armed men with nothing more than acrobatics and kicks. No one is allowed to punch back. No one is allowed to tell them “no, you can’t do that” and “no, you can’t say that”. The minute a man even so much as attempts to restrain a woman throwing punches at him (which the average man can easily do), that’s aggression and provocation and battery. You can’t put your hands on a woman even if she started it and she is the aggressor and she is putting her hands on you.

        This is now the world we live in.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Jack says:

      ”I couldn’t equate their ‘spiritual life’ with their ‘sexual life.’ It was like… How do you do that?”

      I was dumbfounded when I realized that sexually active women appeared to be more “glorified” than their chaste peers. (Not sure if we are talking about the same thing here.) One understanding of this phenomenon is described in this post, How is illicit sex related to one’s spiritual state? (2019 May 22).

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Elspeth says:

    Actually, I wasn’t running every day. I ran every week day.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. redpillboomer says:

    “It can also mean (to women) “those women who are looser than I am.” It’s still (sometimes) used to differentiate themselves from “those types of girls.”
    Yes, found this one out from the 27 year old I did the education program with a few years back. At the time, he had a besty girlfriend from her college days who was also 27 and just as beautiful, if not even more so. Both women were easily 8s or higher at the time. The one I worked with in the program was the ‘good girl’ of the two; and I’m saying ‘good girl’ very tongue-in-cheek, rolling my ‘red pill’ eyes as I type it… lol! She was a CC rider, but kept it somewhat discreet; however her girlfriend was a former stripper, now a sugar baby, who my 27 year old at one point did an ‘intervention’ with, I’m guessing because gf’s life was heading towards a train wreck like situation. Anyways, the point of all this, my 27 year old blurted out to me during a moment of exasperation about her gf, about besty being ‘a slut.’ I believe her exact words, “She’s always been such a slut!” Talk about the pot calling the kettle black; but yes, I can see why my 27 year old would think she’s the ‘not slut,’ and her gf was ‘the slut.’ Just another example of the hamster wheel in action, and how the definition of slut has shifted during the last few decades. Back when I was a twentysomething, a slut was what we called ‘community property or the town whore’ in that she was doing all sorts of men to include sex on the first date, or first meetup in the club or wherever.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Nova kind of touched on this before. “Slut” ‘s definition has shifted over the years.

      Today, the typical woman’s sexual trajectory looks something like this, give or take a few.

      Loses virginity at 15 to boyfriend she’s been with 6 months. She breaks up with him junior year. Has a false start and another boyfriend at graduation so she heads to college at N=3.

      IN college she meets a guy right off the bat and they’re an item. They’re having sex within a couple of weeks. They break up after a year. Thus begins her “ho phase” shortly after Sophomore year begins. A couple of false starts but no big. Three ONS, two of which were with VERY attractive men. A third hookup with guy on the Div I basketball team results in a 4 month relationship going into Junior year. She’s now at N=10.

      During her Junior and senior years, she’s with a great guy and thinks they’re going to marry. She graduates having been with him for about 18 months. N=11, age 22. They move to Big City where they live together and plan to marry. She has her job, he has his. They keep going to age 24 and get engaged. She marries him at age 25, N=11.

      See how easy it is to get to double digits? To most everyone under age 40, this is not slutty at all. This is called “how women date in late 20th/early 21st century America”. This is normal. In fact, this particular scenario is pretty pedestrian and vanilla, to be honest.

      Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      I went to college in the late 1980s. A girl who did the “ho phase” thing was considered a slut and not serious for relationship material at all. There were some girls doing this in the midwest, but not a majority. Most girls were pairing off and having at most 3 sexual relationships during all of college. And of course there was a tiny small minority of turbosluts with ho phases lasting well over one and a half academic years.

      The point is that the scenario I posited above was full on slut circa 1987. Today, in the 2000s, it’s just “normal dating”. There were a couple of things going on there. First, I lived through the AIDS scare and that tamped down on a lot of sexual conduct, I think.

      Second, there was a real shift from the 1980s into the 1990s and 2000s to today which involved pushing sex to the beginning of the interactions rather than down the road a few weeks or months. The typical pattern in 1987 was meet, then date a few times, then play around without clothes, then sex. The “foreplay” stuff happened in a few weeks; the full on P in V sex happened in 1-3 months. By the time clothes come off, they are a “couple” and are “dating” and almost always exclusive.

      Today, the pattern is meet online, meet in person, have sex, then decide if you like each other well enough to keep seeing and having sex with each other. Full on P in V sex happens in 1-3 meetings, absolutely not later than a couple of weeks. Many times, if not most times, sex happens at first meeting. I think this is because of both parties’ expectations that sex will be an important component of whatever happens from here on out so sexual compatibility is crucial. It also happens because the most attractive men demand immediate sex and are in a position to demand it, The unspoken message is “if you won’t sleep with me now, one of your friends will, and you’ll lose out”.

      Fully half of all women are in that marketplace, and most of them will give it up to a very attractive man at first meet at some point. Thus, most women in that market understand the market pressures, and willingly succumb to them at some point. It’s not just the pressures – these women want the sex with these men. It is not as if these pressures are unbearable – most of these women will gladly have immediate sex if the man is right, she’s “feeling” it, she feels good about herself, and is reasonably confident she can have sex with him without negative judgment or adverse consequences.

      This includes Christian women too – this isn’t just nonChristians. There are a lot of Christian women participating in this market, They do so because they can, because there are virtually no downsides, because those who aren’t in the know won’t be in the know, and because no one judges them for it.

      That’s pretty much how we got here, from Reagan to Biden.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        You know you wonder. Most women probably aren’t sexually attracted to the men they can marry. I just hear too many stories from men (I mean real life not these forums). My wife hears too many stories from Christian moms that suggest the same thing.

        For them, sex with hubby I assume is like sexual assault or at best prostitution. You wonder if this is how it feels to women. Maybe in the old days too, they just had no choice.

        When hubby nags them for sex, pesters them until they give in, they call it “marital rape.” They call it this now – I’m sure of it. You wonder – if that’s what it feels like to them – then marriage for most is just hopeless unless men figure out how to be eunuchs most of the time. I was listening to that Better Batchelor guy – the youtuber Scott mentioned. Maybe MGTOW is the best way for most men – not to bring women back into line – it’s just the best way forward. Marriage for the few and just make the elite have lots of kids.

        Liked by 4 people

      • feeriker says:

        There are a lot of Christian women participating in this market, They do so because they can, because there are virtually no downsides, because those who aren’t in the know won’t be in the know, and because no one judges them for it.

        Even if those “not in the know” WERE “in the know,” they wouldn’t in any way, shape, or form criticize the women for sloring it up. This is especially true of the “leadership” of their churchian franchises who fear criticizing and alienating women far more than they do preaching God’s commandments.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        You know you wonder. Most women probably aren’t sexually attracted to the men they can marry.

        They aren’t. Women discussed here, like Elspeth and Mychael, are the exception, not the rule. The prime reason is that these women have already had sex with men who are objectively more attractive than the men expressing marital interest. And these women resent the hell out of the fact that they will have to settle.

        For them, sex with hubby I assume is like sexual assault or at best prostitution. You wonder if this is how it feels to women. Maybe in the old days too, they just had no choice.

        Women will tell you it feels like rape. That’s what they say. And their conduct is consistent with that.

        You wonder – if that’s what it feels like to them – then marriage for most is just hopeless unless men figure out how to be eunuchs most of the time.

        I didn’t understand this for the longest time. But I get it now. Men approach a situation by looking at it from all different angles in an attempt to find the advantage, the “in”. If there is no advantage, no “in”, a man will walk away from the situation, abandon it, and refuse to be part of it. “I can’t use it to my advantage, so I will have nothing to do with it.”

        For a lot of men, the current marketplace is like this. There’s no upside. Everything is cost, risk, and burden. There’s no advantage, no “in”. More and more men are walking away. Until, they come back to it because a woman who’s around 35 or so finally gives them an “in”. And they come back because… sex. Because men need sex. Because men will do whatever it takes to get sex. They will. We will. I know it, you know it, and women know it. If she says “wait”, we wait. If she says now, we go now. If she says “push a dime across the gym floor with your nose”, we’re on all fours pushing. Women know this about us. And we come back. We always do.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        You know you wonder. Most women probably aren’t sexually attracted to the men they can marry. I just hear too many stories from men (I mean real life not these forums). My wife hears too many stories from Christian moms that suggest the same thing.

        For them, sex with hubby I assume is like sexual assault or at best prostitution. You wonder if this is how it feels to women. Maybe in the old days too, they just had no choice.

        Right.

        I think in the “old days” there were plenty of women “stuck” with men they were not attracted to — that’s a given. But it’s also true that the sights were not set as high as they are now, because the old mate market hemmed in hypergamy very much, and so the sense of “disappointment” was not nearly the same. People expected less, in other words, and so were less disappointed with situations that today would be divorce-worthy in the eyes of many.

        Women’s curse is that they are not attracted to most of us but they know that it’s better for their kids (which most of them want) if they are bonded with one of us. So they’re stuck. It’s a curse. Their equation is very hard to solve — only a few of them can actually do so in a way that makes them totally “happy”. Every other woman is satisficing. Again, in a world where there were fewer options the sense of disappointment was much less, but today when there are millions of men adoring you everywhere you turn on your cellphone … it’s a different story. The curse bites now. It has fangs.

        Our curse is our incessant need for sex. It makes us stupid, literally, when it comes to women and makes many of us make really, really silly, life-altering decisions that come back to bite us, as well, with fangs.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “The prime reason is that these women have already had sex with men who are objectively more attractive than the men expressing marital interest.”

        I wonder if that’s too optimistic. Sex before marriage makes it worse I’m sure but they still would divide men into “want to have sex with” and the two lower categories (“negotiable” and “no”) with a solid majority of men in the lower categories.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        ”For [women who aren’t sexually attracted to the men they marry], sex with hubby I assume is like sexual assault or at best prostitution. You wonder if this is how it feels to women. Maybe in the old days too, they just had no choice.

        When hubby nags them for sex, pesters them until they give in, they call it “marital rape.” They call it this now – I’m sure of it. You wonder – if that’s what it feels like to them…”

        Rollo wrote about this phenomenon from an evo-psyche perspective that is quite insightful.
        https://therationalmale.com/2019/03/11/womens-existential-fear/

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “For a lot of men, the current marketplace is like this. There’s no upside. Everything is cost, risk, and burden. There’s no advantage, no “in”. More and more men are walking away. Until, they come back to it because a woman who’s around 35 or so finally gives them an “in”. And they come back because… sex. Because men need sex. Because men will do whatever it takes to get sex.”

        Here’s what I’ll add as a view from an older man, namely me. The post-wall women that I’ve known, both the never marrieds and the divorced women, are not women I’d want to be in a relationship with, assuming of course that I was younger and single. They’re still fairly attractive, especially if they’ve kept themselves up and in shape, however there’s a lot of baggage there; some of it that I’m aware of, but not all of it. The 27 year old I knew from the educational program that I’ve mentioned on many of my posts, I only knew her for about ONE YEAR of her life (her 27th year), and a small smattering of things she told me from some of her earlier years. Looking back on the year I worked with her, there were at least TEN YEARS I knew little to nothing about except for a few bits and pieces; and those bits and pieces I can now see looking back with Red Pill lenses were significant. I saw one Red Pill content creator who had a clip on this that was entitled something like, “Don’t date any woman over 27,” then there was a slash through the 27 and it was re-numbered 25. His whole argument was around his view that they’re ‘too emotionally damaged’ by 27, and that he was recommending that they had to be 25 and under for a man to consider dating, let alone an LTR. So, while neither agreeing nor disagreeing with his premise, what jumps out at me is that we’re talking 35 year old’s here. That is a whole decade beyond what he was warning men to stay away from, anything over 25 because they have too many emotional issues from the CC years; which btw may still be going on, the riding that is, on into their thirties. I’ve seen some of these women get wifed up by what the manosphere refers to as simps, and all I can think, “Does this guy have any idea what he’s getting there with her?” Thirty five year old’s have at least a decade and a half, or more, of god only knows what back there in her past. Risky business to wife one up. Oh, and my 27 year old is just about to turn thirty one, and that means there are FOUR MORE years I know nothing about. The one year that I do know about, her 27th, is enough for me to issue a dire warning to any guy thinking he’s found himself a ‘unicorn’ or something or other there. The old cliched saying “Danger Will Robinson” immediately comes to mind. lol

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Deti

        Your college stuff brings back memories

        My oldest brother went off to college in the fall of 1980. He has never had a girlfriend. I don’t even think he kissed a girl in high school. Came back for thanksgiving break that first year with his new college girlfriend and she was really cute too. Like objectively.

        They were already doing the sleepovers-in-the-dorm thing. I was like 9 years old and was very titillated by all this. I don’t remember all the details, but the way I found out about it was through the middle brother. (He was much closer in age to college brother. They were like best friends).

        My mom was furious that oldest brother brought his “slut” girlfriend into our house and had the nerve to ask if she could sleep there.

        And she was super sweet, normal, you know? It wasn’t like he brought home some high heels, prostitutesque fun bag. He was proud of her, wanted us to meet her. They just happened to be “playing house” and this was quite scandalous.

        9 years later, (1989) I did not go to college right after HS but I moved in to an apartment with my girlfriend. We had been planning it the last few months we were in school.

        The reaction from my mom? Yawn.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Read the Rollo link -good article. Indirectly addressed what I was saying: if he doesn’t pass (alpha part of) the hypergamous filter then I can see how it’s like rape/prostitution as experienced by the woman.

        What’s really interesting is his interpretation of abortion which is frequently done to alphas who aren’t alphabux enough but probably also to betas who aren’t betafux enough (less often I’d guess).

        From the link:

        “Why is abortion now something to be celebrated rather than mournfully accepted as necessary evil of this century? Because it alleviates the Existential Fear of bearing and raising the product of a bad Hypergamous choice.”
        ………..
        ……….
        “The Hypergamous Filter has many ways of determining quality. ……….. I have mentioned in other essays that Hypergamy is always based on doubt – doubt that a man is the best she can do – but also the doubt as to whether that guy will stick around and stay committed to parental investment.”

        Rollo is arguing that she wants alphabux of course, thus wild enthusiasm for abortion since alphabux is a male-unicorn who farts rose-scented glitter.

        Very powerful evidence for redpill. Women know abortion is murdering a baby. Most women have protective, nurturing instincts over babies (and cute furry things as substitutes). The hypergamy-filter is so strong though that fully half of them enthusiastically support abortion anyway (overrides their feelings about murdering babies) and it’s banning feels like an existential threat to them.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        So for those following along at home, and as it relates to the overall point of this post:

        From 1980-1990, it went from

        Oldest son brings home his girlfriend whom he is sleeping with from college— no go. She’s a slut.

        To

        Youngest son moves into an apartment with his girlfriend right after high school — good to go..

        Then, for the 90s (I got married in 1993) it went from (end of 80s – early 90s)

        If you are living with/sleeping with your girlfriend and it’s kind of assumed that you are headed in the direction of engagement or marriage or whatever — cool

        To (FFWD to my divorce, in 2000 entering the army at 29 years old, surrounded by late teens/early twenties girls)

        “Scott, just pick one for FWB! You are part of the crowd just old enough to have the confidence for it, but still young enough to attract these girls! You’re a dweeb if you don’t take advantage of all the fun!” (I was told this, explicitly)

        And then the whole time I was in graduate school (where I ultimately met my current wife) I was a mid 30s guy with a decent future trying to navigate the Wild West SMP/MMP

        I can’t believe I landed where I did. Cannot believe it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        So for those following along at home, and as it relates to the overall point of this post:

        From 1980-1990, it went from

        Yes.

        And the thing is … the speed of change has not slowed appreciably. It’s continued apace. As bad as things were for you in the early 2000s, it’s worse than that now. Things continue to become more sex-centered, more commoditized, more depersonalized, more atomized, more alienated. Many contributors to this — social, economic, educational, technological, spiritual — it’s like an avalanche really.

        Like

  17. Scott says:

    So you RP geniuses, riddle me this one. A (former) friend of my wife (housewife with kids, attends Christian mom’s group) told me she likes to watch male-gay-porn. Blew my mind. No clue other than assuming it’s probably hunky dudes or whatever.

    Best explanation I could come up with: what caught her eye was masculine dude conquering another masculine dude which is like masculine dude conquers strong, defiant woman but on steroids. Woman’s totally hetero btw.

    That one was weird.

    Once again. The answer is

    Mars. Time to move to Mars.

    Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      @Scott

      I have a 2 year old girl who puts her arms around my neck every day when I come home and plants a big kiss on my cheek. I feel like I have to stick around for a lot of years for her – she needs me, I want to be there for her.

      But I tell you sometimes I just want to stop taking care of myself so I don’t grow real old.

      Or go back to being a very little boy who only knew Little House on the Prairie, the Waltons and his plastic dinosaurs.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Yes. At almost 50, I have 3, 5, 8 and 12 to look after

        I will stay on as long as I have to do they can have a fighting chance against what’s coming.

        Liked by 5 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        CAMERON
        I know what your saying here!You know that 6 year old first g.f. I had?She loved her daddy and by all indicators(never mentions her mother on facebook!) dispises her mother(Her mother only lives 5 miles from myself right now!)!Think this messed her up into becoming a moderate feminist professor instead of a heavy manowar professor like myself??I was big fan of mainly only plastic DINOBOTS IN 1985!They were best for soon to be MANOWARRIORStm like myself!P.S.You speak alot of truth cameron!
        SCOTTP.S.GUSTAVHOLST the SYMPHONY-METAL PIONEER said MARS:BRINGER OF WAR so be careful there!

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Plastic dinosaurs roger that

        Liked by 2 people

  18. feeriker says:

    “Until, they come back to it because a woman who’s around 35 or so finally gives them an “in”.”

    The “good news” (okay, it’s nothing of the kind, but I can’t think of a better description for it) is that more and more non-top-tier men are recognizing the fact that once women finally turn their attentions to them, it’s out of resignation and resentment, NOT because these women are suddenly attracted to them. It’s because the women have run out of options and are “settling.” The AFC is her consolation prize, her Plan D.

    More and more men have seen, in other men who are their friends and acquaintances, the disaster that results from wifing up an ex-CC Rider who is “settling” for them because she has no other options. Far from “scratching the man’s itch,” hitching himself to her leads, in nearly all cases, to a new round of protracted misery for the male victim, who gets to live with the woman’s perpetual resentment. Different from the years of blue balls and incelibacy, yes, but every bit as agonizing and debilitating, if not more so, given the most disastrous outcome imaginable.

    This is why the “cougar” plague has become more and more of a thing over the last decade. Older women are discovering that they cannot mask their inner narcissist from their potential victims like they once could. There’s simply too much awareness among the younger generations of men. No man wants to permanently commit himself to a woman that he knows is an Alpha Widow, so he manipulates her into being a plate, a sex toy with a pulse, a FWB. He’ll keep her around as long as she keeps the attitude in check, but once her will to do this flags, she’s booted to the curb. She eventually accepts the role of plate/sex toy/FWB because she knows she will never likely do any better. She had her chance to find commitment, but she blew it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Random Angeleno says:

      Dalrock posited that this was happening around the edges. Little by little and then one day we step back to see the big picture graph of the decline as we read the lamentations of the women who left themselves behind. As men have slowly but steadily acquainted themselves with the perils of marrying a woman who is coming off the CC. Along with the perils of family courts and family laws.

      TFH said in his initial screed that there will come a time when men will have no excuse for not knowing this. We’re there now.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      “She had her chance to find commitment, but she blew it.

      NovaSeeker’s last two posts have pretty much explained why we see what Feeriker has described. Sex has become the central feature of male-female relations, so sexual adventurism (touted as “discovering yourself” or YOLO) has become the foremost priority. Various developments like birth control and equal opportunity economics have lowered the need, and thus, the value of commitment.

      This doesn’t change until women begin to value commitment more than sex, which is about the time they grow tired of sex, “burned out” on the CC, and can no longer attract commitment (AKA “hitting the wall”).

      I think some younger women are starting to see this reality among older women. We can only hope that they take it seriously.

      Liked by 4 people

  19. Novaseeker says:

    And the plot thickens.

    An update on the latest OnlyFans “scandal” of the Sacramento mom who was getting hate mail from her neighbors after they learned of her OF shenanigans (which earn her ~150k per month). Well, it turns out that the Catholic school where her kids were enrolled has kicked them out of the school due to her activities, once she made them very public by going to the New York Post with her story.

    Good for them. She says she and her cuckband are looking for another “Catholic” school to send her kids to. I mean wouldn’t want the kids in public school or anything — important to give them a good grounding in Catholic morals, I guess, right?

    https://www.outkick.com/crystal-jackson-only-fans/

    Sex is the King today, folks. The King.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      I mean wouldn’t want the kids in public school or anything — important to give them a good grounding in Catholic morals, I guess, right?

      Of course Ms. OF and her cuckband are going to get the kids into another Catholic school. Because in today’s gestalt and zeitgeist, this couple is not doing anything morally wrong. Sex, sexual activity, and OASIS are weaving themselves into the culture such that they will be accepted much as abortion is today, almost 50 years post Roe, and gay marriage is today, a few years post Lawrence and Obergefell. If abortion is not wrong and gay marriage is accepted, then why shouldn’t a sex worker on OF be accepted and viewed as at least “not wrong”?

      Sex is the King today, indeed. There is almost nothing you can do sexually that can be viewed as wrong or detrimental or immoral, except for minors’ sexual activity. And even that is on the chopping block.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. feeriker says:

    She says she and her cuckband are looking for another “Catholic” school to send her kids to.

    The tragedy is that they’ll almost surely find one – even if the school is aware of her and her activities.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. SFC Ton says:

    I’ve seen it claimed that female defection from your harem is psychologically damaging to the man
    …….

    LOL only when they take your house, car, paycheck, retirement check and your dignity via court induced poverty

    Liked by 1 person

  22. redpillboomer says:

    “Dalrock posited that this was happening around the edges. Little by little and then one day we step back to see the big picture graph of the decline as we read the lamentations of the women who left themselves behind. As men have slowly but steadily acquainted themselves with the perils of marrying a woman who is coming off the CC. Along with the perils of family courts and family laws.”

    This seems to have been increasing the last few years, and I’m still relatively new to this Red Pill landscape (three years). The number of YouTube posts of thirtysomething ‘leftover women’ lamenting their state of singleness is definitely out there. Seen it all from tear-stained confessionals to ranting, shaming tactics…think Tomi Lahren, and ‘PSA’s like hers’ proliferating across the Net; a whole lot from post wall women increasingly ranting. Although Tomi is ‘only 28,’ hers seems to point to the plight of the CC rider looking to jump off the carousel and get commitment from a top 10% male (in her case, more like top 1% dude). They seem to be having increasing difficulties with their AF/BB strategy in that it is not yielding the results it did say just a decade or so ago. Men seem to be wising up to all this stuff and sidestepping it, except for the simps, and the ladies don’t want them, but may have to end up settling for them anyways; or just remain single and start their pet collections.

    Liked by 2 people

    • locustsplease says:

      Miss tomi is not settling for some top %1 scrub. More like settling for mr 1 out of 10,000. I believe she dated an active nfl quarterback. So thats 1 out of several million. Mr 1 out of 10,000. Is the lowest form of life she will settle for. Imagine some poor 1-10,000 blue pill cant even alpha widow that thing!

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Pingback: The Christian Marriage Dilemma | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: The Christian Conundrum | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: On the Turning Away | Σ Frame

  26. Pingback: Viewpoints on Man’s Confusion about How God Works in the Life of a Believer | Σ Frame

  27. Pingback: The Roman Life Script | Σ Frame

  28. Pingback: How to Change a Hostile Culture | Σ Frame

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

  30. Pingback: The Influence of Pornography and OnlyFans on Women | 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