What would the world be like if everyone was Red Pilled?

The Red Pill is fraught with “solutions” that are frankly unrealistic on a larger scale.

Readership: Christians
Length: 1,800 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes

I want to get in on this discussion of the Christian Conundrum, and I found this video from a year ago that sums up my perspective on the Red Pill. A couple months after I made this video, Jack made a distinction between the secular and Christian versions of the Red Pill, but my views are still the same towards the secular applications.

The “Red Pill” is a great way to discern some really important truths about how men and women work. But what’s not as clear is what to do with that information.

I have tried to infuse the two–clinical psychology and various Red Pill topics at hand–and I can’t quite get my finger on a truly original way in which they interact.

Just Tell the Truth (2020 April 11) Length: 14:15

I have my own psychology practice with a handful of coaching clients. Most of my clientele is through emails, and all of them are Christians.  I am not a powerhouse internet guy. I don’t have a big footprint on YouTube. My blog is just a blip in virtual space.  But I am well aware of what is happening in the world.

People these days are really hungry for truth – not everyone of course, but those who are open to the truth are desperately “raging” for it. My readers/clients are really interested in hearing what I think about the impact that certain red pill aspects may have on the individual and whether they are particularly healthy ways of living life.

For example, there’s certain lessons that people miss out on as a result of playing the field, and I would speculate that it may impair people’s abilities to form healthy relationships later in life. They want to know what I think in that aspect and how that could impact an individual. There’s just not a lot of information out there on these kinds of topics, and there’s a complete dearth of information from a Christian standpoint.

I came into the Red Pill in late 2011, and by that time, it had already gotten off the ground and had been up and running for a while.  But for someone who comes into the discussion late, the meaning of the term “Red Pill” basically boils down to the raw truth.

I always liked Dalrock because he had a Christian world view and he addressed topics that were of interest to Christians. It was always one of my favorite blogs. The postings there were always relevant to my interests and what I’m trying to do in life.

Since the death of the Dalrock site, there’s been a vacuum of Christians writing about Christian topics and putting out content from a Christian world view, which is what I’m trying to do by writing and making videos. Sigma Frame is a place I can tell my version of the truth without getting a lot of kickback in my profession. I’ve been searching for the same type of content elsewhere. I’ve found a few sites on YouTube, but there’s not much out there that can compare to Dalrock.

There have been a number of things going on surrounding the Red Pill that have bothered me and have prevented me from embracing this term.

I think that there is a core nucleus of folks who use the term Red Pill, and who seem to believe they should own the “rights” to it. They make their living from this, and when others use the term Red Pill, they get really uptight and anxious about that.  From the content, I can see there’s a lot of argumentation about who came up with what concepts, and trying to assign ownership of the ideas and terms.  The first users of the Red Pill jargon, at this point, are wishing that they would have copyrighted several RP terms.

But personally, I don’t really care about that.  I don’t make any money off of the phrase, Red Pill, or any branding. Most of my work is in psychology and counseling, and that is relatively free from anything Red Pill.

Here’s what bothers me about all of this.

Red Pill coaches always say, “We don’t tell you how to live your life…”, but that’s not really true once you get into the weeds of it. Among the true originators of RP ideology, and most of its proponents, they are mostly an areligious, amoral, crowd. I am uncomfortable with how they pretty much all have the same take on “the truth”.

I have always been a deeply religious Christian for all my life, even though I have strayed very far away from the Christian lifestyle, even though I was wandering in the wilderness for about a decade, I have never lost the faith. I was never not a Christian during any of that timeframe.  Furthermore, much of what I do in my work in psychology deals with morals and ethics.  So I get pretty upset when they tell you that you should be banging lots of chicks, and you should not be getting married anytime soon.

I always ask myself the question, “What if everybody did this?”  I mean, everybody in the whole world.

This approach works, even if you’re not religious, even if you’re not particularly interested in ethics and morality. It works because the question that will always be at the foundation of social values is “What kind of impact will this have on society if it is deployed on a large scale?”

Of course, this presupposes that you have pro-social values, that you are interested in maintaining some kind of rational, stable society. You don’t have to be an ethicist to consider this question.

The typical life trajectory touted by RP coaches has a timeframe that goes like this.

You should be playing the field, working on yourself, making a lot of money, and focusing on “your Mission”, whatever that might be.

Then later in life, around your mid-30s to early 40s, you should be considering whether you want to marry or stay single for the rest of your life.

At that time, if you want to marry, then you should be looking for a virginal, early 20s girl to get married with.

The RP advice is not given to women. It doesn’t concern the situations and needs of women. It doesn’t concern the wider impact on society.  It doesn’t consider Christian values or anything.  It only tries to fill in a vacuum of information concerning men’s life situations.

But it doesn’t even tell men the whole story.  If you spend all of your 20s chasing after your YOUR dreams, your mission, making money… then you’ll lose out on some significant value lessons, and a lot of other good things in life. It might be fulfilling for some guys on a personal level, but it just doesn’t work on a societal level.

The world that would be created by doing exactly what those guys are telling you to do, is a world that I don’t think anyone would want to live in. All those guys are talking about how tough they are, how they don’t need anybody, enjoying the decline, and all that crap. It’s all bravado.

What they are talking about is an apocalyptic end to our civilization where it’s every man for himself and only a few alpha males who are banging 500 girls a year. I don’t think most of those guys could survive in that kind of environment.

If everyone did what those guys are telling men to do, then that is not the kind of world that I would want to live in.

If everyone did all the things that RP gurus are pressing on, then the only types of guys that would be available for my daughters to marry would be the type of guys who spent the last 20 years plowing the fields of women before they decided they were “ready” to settle down with a girl.

I have to say, that is not going to happen. That is just creepy. I don’t want my daughters to marry a guy like that.

I am interested in maintaining the civilization and all that is necessary to maintain society — all the apparatus that we need to have an easy comfortable life for a very long time, all the infrastructure, roads, power systems, the electricity and communications services…

I want a son-in-law who is like minded.

I want my daughters to marry a man who is capable of sticking around and has the guts and willpower to go through pregnancies, illnesses, menopause, mood swings, family disasters…

That kind of discipline will come from his own parents and their parenting of him, and his particular “gene stock”. I may be flamed for saying this, but that’s my stance.

As a father, I am looking for certain aesthetics, I am concerned about the PR and optics.

That’s what I’m looking for in a mate for my daughters.

I have resolved to raise my daughters to respect these types of traits in men — risk taking, character, accountability, courage, and family values – and regard these traits as being attractive.

I realize that this is somewhat at odds with the types of traits that women are fundamentally wired to be viscerally attracted to — hot, sexy, tall, deep voice, and all that. But they are also going to be looking for other character traits. The man in question is going to be marriage minded, and he is NOT going to be a 35-40 year-old ex-PUA. That is just not going to happen.

I realize that there is nothing I can do about that, but I will continue trying to push that over the hill until my dying day. I hope that my children can watch these videos and read the things I’ve written about over the past decade, and understand that and take these lessons to heart. Hopefully, they can carry this on to the next generation.

Anyway, my point here is that this is the reason why I don’t use the term Red Pill anymore. I can agree to telling truths about how the world works, and we probably agree on most of that, but the usual interpretation that RP proponents give about what you should do with those truths, is not a direction that I can go.

Related

This entry was posted in Authenticity, Boundaries, Building Wealth, Child Development, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Collective Strength, Confidence, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline, Education, Headship and Patriarchy, Health, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Influence, Leadership, Love, Male Power, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Perseverance, Power, Psychology, Purpose, Relationships, Respect, Running the Gauntlet, Self-Concept, Stewardship, Strategy, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

185 Responses to What would the world be like if everyone was Red Pilled?

  1. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    SCOTT
    You know the main thing, I have agreed with rollo about for 6 years or so?”Men are the true romantics”!This is obvious with myself especialy right?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Novaseeker says:

    I think one of the elements that impacts a man’s view on these things is whether he has a daughter or not. I don’t mean that in any sort of snarky way, but rather an observational one — I do think it makes a difference as to one’s perspective.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Maybe Nova, but it shouldn’t matter. You will probably have daughter in laws.

      “Enjoy the decline” – that’s their motto – they used to link to this firepit shaped like the earth – “the world is burning.” I respect men who don’t have children, aren’t vested biologically in the future – and yet still care about our civilization’s future. I always felt like I owe something to my ancestors as well as my posterity.

      I guess I probably worry more about my boys on average than I do my daughters. It’s so hard for boys. My oldest son has passed the age and my 2nd son has reached the age where I met my wife. I feel like they’ve missed the opportunity I got. Even around these parts – would any of you let my son marry your daughter even if he is a good Christian man? My son works in a warehouse moving stuff. He’s spinning his wheels. The guys I see successfully married reasonably young – they have good corporate careers.

      For girls, all they have to do is maintain their natural value to be a prize for a serious Christian man. Cultivate a kind, agreeable personality, don’t gain weight, don’t do things with men that you should only do with your husband.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        You can’t do anything about civilization’s future. You can only control you and how you interact with those around you. The rest is above our paygrade. A Muscovite caring a lot about the future of Russia in 1930 could not have done much to impact its direction, regardless of personal virtue or decisions — larger factors were at play. This is always the case, it’s just that it becomes more obvious and unavoidable in times like that than it is in “normal” times. All you can do therefore is chart out the best course under the circumstances, given your personal commitments (including to God, if applicable), and let God take care of the “civilization” part, unless you are one of the few people who actually has a personal impact on that to some extent — and there are remarkably few of those.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        If “saving civilization” is too grand a goal for us as individuals – well I think it’s normal to assume one has some ability to effect the future in your own small way – my recent ancestors did so by marrying and having huge families (German-Catholic with 14 children) so that I could be here to do the same. And “civilzation” can mean “Christian civilzation” part of your committments to God.

        You’re here wasting your time discussing marriage and what the future looks like, what young men (including your son) can do,- there’s a presumption that in your own small way you’ll have some influence on someone.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Influencing individuals is not the issue. Indeed, we can do that, and that can be helpful to the individuals involved and so it can be worth doing. That doesn’t amount to changing a civilization, however, absent massive ability to scale, which we do not have. So it isn’t a reasonable goal to have, in my view. There are other reasonable goals, that just isn’t one of them under the current circumstances.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      lolol, I had a theory about that. With a lot of women who were supposedly raised by strong male fathers, and yet those men weren’t Christians (or strong in the knowledge of what it means to be a Christian)…it seems a lot of them grow up to be the most staunch supporters of Feminism with their fathers backing their every play. I wonder if they’re like this because, as a man, deep down they are a bit self-centered. Meaning, due to their own pride as men, they’re rather see their daughters become “strong and independent” or “Feminists”…than submit themselves to another man…like their husbands, as the Apostle Paul taught. So when they see their daughters competing against men in business, politics, and eventually the family dynamics, as fathers, they’d prefer this as opposed to what the Bible says.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        For the secular men, it’s something like that, yes. It became a source of pride and vicarious satisfaction — the kinds of things that a father would find vicariously satisfying in a son were simply broadened to apply to the daughters as well, in a society which valued achievement of the same type in daughters. I think most of us have come across fathers who have bragged about their daughter “doing better than the boys!” at this or that thing, as a particular source of pride — it is a way of “spiking the ball”, in a competitive sense, with the fathers of said boys, because the implication is that his daughter is better at being a boy than your son is.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        To which I would respond: lesbians don’t produce grandchildren

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        All but two families in the church communities I was in think this way.

        And my communities were
        -conservative
        – predominantly home schooled families
        – even many 2d generation home schooled.

        I can think of 3 reasons why this is so

        1- churches that undergo a theological change throw out the baby, the tub, and the house with the bath water
        2 – the degree of influence culture has on the church and the desire for churchians to fit in, or make life easy for their kids
        3- resentment of their own upbringing.

        Liked by 3 people

  3. Adam says:

    Since the death of the Dalrock site, there’s been a vacuum of Christians writing about Christian topics and putting out content from a Christian world view

    Actually there are a number of us out there. We’ve just moved on from talking about the womensz.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. SFC Ton says:

    Social fabric is held togther with lies and propaganda. A 100% red pill world view across all subjects would be the end of a lot of nations and governments.

    Liked by 7 people

  5. cameron232 says:

    OT: Evidence we’re a tournament species: we’re (de)formed such that men compete by showing off upper body musculature and beating the hell out of each other (upper body muscle is most useful for this since we’re bipedal). We’re like gorillas (actually more like chimps since gorillas are single male mating system). And no you don’t have to believe in macroevolution: we could have “DE-volved” from Adam and Eve to be this way.

    “But this gross similarity masks very different tissue investment strategies by males and females, which, in turn, suggests divergent selective histories, thus undermining conclusions about the human mating system based on overall body-weight dimorphism”

    So yeah, DeepStrength is right – it is a good personal investment to lift weights (with a focus on upper body lifts).

    https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2021/03/a-clarifying-fact-male-and-female.html
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000397?via%3Dihub

    Liked by 1 person

    • whiteguy1 says:

      That’s no excuse to skip leg day!

      (Amazing what lengths men will go to skip doing squats 2-3 times a week.)

      Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      we’re (de)formed such that men compete by showing off upper body musculature and beating the hell out of each other (upper body muscle is most useful for this since we’re bipedal).

      Not really. The real power in a punch starts in the hips. The arms just complete the motion. Besides, all you have to do is watch a skilled striker make hamburger out of an opponent’s legs with kicks to understand the importance of leg strength in fighting.

      I won’t post it here, because it’s pretty gruesome, but you can look up “fight ending leg kicks”, if you want to see what I mean. You can’t fight if you can’t move. Or even stand.

      Even in grappling arts, where upper body strength is arguably most important, the real power comes from the hips. Take-downs, take-down defense, bridging, escapes; it’s all hips. The arms complete the motion, but the hips initiate it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        My guess is in the deep ancestral environment, prior to modern MMA, upper body strength probably dominated in beating the crap out of other men. But men have much greater lower body strength than women do – it’s just the margin isn’t as great.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Also, I don’t know when most men discovered that hip rotation increased punching power – Bruce Lee emphasized this in the 1960s – my guess is this isn’t some sort of ancient, ubiquitous technique that is obvious to most men. I think upper body strength men always impressed women and intimidated other men and were better at beating up other men.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        MMA isn’t modern. The ancient Greeks mixed boxing, and wrestling into a sport they called Pankration, which was contested in the ancient Olympic Games. It was MMA.

        The human body hasn’t changed much in 10,000 years. Every ancient martial art emphasizes hip strength in throwing punches, kicks, knees, grappling etc. Every “new” technique is actually very old. People forget techniques in one generation, then rediscover them generations later, because the most efficient way to hurt a man with ones bare hands 10,000 years ago is still the most efficient way to hurt a man with ones bare hands today.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Visible signs of upper body strength are highly sexually attractive to women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Visible signs of upper body strength are highly sexually attractive to women.

        Yes, they are, and it doesn’t really matter why. We just need to accept that it’s true.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. andrew says:

    “I have to say, that is not going to happen. That is just creepy. I don’t want my daughters to marry a guy like that.”

    The discussion should revolve around the reality in the west today. The fact is, as a father, you no longer have the power to exert your will (as you state above). You actually have no power over your family at all.

    In them olden days, the father could annul the marriage on the day he found out his daughter had intercourse with a man whom he did not approve. He also had the power to arrange a betrothal with another family before the daughter came of age and started playing around.

    As far as finding a husband, the reality as Gen X guy; myself and my colleagues who hold advanced stem degrees could not financially afford to take on a young woman as a wife and mother, provide them with a warm home (the kind women want), and meet all their needs until we were 35.

    Once again, in them olden days, a father would jump head over heels to find an established man willing to take his daughter as wife and provide for her. Looking back, if your daughter met me when I was a blue pill, church going, 25 year old stem graduate; there is NO WAY in hell I was ready to provide for her and start a family.

    She would have to work, which would put her in a place to meet other men; other more successful men possibly.

    Youtuber Kevin Samuels goes over this extensively. High value men don’t hit their earning stride until 35-45+ years of age. Your daughter can try and pick one with potential, but potential won’t pay the mortgage, and you daughter can’t wait till she is 35-45+ to start having babies.

    Unfortunately, I don’t have any good advice for you. I’ve been married for 18 years now to my first wife and she isn’t an American woman.

    Liked by 8 people

  7. dpmonahan says:

    Scott, when I first saw this video last month it really helped me clarify why I have always been uncomfortable with some of the RP stuff:

    1) RP thought is very much tied up with evolutionary psychology, which tends to fall into tautology or “just so stories”. The account of “how the alpha got his game” is pretty much the same as an old wives tale of how the cat got his tail. Also, it claims to be purely descriptive but the goal (satisfying male lust) is baked into the description.
    2) The RP account argues that everything is based on reproduction, but I don’t see any PUAs with large families. A scrawny Orthodox Jew with 9 kids is much more successful in evolutionary terms than a muscle-bound “Alpha” with a string of intentionally sterile one night stands, a sign that they don’t take their own philosophy seriously.
    3) The RP account disregards the fact that humans are semi-rational and very social beings who are capable of some self control and of creating better or worse social orders. Sex is not purely about private drives and personal reproduction but has a social element, the continuation of the community.
    4) If everyone were RP, then the logical thing would be for the “betas” to gang up on the PUAs and either force them into monogamy or expel them from society. Real Red Pill is enforced monogamy, men working together to ensure that the majority of them are able to reproduce, and women working to ensure the majority have social stability. This means controlling both female and male lust. The PUA and the slut are basically social parasites to be shunned.

    I look at RP the same way I look at Marxism, it gets some stuff right but fails because it is an implicitly atheist philosophy: it does not acknowledge the creative Logos or a normative human nature, and reduces the complex human experience to some partial material cause.

    As Christians we really should make our points of departure Genesis and St. Paul’s comments on family. We need to rediscover the concept of authority, which, in the family, flows from the father.

    Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “The RP account argues that everything is based on reproduction, but I don’t see any PUAs with large families. A scrawny Orthodox Jew with 9 kids is much more successful in evolutionary terms than a muscly “Alpha” with a string of intentionally sterile one night stands”

      See English anthropologist Edward Dutton on this. Birth control, long term, may have the effect of increasing the number of biological K-selected people (the religious). The r-selected tend to want to maximize sexual opportunities and you can maximize this by using contraception.

      The meek will inherit the earth.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Think of the red pill as seeing the world for what it is.

      With that, you then have the issue of interpretation and action. Secular v religious worldviews; and those who try to navigate the world and those who try to fight it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. ~ George Bernard Shaw

        Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

        Regarding holy patriarchy, read in reverse:
        Since the heavenly Godhead and also God’s earthly kingdom is patriarchal by God’s good, acceptable, and perfect, will, we should prove it out using our renewed minds, not adapting ourselves to this world, but becoming transformed because that’s our reasonable service and it is acceptable and holy that we offer our bodies as a living sacrifice to that end, and by the mercy of God I ask you to engage in this holy work.

        There are lots of people who can’t change the world. They’re called cowards. ~ Sharkly

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        To add to Sharkly’s comment:

        Romans 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren

        We’re supposed to be conformed to Christ, not the world. And, the more we become like Christ, the more the world will hate us.

        Matthew 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Liz says:

    The world that would be created by doing exactly what those guys are telling you to do, is a world that I don’t think anyone would want to live in. All those guys are talking about how tough they are, how they don’t need anybody, enjoying the decline, and all that crap. It’s all bravado.

    Well, judging by outcomes, it isn’t a world most of them want to live in either.
    The self described pickup artists are having identity crises as they enter into their middle years and find those lifestyles aren’t all that. Many are finding religion (if they had some foundation for it in childhood).

    Liked by 5 people

  9. Liz says:

    I look at RP the same way I look at Marxism
    That’s a good analogy.
    I look at RP purists the same way I look at Randian purists.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Marxists/libertarians look at individuals as economic units to be used for max benefit. The difference is societal v personal.

      If we look at the RP community as being advocates of maximizing sexual gratification, it’s a fair comparison.

      Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        LEXET
        You know I have always seen the redpill in the context of a certain privacy book from a 79 year old guy right?I’m trying to avoid legal entanglements,not trying to get dates or sex,thats popular mainstream redpill,better known as puagamers,not for us self- taught christian attorney-types!P.S.You know why I liked anonymousage 66-72?Because he said all you have to do is read the word of god,not go to some building,thats all about worshipping women or government!Something about ”where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name” that a carpenter in isreal said almost 2000 years ago!

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Liz says:

    Someone way back when (can’t remember whom, but they were far more eloquent than I) described RP purists as kind of like the goth movement in high school.
    So cool and above it all, at first. Then it gets boring.
    “oh! Did you know everyone does everything for self interest?”
    Yes. And it’s really not that much of a monumental earth shattering mystery.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Sharkly says:

      Men are taught from cradle to grave that little girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. That women don’t sin except when forced to by a man. That marital problems are always male leadership problems, not simply female rebellion and failure to submit. Men are “toxic”, abusers, sex-crazed, belligerent, and Etc. Although many of us frequently sensed that all was not as we were told, when we suddenly came out from under the derisive spell and saw the matrix for what it is, it really is a monumental false delusion that has been dispelled. And it really does put you at odds with all the others. It only gets boring if and when you decide that there is nothing you are going to do about it all. Otherwise it is a battle to be fought, and good men are energized by the opportunity to fight for a worthy cause.
      You wouldn’t be the first woman to belittle the holy cause, comparing us to goths. LOL

      I’m a patriarchist, not a goth. But can I still wear black clothes? Or at least my black boots and belt? /S

      Perhaps you mean somethin else by the red-pill, everybody has their own definition, just like they all have their own version of what they believe is the truth they’ve discovered.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        Perhaps you mean somethin else by the red-pill, everybody has their own definition, just like they all have their own version of what they believe is the truth they’ve discovered.

        Yes. I’ve noticed everyone has their own version.
        Much like big L libertarians there’s a lot of debate on who is red pill enough, what the red pill is, and the “not a true red piller” framing when it doesn’t work out. Just wasn’t tried right. Never heard the “red pill” mentioned in the Bible I believe it came from a secular movie. I would not call it a “holy cause”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        Just to add: Red pill purists are essentially what has become known as black pill.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        About the only thing they agree on is that everything sucks.
        They are nihilists.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Just to add (sorry for the quadruple post, just thinking further).
        Imagine for a moment there was a person programmed precisely to be what a red pill purest might argue is perfectly red pill.
        Would that person be a Christian? Would anyone actually like that person?
        There is a reason we aren’t designed this way. We aren’t robots, we’re social animals.
        Seems to me RP should be a philosophy (which can be very useful), not an ideology.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        I usually just think of the red-pill as being synonymous with seeing the truth, instead of just the grand deception like in the movie, The Matrix. The Bible talks about “truth” 224 times.(via KJV word search) Including Jesus Christ claiming to be the Truth. So sharing the truth is a holy and great commission. Our laws should also be made according to the truth, and Etc.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Ame says:

        i agree with Liz that everyone seems to have their own idea of what TRP actually is.

        and surprise of surprises i not only actually agree with Sharkly’s view here, but i also understand it! lol!

        Liked by 3 people

  11. redpillboomer says:

    “Among the true originators of RP ideology, and most of its proponents, they are mostly an areligious, amoral, crowd. I am uncomfortable with how they pretty much all have the same take on ‘the truth’.”

    I concur in many ways with this guy. At first, when I got ‘red pilled’ I listened to the secular content creators extensively on YouTube. It helped me work through my ‘red pill rage,’ and gradually ‘kill off’ my inner blue pill/beta mentality and conditioning from our society. So, these guys were a big help for me during that initial year of being RP. After awhile, I began getting increasingly uncomfortable with some of the aspects of their messages, much like the guy talks about in this clip, and I said to myself, “I wonder if their are any Christian men doing this RP stuff?” Then I found Dalrock’s site and it was like, “Ah, this is what I’ve been looking for, RP views from a Christian standpoint!” I ate it up. Then, Dalrock stopped his blogging, and I went looking for another Dalrock like site; I found this one. I still listen to a handful of the secular RP guys because I do find it reminds me that it is a veritable ‘jungle’ out there in the relations between the sexes, but now it’s more of a sociology lesson I get from them, i.e. where’s our culture going, what are the latest trends, etc. then it’s knowledge about intersexual dynamics. Sites like this one, and Dalrock’s before, cause me to link back to the Scriptures because I personally believe all the ‘RP knowledge’ about male-female relations, and other relationships we have in life, are in the scriptures, plus the wisdom and understanding to go along with the knowledge. Albeit, the scriptural RP is spread throughout the Bible (Genesis, Proverbs, Epistles, etc.), so it takes some doing to link it all together, but as I increasingly link it all together, it’s like, “Yep, it’s all in there in one form or another. There truly is Nothing New Under the Sun” (as Solomon says). So, I see a site like this as an excellent bridge between the Secular Red Pill and the Scriptures. And like the guy in the video, I too feel more comfortable with the Christian RP content creators and their sites.

    Keep it up gents! You’re providing an invaluable service to all of us!

    Liked by 5 people

  12. Rock Kitaro says:

    Nice read! With a lot of Red Pill speakers, it does seem that while they think they’re trying to help men, the lack of morality (no clear sense of right or wrong) really does create this self-serving attitude. That’s why a lot of them don’t get it when Christians talk about where Christianity fits in the dating scene. They’re response is, “Leave Christianity at the door because girls ain’t checkin’ for that.”

    Of course, my response would be, “Well, it’s a good thing I don’t worship women, or sex, or myself.”

    From what I’ve seen, there is at least Kevin Samuels who’s dropping some Red Pill truth on women. But even there, I’ll hear women call in and agree… but you really do get the sense that they’re agreeing just because they can’t refute the argument. Meaning, as soon as they hang up, they’re still going to do whatever they want, with the “I was young and we all make mistakes” card in their back pocket.

    When it comes to the traits you’re looking for in men for your daughters… why is “risk-taking” included? I ask in earnest. Because as a Christian, I never saw following Christ or applying Bible principles as a risk. Definitely a sacrifice. But is a sacrifice with the faith of greater rewards a risk?

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Elspeth says:

    This is excellent, Scott. Thanks for sharing your view.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. feeriker says:

    Well written, Scott. A lot to think about here.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Oscar says:

    I realize that this is somewhat at odds with the types of traits that women are fundamentally wired to be viscerally attracted to — hot, sexy, tall, deep voice, and all that. But they are also going to be looking for other character traits. ~ Scott

    Hey, I possess 1/4 of those traits! Score!

    I have resolved to raise my daughters to respect these types of traits in men — risk taking, character, accountability, courage, and family values – and regard these traits as being attractive. ~ Scott

    There are a bunch of us out here raising sons to possess those traits (risk taking, character, accountability, courage, and family values), and raising daughters to value those traits. The challenge is getting our kids together. That requires community.

    I’ve never been into the “enjoy the decline” side of the androsphere. That’s nihilism. I’m not a nihilist. I am, by natural inclination, and by training, a builder. A builder can’t be a nihilist. A builder needs a reason to build, a purpose, meaning. A nihilist rejects all of that. Children – a posterity, a legacy – give a man a reason to build.

    I’m also not trying to “save Western Civilization”, or whatever. That task is too big for me. I just want to influence the small group of people with whom my Lord blessed me. But, again, that requires community. We’re pack animals, for better and for worse.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Lexet Blog says:

    “The RP advice is not given to women. It doesn’t concern the situations and needs of women. It doesn’t concern the wider impact on society. It doesn’t consider Christian values or anything.”

    Of course. Our society is based on the wants of women, and men cannot change it. Any attempt to do so is suicide.

    So the “RP” applications are how to navigate the system we have been dealt with.

    If we lived in a world controlled by RP knowledge, we would have a completely different system.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Scott,

      I don’t think you have any disagreement with idea of the Christian red pill, just the label of RP itself. (Correct me if I am wrong)

      I wrote a post a long time ago on mapping out the red pill. I’m not sure if it was republished here.

      RP is an umbrella, with the largest group being pua, then mgtow, then incel, and followed by Christian/ Catholics.

      If we were to abandon the RP label, what would you replace it with?

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        Lexet,

        “I wrote a post a long time ago on mapping out the red pill. I’m not sure if it was republished here.”

        This post is in your drafts folder (as well as a few others). When you finish revising it, I’ll post it.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. RichardP says:

    I’ve posted variations of this elsewhere, over time. Some of you may have seen it. This Point 1 is a simple view of one of the fundamental problems of the human condition that I put together years ago for my daughter, along with other Points 2 – n; not the Points 2-5 below). It provides a rock-bottom foundation on which I have built other conversations with her. Seems that it works for this converation in this thread as well.

    1- Our relationship to reality: (The truth exists, regardless of our ability to perceive it.)

    a. Primary Reality – What is
    b. Secondary Reality – What is perceived
    c. Tertiary Reality – problems created by the discrepancy between 1(a) and 1(b).

    We don’t respond to what is.
    We can only respond to what is perceived.

    d. What is this that is happening to me? To you?
    e. What does it mean?

    We take in stimuli from the world around us through our five senses. We make sense of
    this incoming stimuli through our cognition, our ability to think.

    f. The soundness of our five sense, the soundness of the biological basis of our brain, and
    the amount and quality of things we have been taught are the basis of our ability to
    perceive. Deficiencies in any of these will limit our ability to perceive. And we all have
    deficiencies of one sort or another. The brain cannot work well unless the biology of the
    body is willing.

    As our ability to perceive improves, the number of things we perceive will increase.
    In simplest terms, this means that, as we age and gain experience, our thinking changes.

    The “Red Pill” from the Matrix movie was something one took to be better able to perceive Primary reality. The guys in the Manosphere over the last several years have been using the term “Red Pill” as a verbal shortcut to describe their efforts to help men move their personal Point 1(b) above (what they perceive) closer to the universal Point 1(a) above (what actually “is”), so as to reduce the men’s personal Point 1(c) above (problems caused by discrepancies between Points 1(a) and 1(b). On its face, that is a noble effort.
    Problems in the Manosphere over efforts to move men’s Point 1(b) closer to the universal Point 1(a) generally came about because they ignore (or don’t realize it exists) everything I wrote at Point 1 above below Point 1(c). That is, a) the pushers of “Red Pill” awareness have set Point 1(a) above to be about girls who frequent bars and other pickup places, and b) they don’t much discuss the reality that we are not all able to achieve the same levels of perception.

    Beyond the faults I mentioned in Point 3 above, the Manosphere had / has the noble goal of helping men come to understand the things that a certain cohort of women respond to. It may be that all women respond to the things that the Manosphere has defined, but I don’t think that has been proved yet. We just know that the women in view in most Red Pill discussions are those in bars and other pickup places. I’m thinking that only certain personality types are attracted to those places. Which leaves many other personality types unexplored and untested by the players in the Manosphere.
    Someone upthread mentioned that one can learn these “what women really respond to” truths by reading the Bible, but these truths are pretty spread out. True. But there is also this – which has never been taught in any church I have attended over the years. So how are the guys to know this, unless someone in their family points it out? But if no one in the family has ever had this pointed out to them, how are they to know either?

    Before Paul said anything in the New Testament about relations between husband and wife, God told this to the world about husband and wife: she was created to help him, and he would rule over her (not rule her; rule over her. There is a difference). Those are actually flip sides of the same coin. The one who “helps” carries out the instructions given by the one being “helped”. Putting ones own agenda aside and focusing on the agenda of the one being helped is an act of submission. The one giving instructions, telling the help what he needs them to do, is an act of “ruling over”. Look at the definitions of the old-English terms husband and husbandry and you see they encompass this same sort of distinction / definition. He tends to his estate, rules over it, by doing those things necessary to keep it alive and thriving. In the case of husband and wife, reflecting what God set up by creating Eve to help Adam do the same, the husband rules over / cares for his estate, with the help of his wife. He makes the plans, figures out what he wants to do (often in consultation with her), gives his wife guidance and instructions to carry out that help him do what he wants to do. By definition, that behavior, established by God, creates a hierarchy that no definition of Kephale can ever undo.

    And one doesn’t need to read more than a couple of verses in Genesis to learn all of that. God made Eve to be a helper. In order to help, she needs to be given proper instructions. She wasn’t created to be out front, creating the vision, giving instructions to husband for him to carry out. In spite of all the arguments that go on in the Manosphere about “blaming the guys”, the truth is this – if she was created to help, and you let her know in no uncertain terms that you don’t need her help, she cannot be what she was created to be. She can only be what she was created to be if husband gives her information about what she can do to be helpful to him. Giving those instructions would be the “ruling over”. Carrying out those instructions would be the “submitting” That is what God told the world in a few verses in Genesis. It doesn’t get any more complicated than that (in concert with humankind’s natural inclination to rebel).

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      We just know that the women in view in most Red Pill discussions are those in bars and other pickup places. I’m thinking that only certain personality types are attracted to those places. Which leaves many other personality types unexplored and untested by the players in the Manosphere.

      As we have discussed here, the market has moved to online dating to a large degree. Aaron Renn, not a member of the manosphere or a subscriber to “the red pill” as a general matter, focuses his newsletter on this fact and the salient impacts today, in fact: https://themasculinist.com/the-truth-about-online-dating/

      The characteristics of the online dating market are like what bars and clubs used to be (bars are actually now becoming passe, because women tend to prefer apps to bars for rather obvious reasons) except even worse for men, because the “looks cut” is severe. The same basic understanding as explained by red pill principles applies in the app dating environment, except that it is even harder, and has more participation.

      Renn’s recommendation in his article is to go offline, which is an obvious recommendation to make, but even he had to do something fairly extraordinary (public speaking in front of a significant crowd, which included the woman he was trying to attract — which is not something an “average guy” would do — Renn is in no way an average guy in many respects) in order to make that work. And, he apparently had no dice in NYC (which gets to the point I made here a few posts ago about changing location … Renn did exactly that).

      The reality is this. The idea that the core principles of the red pill (women’s attraction vectors, hypergamy, life phasing changing women’s targets in dating, life trajectory over time, risks in relationships and so on) are either (1) the same as PUA (they are not) or (2) only applicable to bars/clubs/pickup-joints and the small subset of women who populate them, is simply false. That’s true of PUA. PUA has some overlap with red pill, but it isn’t the same thing, because PUA is focused on “pickup”, and was never shy about that. Red pill is broader, and applies to women in general (including being married to one of them), and is, in fact, generally applicable, whether one is using PUA-style techniques or not, because these techniques are PUA and are not actually the red pill. The red pill is the understanding of the environment (again, I will restate it verbatim: women’s attraction vectors, hypergamy, life phasing changing women’s targets in dating, life trajectory over time, risks in relationships and so on), not specific techniques, because many people who are following red pill ideas are not PUAs and are not practicing pickup techniques, or in fact trying to meet women at all — they are trying to manage their existing relationships with women. There are entire communities for “married red pill” and “Christian red pill” on reddit, for example. It’s simply distorting and/or out-of-date to state that PUA and red pill are the same, or that red pill is only about bars and clubs.

      Kind of a waste of breath, because it, like many other things we discuss, is one of the old, long-standing “arguments” in this neck of the internet, but may as well get the contra case out for the record.

      Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “We just know that the women in view in most Red Pill discussions are those in bars and other pickup places.”

      Yes, I saw this too in listening to the secular RP content creators and the some of the Christian RP content as well. Expanding the ‘bars and pickup place’ women phrase a bit, it seems the majority of the manosphere focuses primarily on secular women, especially the twenty somethings, willing to fornicate with the oft-mentioned ‘Alpha’ males, i.e. the hot stud, or better yet, the hot stud with resources and/or status. It’s often accompanied by the 80-20 or 90-10 rule commentary that the vast majority of these secular, willing to fornicate young ladies, are out and about chasing the top 20% (one out of five), or even top 10% of men (one out of ten). This I believe you’re referring to as the 1b being touted by the majority of the manosphere content creators as 1a reality for men. Here’s what I wonder about: What really is 1a now with the female gender (male gender too, although we focus first on females on sites like this)? Is it even possible to pull back and grasp possibilities for men and women who want to be in relationships these days to get a better picture of what 1a is really like–out there in the totality of society? One concern I’ve had is that the manosphere seems to think 1a is the only reality, or the vast majority of reality, in what you described above RichardP and I elaborated a bit on with this post. It would seem like the young men have, according to the ‘sphere, an either or choice in seeking relationships: either PUA/Player or MGTOW (monk or a little playing on the sde), or Incel (Black Pill in it’s extreme form of expression). How close is 1a in reality to what the RP content creators seem to be implying all the time throughout their video clips and blog posts? I wonder? Oh, yes, and I married off my son last year, daughter next year, so I’ve got a personal interest in bringing this up. The manosphere seems to indicate these two men (my son and son-in-law) are more than likely to be headed toward ‘losing half their stuff’ in the family courts when their wives hypergamy kicks back in and the ladies begin to feel ‘unhappy’ with their LTRs that don’t give them the same romantic feelz’s/dopamine highs that they were getting early in the relationship. Now supposedly, they’ll want to go back ‘into the wild,’ hunting the ‘big game alpha males,’ so the can get the feelz and dopamine highs back again. Is this really 1a now in our culture–across the board? I know my question is rhetorical, but I don’t fully buy the case yet that this is what we have descended to, and it’s all we have left. Is it just flat out hopeless to swim against the cultural tide anymore? How close to this 1a are we really? I most certainly believe this version of 1a RichardP describes above exists, I’ve seen some of it with my own eyes, but how prevalent is it really? IDK. Views anyone?

      Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “…if she was created to help, and you let her know in no uncertain terms that you don’t need her help, she cannot be what she was created to be.”

      This is an intriguing angle for inquiry. Adjusting it a bit: “If she was created to help, and you let her know in certain terms that you need her help, then she can be what she was created to be.

      It seems to be a starting point for educating the young men: 1) She was created to help you, 2) You, the man. need to be certain of your terms (which would align with God’s terms for the man in relationship–as taught to him by God’s Spirit and older men passing down their wisdom), and 3) Now, she has the possibility to be what she was created to be, assuming she is willing, aka Biblical submissive and respectful of the man’s headship (rule over her, not ruling her).

      Tall order these days to pull this off.

      It does seem culturally in our past, before all the sexual revolution stuff, the girls were being trained by their mom’s and grandmother’s to assume this role. I even remember when I was in Junior High, they still had Home Economics classes for the girls–cooking, sewing, etc albeit they were being phased out, but the the tail end of that era was still in existence in the early to mid-70s.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Adjusting it a bit: “If she was created to help, and you let her know in certain terms that you need her help, then she can be what she was created to be.

        How about: “She was created to help, so let her know in certain terms that you only need, or want her if she’s able and willing to help.”

        Liked by 2 people

  18. RichardP says:

    A short distance down from the top of my previous post, the following sentence had a number one in front of it. In the body of my post, I make reference to that “number one”. When you encounter that language, just assume that the number one is there – in front of the sentence that begings this way:

    “Our relationship to reality:”

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Jay says:

    The problem today is the plethora of sexually impure women (woman who have had relations outside of marriage, i.e., premarital sex or adultery) in the western world. There are numerous studies (you can look them up yourself – check out the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia for starters) showing that if a woman has only one sexual partner other than the man she eventually marries, the odds of that marriage ending in divorce (initiated by the woman 84% of the time) go from 18% (there is still an 18% chance of divorce if you marry a virgin) to 50%. According to the CDC, as of 2015, 97 % of women between the ages of 22 and 44 have engaged in premarital sex. Knowing this, even if a man was willing to take the chance of being cucked himself (to use a Red Pill term), I still think no man has a right to do that to his children (have them raised in a broken home).
    I agree that the Red Pill is not an answer for the successful continuation of society. It is merely a way for men to respond to the reality of the sexual revolution (the separation of sex from reproduction) and the opening of Pandora’s Box (the freeing of women’s sexual nature).
    Even if 90% of men remained chaste before marriage, as long as women continue to engage in premarital sex, the 97% of women who choose to do so today could be “serviced” by the 10% of men who chose to be sexually active before marriage.
    I don’t see any way we can put the toothpaste back into the tube. Unless your daughter and large numbers of her sisters decide they want marriage and children enough to get married early and forego the material pleasures of this dying modern world, I think only an apocalypse can save us.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. thedeti says:

    I am interested in maintaining the civilization and all that is necessary to maintain society — all the apparatus that we need to have an easy comfortable life for a very long time, all the infrastructure, roads, power systems, the electricity and communications services…

    I want a son-in-law who is like minded.

    I want my daughters to marry a man who is capable of sticking around and has the guts and willpower to go through pregnancies, illnesses, menopause, mood swings, family disasters…

    That kind of discipline will come from his own parents and their parenting of him, and his particular “gene stock”. I may be flamed for saying this, but that’s my stance.

    Maybe someone else has said this already. I haven’t studied all the comments.

    If we want those things: A functioning society, marriageable men, from families consisting of marriageable men and women, then we as a society have to incentivize those things.

    And we do not.

    The people who invent and build infrastructure, roads, ‘lectricity, power, and smartphones are men. And we don’t incentivize most men to do those things. If you want men to do hard jobs, you have to incentivize them. The way you get men to do hard things is with money and p * ssy. Give them cash, and give them sex.

    If you want a man capable of sticking around and has the guts to go through sh!+ with a woman, then you have to give him a woman who will stick with him.

    If you want parents capable of creating men like this, then you have to incentivize those parents to do it.

    We do not. There is absolutely nothing in it for men to do all this hard work. If anything, men who play by the rules are punished and deprived. Men who did it the way everyone else told them to do it got shafted and screwed over. Men who put their shoulders to the plow become like Boxer in Animal Farm. He is pushed to work harder and harder, he complies and gets nothing for his effort, and is sent to the glue factory on his death.

    Why should any man do this? Some will tell us “because it’s the ‘right thing to do’.” Well, hell. What for? So he can die an early death with nothing to show for it? So he can live for years in grinding inceldom? The “best” he can do is make some money and buy some stuff, and waste some of that money on sin, possibly. He can’t even reflect God’s glory back to Him with a family.

    Society has made it very, very clear that it does not want men like the ones you want. Women have made that clear. No one wants these men. Women don’t want them for sex or marriage. Women want these men only when it’s time for them to move from one apartment to another. Other men bully them. Society mocks them. Churches henpeck them with demands to “man up and marry the sluts”, constant exhortations to avoid p0rn and neverending harangues with how crappy and low they are.

    I get where you’re coming from, Scott, I really do. But we can’t have men like that unless we give them reasons to be created, or for them to create themselves. And right now, we do not.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      My mother died about a week ago. My father, my sister, and I buried her a couple of days ago.

      She was married to my dad for over 50 years. Dad was, and is, a man who stuck with her through all that sh!t and more. He came from a time where men like him were incented to work, to marry, and to stay married. He married a woman who stuck with him. Neither of them were easy people to live with or be married to. I am convinced no one else could ever have stayed married to either of them.

      I, their son, was raised to be the kind of man Scott describes in his post. I, and millions like me, played by the rules, did our best, worked hard, and married. And we were shafted, screwed over, used, manipulated, exploited, and taken advantage of. I experienced some of it but not by any means the worst.

      I can’t in good conscience tell men they should be what Scott describes. There’s nothing in it for them.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ Deti

      we can’t have men like that unless we give them reasons to be created, or for them to create themselves. And right now, we do not.

      I think Scott is addressing the demand side of that equation by raising daughters that want that kind of man. So am I. So is Elspeth. So are others that I know in real life.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        I don’t know your girls. Or E’s girls. But, yes. If women want these kinds of men, then you need to train them to do the following

        –those women absolutely MUST make it crystal clear that they want nice, kind, mild mannered men with jobs and cars and their own places. They need to make it crystal clear that those kinds of men tingle them.

        –they need to pursue those men, HARD. They need to bang those men over the heads with their attraction to them.

        –if they cannot do that, at the very least, at a bare, bare minimum, those young women must make it as easy as possible to pursue them. They MUST make it crystal clear to those men that pursuing them is safe. They need to make it clear to those men that they will not be accused of sexual harassment or rape merely for being in those women’s presence. If they can hold signs over their heads saying “IT IS SAFE TO ASK ME OUT”, that would be a great idea.

        –they need to NOT nuke reject these men. If they must reject some of them, do it firmly, but kindly, quietly, and discreetly, and DO NOT EVER TALK ABOUT IT TO ANYONE.

        –they are not to sic their parents, pastors, brothers, male friends, or anyone else on these men, EVER.

        –They need to date these men, get serious with these men, marry these men, and have as much sex as these men want, without argument, complaint, or issue. They need to do what these men ask, as often as they ask, in the manner they ask, when they ask, without argument, complaint, or question. They need to have, and raise, these men’s children. They need to stay with these men no matter what.

        If you want men like this, then women have to date them, marry them, have their babies, and stay with them. Period. End of discussion. It is on WOMEN to fix this particular problem here.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Deti

        My oldest girls are of age now, so we’ll soon see. Maybe my wife and I did a good job, maybe we didn’t. Plus, free will always gets a vote.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. feeriker says:

    If we want those things: A functioning society, marriageable men, from families consisting of marriageable men and women, then we as a society have to incentivize those things.

    Unfortunately, the collapsing society in which we now live has conflated “incentivize” with “coerce” when it comes to anything it wants out of men. Our current “child support model” of marriage might serve as Exhibit A in the Anglophone West. THAT is what we need to be very, VERY afraid of. Of course coercing men rather than incentivizing them has NEVER produced, nor ever will produce anything for society of lasting value (how many grand, lasting accomplishments were achieved by men enslaved as “zeks” by Stalin and pressed into Soviet Gulag labor camps? “Zer0” is too inflated a number [see: The White Sea – Baltic Canal</> for one very prominent example of that particular time, place, and regime]). But, given that humans are incapable of learning lessons from history, this will dissuade no one from doing more of what has failed so miserably and caused such utter destruction.

    “Society,” if it were a rational entity, would be thankful that men are only refusing to produce. The way society treats them, they should be actively destroying on a massive scale.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Adam says:

    Deti,

    My sympathies for your loss.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    EVERYBODY
    I’m all lit up today,I could go off at any moment!
    Faulchi the faker ,please make me well,Oh i’ll be a good boy,just get me out of this hell!?Right?
    All the gamer -cops failed!!!MGTOW,no matter what will prevail!!!
    Tell me who is the biggest gang of MINZ in western civ?I ain’t going nowhere,nohow!You have been watching the makings of the MGTOW legions,for the last 40+ years and still don’t beleave it!?I walk into the MANOSPHERE &everybodys staring!WHY?I’m just a christian- MGTOW, pushed to the limit!!!To all my ”BLOOD brothers” stay strong out there,while keeping your head(in gods image!) held high(for daladiez!That are not going to get their diamond!)!!!Theres going to be a throwdown sooner or later anyhow!!!P.S.Anybody up for a rap-battle ,shake&bake off!?P.S.Does anybody seriously beleave america won’t be drenched in blood within the next 15 years,while dougie wilson will still be misunderstood by even dal’ then too!?

    Like

  24. locustsplease says:

    I’ve noticed the PUA community gas lights when they encounter truth they don’t like. Recently, I watched a video with several popular ones and they claimed financially successful men are just surrounded by women. The 3 incels I know all make 6 figures in their early 30s. Women would rather die than date them because they don’t have any SMV. They also criticize women for getting pumped and dumped, and then pump and dump women.

    One said, “Women won’t cross you if you have frame”, and that girls don’t sh!t test him. Well, if that’s true, then I would have to kick so many girls out of my apartment that the security guard is used to it. Pumping and dumping women is degenerate behavior. I did it before I was a Christian. I won’t do it again, and I speak out against it in my personal life.

    Its amazing how many people tell me, “You should be out there pumping and dumping” and “Hey, my girl has a friend you could pump and dump.” They can’t believe I’m not interested. Christian guys have told me, “Well, my relationship started that way.” I tell them, “I’m not having relationships like that.” And they look at me like I’m on a high horse.

    Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      LOCUST
      Your right some of the most dumbest men on women are guys gaming women with drugs like oxycotin,then wondering why non-drugged women don’t like them!As usual it just keeps going&going in a circle!I have known for decades, it dos’nt matter how much women/soceity likes or don’t like you!But these guys who get the cops called on them after gaming women are experts?

      Like

    • cameron232 says:

      “They also criticize women for getting pumped and dumped and then pump and dump women.”

      A woman loses a huge amount of value when her notch count becomes n=1 (excluding married women). So these men are pumping and dumping women who are playing the harlot (I’ll focus on the behavior rather than calling them “harlots”, “sluts”, etc.).

      Yeah to men there’s something qualitatively different about a virgin and non-virgin. THis is why the PUA’s don’t see the contradiction in their behavior and the women’s behavior. Men, women – not the same.

      Yes, it’s not Christian of course and you shouldn’t do it.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Elspeth says:

    It is on WOMEN to fix this particular problem here.

    I hear you Deti, and I agree that women have a role to play in rebuilding some semblance of a sane society and one where family formation can begin again. But I have to take exception to this. Women don’t solve system wide problems,women don’t build functional civilizations, and women can’t fix what’s broken.

    The very idea that we have this capacity is a huge part of what’s wrong with the world right now.

    Our girls are strong Christians, still live at home respect their father, and save their money They are attractive, if not gorgeous. They look like me. If you’ve followed my blog, or have been engaged with me in an blog relationship for several years, then you’ve probably seen at least a pic one of them -perhaps all- at some point.

    But they are not out there chasing down men, and I don’t foresee a scenario in which they would do that. They have been taught to be open, engaging, and kind with any man who has the courage to put himself out there like that. And they have done that. I recently watched as one of them let a highly unsuitable man (just trust me on that, please) down very gently, probably more gently than I would have as a single woman. But then, I was younger and slightly less mature when I was single.

    They are doing their part. But you can’t make marriageable (i.e. good Christian men not just jobs and cars which are of also important) men appear out of thin air. I’ve even told them, early on that a 10-12 year age difference is perfectly acceptable as well.

    The big lie here is that women have it exponentially easier than men, and that’s only true for women who are willing to “audition” for a coveted wife role. I auditioned for my own husband or who knows how much older I may have been before I got married. If not, it’s no easier for the women than the men.

    I was actually thinking of sitting this discussion out, because even though I know it’s marked “Christians” as readership, the major thesis is about the challenges men face, which I agree are numerous and daunting. However, there are some Christian men AND Christian women of good faith suffering through this morass, and part of the way forward is to approach one another with grace. Maybe, just maybe, some of them might find each other. But not if the default is that all the women are evil and all the men are evil.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Well, then, we will continue sliding down this path.

      Because men are not going to stick their necks out for women anymore. You want these men, you are going to have to get your girls to meet them AT LEAST halfway.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Because what you just wrote is pretty much that our generations messed it all up, and today’s young men have to go fix it and pay for it while today’s young women sit back and judge their efforts. Nope. That’s not gonna fly, I don’t think.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        That’s not what I said. Women do have a role to play, it just can’t be the lead role. Men can make a lot of headway by refusing to take up with unsuitable women, as hard as I know that is to do given the sexual differential between men and women.

        Seriously, what kind of man wants an aggressive woman? And how does that bode for the pattern and tone of the relationship?

        I was listening to Andrew Klavan recently (I’m a huge fan of the Daily Wire guys), and he talked about the dance between men and women and how men want to execute their biological imperative (spread seed) and women have a responsibility to resist until the right set of circumstances are in place (marriage, security, etc.).

        From a Christian perspective, what women MUST do is stop putting out, even if that means waiting a super duper long time for a husband. And when I say that I mean stop putting out to Christian men. And this is a thing that happens.

        Christian women and Christian men MUST stop “mission dating” based on the hotness of a person that they know is not believer (irony is not lost on me here).

        But the idea that women can fix this as the lead architects?

        Nah.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        I disagree.

        Men can’t do much of anything now, with women in the power position, which is where they are now.

        Second, I didn’t say “aggressive”. I never once said women have to be aggressive. Don’t put words in my mouth. A woman making herself available is NOT aggressive. A woman throwing out IOIs is NOT aggressive. Her making her attraction for a man clear is NOT aggression. Her making clear that she’s not going to jam a man up with a bogus sexual harassment complaint is NOT aggression.

        If you want men to dance with women, as Klavan talks about, then women have to make clear they are willing to dance.

        what women MUST do is stop putting out, even if that means waiting a super duper long time for a husband. And when I say that I mean stop putting out to Christian men. And this is a thing that happens.

        OK. That means no putting out for ANYONE, including Chad and Tyrone. That means if Christian men are going to pay full price, then they’re getting unused goods. That means women have to have the character and discipline to not put out And that is NOT men’s fault that women are putting out. It’s certainly not Christian men’s fault, since women are making it crystal clear they don’t want ANYTHING from Christian men, except muscle when it comes time to move out of daddy’s house into her own apartment.

        Christian women and Christian men MUST stop “mission dating” based on the hotness of a person that they know is not believer (irony is not lost on me here).

        Indeed. Pots, kettles and all that.

        No, Christian women have to make it clear to Christian men that they want those men, that they will date those men, that they will marry those men and have their babies, and that they will not screw it up for those men. Men will take care of the rest, but women have to do AT LEAST that much.

        Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “The big lie here is that women have it exponentially easier than men…”

      Women do have it exponentially easier than men if they’re looking for a man to marry because:

      They’re born with value which is theirs to lose. They just have to stay thin, not disagreeable and chaste. They just have to NOT do certain things (overeat, be a b!tch and have sex with someone you’re not married to).

      Men are highly attracted to most of them when they’re young (assuming they don’t get fat). Men don’t care what their “potential” is. Men want to marry her not her potential – like Scott and Oscar have described.

      Men have to earn their value, they’re not born with it. Men have to contend with the 80/20 attraction inequality thing. Men have to do the things that DS talks about: work out to be in the top 20%, cultivate a life mission, get a good, high status job. And they have to do this in a culture that treats them with contempt, a boomer father in law who thinks he’ll never be good enough for princess. They have to take the divorce/alimony/child support risk. Etc.

      Liked by 3 people

  26. thedeti says:

    Okay, Elspeth. We’ve had this discussion before.

    Women don’t solve system wide problems,women don’t build functional civilizations, and women can’t fix what’s broken.

    Men can’t solve this either and men cannot fix it either. The only way to fix it is for women to start dating, marrying, and reproducing with these men. That’s how you incentivize the creation of these men.

    But they are not out there chasing down men, and I don’t foresee a scenario in which they would do that.

    What the hell is so hard about being available? What’s so hard about introducing yourself to a man you’re attracted to? What’s so hard about going up to a man and saying “Hi. I’m [E’s daughter]. How are you?”

    Can we at least agree that women are going to have to make it easy for men, or at least easier?

    They are doing their part.<?i>

    No they’re not, not if they’re not making it easier for good men.

    But you can’t make marriageable (i.e. good Christian men not just jobs and cars which are of also important) men appear out of thin air.

    I know that, and I never said otherwise. We have to incentivize their creation, and women have a huge role to play here. At the very least, women have to avoid discouraging their creation.

    The big lie here is that women have it exponentially easier than men

    Women do have it easier than men. The only women who don’t have it easier are very unattractive women, and there aren’t many of those women.

    E, all you’re really doing here, with all due respect, is handwringing and pointing out the problem. Again, respectfully, we know what the problem is. At least I’m here with a solution. What’s yours? What do you propose be done? Because “men have to fix this while the womenfolk sit back and decide whether we like your repairs” ain’t gonna cut it, not anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      My solution? My solution is revocation of the 19th Amendment (universal suffrage in general really), overturning Roe V. Wade, and arranged marriages, but all my friends think I’m crazy, and they’re among the most conservative bunch I’ve ever known. So…

      Oh. But I guess you mean a solution that might have a snowball’s chance of becoming reality. Truth is, in this climate, there isn’t one.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Well, then, buckle up, sister, because while you point at the men and shriek “fix it!”, we’re doing our best to keep the roller coaster on the collapsing out of repair track.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Get your girls to meet them halfway. Meet them halfway.

        What’s so wrong with that? What, girls can’t do that? Girls can’t decide they want this and not that? Girls can’t say “yes” and “no”? Girls can’t assert themselves in a relationship? Girls can’t make it clear to a man they like, that they like him? Girls can’t throw out an IOI or three to help things along?

        Really? It’s all f * d up, because of women, and you’re telling men they STILL have to do 95% of the work?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        They can meet them halfway. I never said they wouldn’t or couldn’t.

        What you described was not “halfway”. What you described is woman leading the dance, hitting him over the head with a club and leading the connection. Then switch the narrative and become submissive.

        Is that kind of man even aware that his woman is supposed to submit to him? Or what to do with her when she does?

        I apologize in advance if I seem willfully obtuse, but I truly don’t see how that is “halfway”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        No, not “leading the connection”. Making it clear to him that she likes him. Bang him over the head with the IOIs.

        Let me give this to you again.

        –those women absolutely MUST make it crystal clear that they want nice, kind, mild mannered men with jobs and cars and their own places. They need to make it crystal clear that those kinds of men tingle them.

        –they need to pursue those men, HARD. They need to bang those men over the heads with their attraction to them.

        –if they cannot do that, at the very least, at a bare, bare minimum, those young women must make it as easy as possible to pursue them. They MUST make it crystal clear to those men that pursuing them is safe. They need to make it clear to those men that they will not be accused of sexual harassment or rape merely for being in those women’s presence. If they can hold signs over their heads saying “IT IS SAFE TO ASK ME OUT”, that would be a great idea.

        –they need to NOT nuke reject these men. If they must reject some of them, do it firmly, but kindly, quietly, and discreetly, and DO NOT EVER TALK ABOUT IT TO ANYONE.
        Make it clear to him that he’s not going to get jammed up with a bogus sex harassment charge.

        Are you seriously telling me this is too much to ask? Are you seriously telling me a girl can’t “bang those men over the heads with their attraction to them”? Because I’m telling you right now that in today’s climate, that’s what it’s going to take. It is NOT these men’s fault. They did NOT cause these problems. They are NOT to blame for it.

        Someone’s got to do something. These men are already doing all they can. And you’re here demanding that they do more. You’re demanding that these men do 95% of the work here. No. That’s not a workable solution.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        But I guess you mean a solution that might have a snowball’s chance of becoming reality. Truth is, in this climate, there isn’t one.

        Then I guess we’re f * d.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “They need to make it crystal clear that those kinds of men tingle them.”

        But Deti, those kinds of men don’t tingle them. Should they fake it? Isn’t that one of the problems – she fakes attraction to get a ring but can’t keep up the fakery for long?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Turd Flinging Monkey(TFM) says that we men just need to take all our rights back away from women. Repealing the 19th amendment, and Etc. Right now the churches are Beta-factories and men of the West generally lack the resolve to do what is necessary to put usurping women back in their place. Heathen men are more likely to bring about God’s holy patriarchy than churchgoing men right now. However as a group, the militant Muslims are one of the few groups that seem ready and able now to subject others to their religion’s laws, and give and take lives to do so. They burn up sexually defrauding wives in “kitchen fires”, they throw gays off of buildings, to execute God’s death sentence against the sexually immoral. Meanwhile the West just points and shrieks over what sorts of things must be done to maintain a society according to God’s commandments. However, I’m not recommending these things ordinarily be done like that, by angry individuals or mobs, but via a proper judicial system.

        God commanded all descendants of Noah as follows:

        Not to worship idols.
        Not to curse God.
        Not to commit murder.
        Not to commit sexual immorality.
        Not to steal.
        Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal.
        To establish courts of justice.

        The first four are capital crimes.
        The problem is most “Christians” are not onboard with enforcing God’s laws. So a godly society is kind of a non-starter until people are willing to follow and enforce God’s laws that He intended for us. The New Testament churches were also again commanded, in piecemeal format, to follow those same seven universal laws given to Noah.

        Anyhow, that’s God’s law that still applies today to everyone descended from Noah and his sons, including heathen, who do not acknowledge God.
        In my estimation neither men nor women are ready to initiate a godly society yet. Bring on our plagues! We have all gone astray and are stubbornly resistant to returning to God’s ways. I fear God must bring plague(s) upon us until we repent of our wickedness and cry out for His mercy, and bend our stiffened necks down to take His yoke upon us once again. Hear me now, believe me later!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “…militant Muslims are one of the few groups that seem ready and able now to subject others to their religion’s laws, and give and take lives to do so. They burn up sexually defrauding wives in “kitchen fires”, they throw gays off of buildings, to execute God’s death sentence against the sexually immoral. Meanwhile the West just points and shrieks over what sorts of things must be done to maintain a society according to God’s commandments.”

        They also screw animals, little boys, and other men. Don’t let Muslims fool you. They put up a good front, but in reality they’re the most revoltingly sexually immoral people I’ve ever had the displeasure of encountering.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        They put up a good front, but in reality they’re the most revoltingly sexually immoral people I’ve ever had the displeasure of encountering.

        Indeed. They’re the creators of the Dubai portapotty.

        Liked by 1 person

  27. feeriker says:

    Women do have a role to play, it just can’t be the lead role.

    On this point I must side with deti. Women are CONSTANTLY striving for “the lead role” in scenarios where it’s not appropriate, or even realistically possible for them to do so, but this is one very narrow scenario in which they not only can, but HAVE TO take the lead. Deti’s recommendations in his post were made based on conditions that WOMEN have created (e.g., nuclear rejection of “steady eddie” men, refusal/inability to send clear IOIs when they are interested in such men, withholding sex from such men once married to them). Ergo, ONLY WOMEN can fix them.

    I hate to add butane to what appears to be smouldering embers, but this appears to be another example of women’s maddening tendency to attempt to seize the lead in situations where they shouldn’t, but stubbornly avoid taking the lead where they MUST.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      all I’m asking them to do is make their interest clear. Very clear. Crystal clear. They’re going to have to bang these men over the heads with it. Sorry, but women are going to have to do a little Sadie Hawkins roleplay here.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        It works that way in Scandinavia — women pursue men more than vice versa. The sex reverts to man being the “MC” in the bedroom, but of course Sweden isn’t trying to do “traditional Christian headship”, in any way/shape/form, but the women are okay with being the pursuers. I was even pursued by a woman during the summer I lived in Scandinavia as a student, which tells you that if it was impacting someone like me, it’s as common as dirt.

        That stuff is all American culture really.

        Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        And like I said, they’re being asked to do what they DEMAND to be able to do, consciously or not, in multiple situations every day in our modern, feminine-primary society: take the lead. Yet now that men insist that they take the lead in something, something that is ultimately to THEIR benefit as much as, if not more so than, men’s, it’s suddenly too much to ask.

        One of the less obvious or frequent displays of female contentiousness and rebellion, but an example nonetheless.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Women in Sweden take the lead on relationships… but also everywhere else, don’t they?
        Read somewhere that something like 50 percent of the households in Sweden are people living alone.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Women in Sweden take the lead on relationships… but also everywhere else, don’t they?
        This was phrase awkwardly. What I meant was, Swedish women kind of run everything. I don’t see any indication this has led to longer or better relationships or more stable families.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        What I meant was, Swedish women kind of run everything. I don’t see any indication this has led to longer or better relationships or more stable families

        I never once made the argument that women should run everything. We’ve had women running everything for about 60 years now and the two halves of the country hate each other; women disrespect men; and men hate women. (Good job, women.)

        I made the argument that if women want so-called good Christian men (the kind some people here call “unsuitable”), then they’re going to have to take more initiative than they might otherwise have done under other circumstances. I am glad, Liz, that you didn’t have to do this. Our daughters are going to have to.

        A lot of your contemporaries didn’t, and they’re either divorced or in miserable marriages now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Who called a good Christian man “unsuitable”? I did use that word to describe a particular man, but he wasn’t a Christian.

        Like

  28. Elspeth says:

    I have a really primitive, visceral understanding of what manly manhood is, and I acknowledge that it is wholly out of step with the situation in which we find ourselves today.

    I think we have tried to train our daughters to be open to a wide lens with regard to what to look for in a man, but leading in the sexual realm is not something we have imparted to them.

    I admit that, but they know that if they like a guy they need to not hide it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      All I know is this:

      Women all over the place are complaining about “no men”, and “men ain’t sh!t”, and “there are no good men”.

      There are no good men because women have made clear they don’t want them except as muscle and as ATMs.

      If you want good men, you have to give them a reason to create themselves. You have to give them reasons to be good men. You have to incentivize it.

      And women are DISincentivizing good men from being created. If anything, you women are punishing, abusing, and at best ignoring good men.

      Liked by 3 people

  29. redpillboomer says:

    “…those women absolutely MUST make it crystal clear that they want nice, kind, mild mannered men with jobs and cars and their own places. They need to make it crystal clear that those kinds of men tingle them.”

    I thought only Chad and Tyrone make them tingle between the ages of 18-27, while Steady Eddie does nothing for them? When the ladies are ready to hop off the carousel at 28 or 29 years old to stick the landing, aka having their big ‘Princess Day’ wedding, pump out the requisite 1.5 kids, get their white picket fence, aka their five bedroom home and diesel powered SUV, then divorce SE’s sorry, blue pill @ss 5-7 years later because she’s not Haaaaapy with him anymore? Isn’t that today’s default scenario?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      “Diesel powered SUV”? Not too many of those left in the States, sadly.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      It is today’s default scenario.

      I dunno… women around here keep complaining that “there are no men”. And if there are men, they’re “unsuitable”.

      Then start incentivizing creating these men you women (say you) want. The only ways to do that are with the hope of amassing wealth (money) and p*ssy.

      Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        Then start incentivizing creating these men you women (say you) want. The only ways to do that are with the hope of amassing wealth (money) and p*ssy.

        I think we’ve circled back to having to come to grips with the fact that for many (most?) women, the idea of exerting effort to provide something that average men want triggers within them a visceral sense of revulsion. In the context of what we’re discussing here, if the men in question were, to these women, men worth paying any attention to in the first place they’d be holding up placards or wearing sandwich signs saying “Hey, moron! I’m here! Take me!”

        As it is, the men they really want (who are mostly poison for them) aren’t available to them and the men they could have (and who are good for them) are men they don’t want. End of story. Short of reversion to hard patriarchy and arranged marriages, there is no solution for what ails us here. The only way hard patriarchy and arranged marriages stand any chance of making a comeback is in a post-apocalyptic world that no one wants to live in. Yes, I’m black-pilling here, but reality, unfortunately, tends to skew heavily in that direction.

        Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      Fine. Then we will continue down the same path. Then we have no choice but to tell Steady Eddie to refuse to marry anyone. Steady Eddie should go work his job, make fat stacks, buy a great car and rent a small place, date around, refuse commitment, and retire at 50.

      E’s daughters and Oscar’s daughters can go to college, get jobs, get cats, work their jobs, and retire on my social security dime at 60.

      Liked by 3 people

  30. Scott says:

    Women in Sweden take the lead on relationships… but also everywhere else, don’t they?

    Correct. I feel like a broken record saying this almost once in every post.

    If you, the man, were not absolutely sure she was in to you, if you had to make ANY effort at all–if you were not sure that she was crazy about you– you will have weeping and gnashing of teeth all the days of your life after the wedding day.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      There should be a Bible verse like that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Liz says:

      Mike asked me out.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        I bet with 100% certainty that you gave him signals (conscious or not) that you would say yes.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        IOIs from women are sometimes subtle, sometimes overt. But they are unmistakable and clear.

        Part of the problem on this site (and others like it) are the posts (no offense, Jack) intended to “teach” men to recognize them. It is cringeworthy stuff. It makes me think there is at least, in part, a shyness/Asperger-y sub-cadre of guys here. I can’t relate to needing training in this area.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Your comments strike at the heart of what I mean, Scott.

        There seems to be this misconception that I am arguing against women taking any initiatives at all. No showing IOIs. Just be stoic and wait. Nope. Not saying that.

        But when someone says, “The signals must be unmistakable, and clear and she needs to do whatever she needs to short of clubbing him over the head to make him see it.”? I am not sure how to see that, other than she must lead. I’m not sure why her like or dislike requires so much effort to see. Some women are Jane Bennetts.

        And actually, I’m not against a woman asking a man out under certain circumstances.

        Despite my husband being in zero danger of spending Friday night alone if I said no, and despite my relative shyness, he still asked ME out, and with a fair degree of boldness when he did.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Part of the problem on this site (and others like it) are the posts (no offense, Jack) intended to “teach” men to recognize them. It is cringeworthy stuff. It makes me think there is at least, in part, a shyness/Asperger-y sub-cadre of guys here. I can’t relate to needing training in this area.”

        There is a subcadre of shy men here, yes some Aspergers, and a lot of social counter-conditioning, especially among Christian men.

        Part of teaching men to recognize IOIs is to tell them that, yes, what they’re seeing is an IOI, and that it’s OK to pursue based on them, and to correct the conditioning men received, especially in church and from women. Yes, these men actually listened to women, when they were boys, when they were young and inexperienced, and had no frame of reference.

        I’ve explained this a lot of times, and I guess I shouldn’t even try anymore. Everyone’s read those explanations.

        To shorten it up, it’s that you see what you’re seeing, and then you’re gaslighted and manipulated into truly believing that you’re not seeing what you KNOW you are seeing. You’re told that what you’re seeing is abnormal and perverted and sick and you’re not to partake in it.

        You believe it and accept it, because these are your parents and adults who are close to you. They are older and know more than you and presumably have more experience than you. They love you and care about you and wouldn’t lie to you or feed you BS. You have no frame of reference to question what they’re telling you, other than what you’re seeing. You have no experience to question what they’re saying over what you’re seeing, because you’ve never seen it before and you don’t know what it is. So you ask the people who are closest to you and who presumably know what that is and how to address it and deal with it.

        I guess it doesn’t matter anymore, really. Shouldn’t even try to explain this.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        “It makes me think there is at least, in part, a shyness/Asperger-y sub-cadre of guys here.”

        Uh… yeah. What part of “I’m an engineer” did you not understand?

        Snarky joking aside, there’s a reason why you work with people, and I work with things. Hell, I used to work with things that go boom built by people who were trying to kill me, and that was easier for me to figure out than the average woman.

        Thankfully, the Lord blessed me with a disagreeable personality (shocking, I know). When I was young, I thought that was a weakness when dealing with women. Little did I know that it’s actually a strength.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Elspeth

        I’m not sure why her like or dislike requires so much effort to see.

        See my comment above about being a “things” person, as opposed to a “people” person. It’s kind of like being color blind. It’s particularly frustrating for an analytical, natural problem solver, because the problem is incomprehensible and unsolvable.

        But, those analytical, natural problem solvers are exactly the kind of man we want our daughters to marry. Right? Because they tend to be successful.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        @Elspeth:

        I’m not sure why her like or dislike requires so much effort to see.

        Come on. You’ve been posting here as long as I have (10 years) and you STILL don’t know?

        Yes you do. I’ve explained it to you numerous times. See my comment here:

        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2021/03/13/what-would-the-world-be-like-if-everyone-was-red-pilled/#comment-9356

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        I bet with 100% certainty that you gave him signals (conscious or not) that you would say yes.

        I think it’s fair to say I gave a lot of indications of interest before he asked me on a “real” date. That was after several weeks of studying together. We met in engineering physics class. He asked me to study without preamble. He probably figured I wasn’t going to make it past the first exam so he had to hurry.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Scott

        I should have responded to this statement earlier.

        IOIs from women are sometimes subtle, sometimes overt. But they are unmistakable and clear.

        No, dude. They’re “unmistakable and clear” to you. You’re like a person with color vision asking a color blind dude why he can’t see the difference between red and green. “That’s red, that’s green! It’s unmistakable and clear!”

        No, dude. No, it isn’t.

        Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Women’s signals are clear…. if she is lubed up enough.

        But not a lot of dudes get them that damp in the pants.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Most of us posting here didn’t get that memo. We got the Churchian /Family Life Today/ Focus on the Family memos telling us women are slow cookers and are attracted to Godly men with meek, mild personalities who ask permission for everything and don’t take any initiative and do what we’re told and do whatever she tells us, because women are really super attracted to those guys and love sex with those guys.

      Sue us for believing it. Unfortunately, you and many men like you sacrificed marriages to that golden calf.

      Liked by 4 people

  31. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    DETI
    Younger,not older!
    You know how I knew a obviously shy-girl was/is interested in me,when they say ”I want to be your G.F.”!
    But these 29&half year old tomi laurens &tough guy preachers are sure women are not pursuers?
    Yeah tomi lauren is a scared little girl!I knew 12 year old girls that were more of a ”ambitious” true grown-up then lauren&her ”awesome friends” ever will be!
    Hence no need of the 3R’s of roissy,roosh&rollo!

    Like

  32. Elspeth says:

    @ Oscar:

    But, those analytical, natural problem solvers are exactly the kind of man we want our daughters to marry. Right? Because they tend to be successful.

    Well yeah. My husband is a techie, a builder of things, a problem solver. When he gets a thing in his mind, I sometimes thing I see a touch of sperg, and I tell him so. He;s like a dog with a bone, unable to move on until he unravel THIS problem right now. There are times I have told him he is better with things than people.

    But yet, somehow, and I have no idea how, he has always been what I call a people collector. He likes people, they like him. They trust him, and he has a high degree of patience and compassion with people in pain. More than I do, that’s for sure.

    I think it might be the halo effect, where people have a natural affinity for good looking people, so even when they are less than congenial (he can be pretty direct and harsh when dispensing advice), they give him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know, but he is a super weird mix of problem solver and people person. When he wants to be, that is. When he’s not feeling it, he can’t gin it up.

    All that to say, people are interestingly predictable and unpredictable all at once. I don’t know if I was sending some pretty heavy IOIs by the time he and I went out, but I certainly must have been sending subtle ones, because I really wanted him. A lot, but I never actually said anything or ever considered asking him out (the horror!), or even touched him, I don’t think.

    I’ll have to ask because my memory is fuzzier than his.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ Elspeth

      I don’t know, but he is a super weird mix of problem solver and people person.

      I bet he is. Some people are gifted in both areas, and more, but that’s rare.

      Most men who are analytical, natural problem solvers are weak in the area of interpersonal awareness, especially when it comes to women, because women like to be subtle, and have plausible deniability.

      Like I said, it’s like being color blind. A color blind person can kind of figure out what is green, and what is red, but they have to work at it, and give it a lot of thought. Even then, they’ll be wrong most of the time. A person who can see color doesn’t have to think about it at all. They just know what is red and what is green. And, a person who can see color can’t teach a color blind person how to figure it out, because a person who’s a natural at something never had to work at it, and therefore can’t know how to work at it.

      When I was young, I took the “damn the torpedoes” attitude, and just asked girls out whether I detected IOIs, or not. I got “no” a lot more than I got “yes”, but I never had to deal with “nuclear rejection”, like young men today have to.

      Today, because of “nuclear rejection”, “me too”, and all kinds of other BS, young men just aren’t willing to take the risks I took, and I can’t I blame them. I never had worry about getting kicked out of college for asking a girl out. Today’s young men do.

      Therefore, if a girl likes a guy who is the analytical, natural problem solver type, she’s going to have to make it pretty damned obvious that she likes him. She’s going to have to give up on plausible deniability.

      Sorry. I wish things were different – for both my girls’ sakes, and my boys’ sakes – but them’s the breaks.

      Liked by 4 people

      • feeriker says:

        I don’t know, but he is a super weird mix of problem solver and people person.

        I bet he is. Some people are gifted in both areas, and more, but that’s rare.

        Yes, that is INCREDIBLY rare among men.

        No disrespect to Elspeth intended, but being married to that man who is a rare mix of problem solver/”geek” and “people person” (and she is incredibly blessed to be married to such a man) has colored her perspective and perception to the point where it’s just not possible for her to truly relate to any other kind of man. I think any woman in her position who has been in a solid marriage to such a man for many years would be similarly affected.

        Liked by 1 person

  33. Elspeth says:

    Come on. You’ve been posting here as long as I have (10 years) and you STILL don’t know?

    I think Scott covered it, but thanks, 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Not really.

      Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        DETI
        Guess,who just called me up on the road?DAL’!He told me to remind all of us older,younger manosphere kids that alpha fux&beta bux will never die(Just like rock&roll!!)!&he sung the extra wedding day chorus version of ”ode to professional wimminz” at the pre-grammys show he did this past-sunday for daladies(It goes like this!!)
        ”I gave it for free when younger,hotter,tighter!
        Back in college when I was thirty pounds lighter!
        Can’t hardly wait to butthex you in court&have you fund my favourite sport!
        Gonna buy sexy lingerie with all that alimoniee!
        Fux&sux that alpha cox as your beta cox is just for pee!
        Tee hee tee hee tee hee tee hee
        Tee hee tee hee tee hee tee hee
        I’m da modern liberated womanz!
        I butt hex before&after marriage&during it too,but not with you!
        But with the father of da baby in da carriage!
        lzlozlzozo
        Cuckold da betas,cuckold da alphas!
        Datz what da taught us at MBA grad school!
        As da feisers see no truth nor justice in their laws&say da GREATBOOKSFORMENtm are foolz!
        Yes,yes I did very good on my gmats!
        Dey bernakfied my soul away,left me with cats!
        DAL’ dedicated this to gregoire,beth moore&kim.k.!
        As all da single ladies got up to dance!

        Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      Scott is a natural.

      That doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy, not at all, but it means he can’t relate to men who are not naturals. I get that — one of the guys who was a close friend in college (we still keep up but he’s more of a lower level acquaintance at this point) is a total natural, and he also can’t relate and never has been able to relate. I think Scott understands this, based on what I have seen him say.

      The problem, I think, isn’t that men are not getting IOIs. It’s that men are not noticing the IOIs they do get either because (1) they just don’t notice in general (which is more guys than you think — you may see them as socially retarded and cringeworthy, but there are more of them than you think) or (2) they are getting them and don’t notice them because the women who are giving them are not attractive to them, and therefore they do not get noticed.

      If a man is in category (1) he can learn to spot IOIs — if reading tips on doing that is cringeworthy, YOU DO NOT NEED TO READ IT. Ever wanted to know what it felt like to be in the “gifted class”? Well, there you go. Enjoy.

      If a man is in category (2), as I have said many times, he needs to make an honest assessment about how much he can improve himself (and honestly with most men it’s not a large amount, but it’s also not nothing), where he would be in terms of what kinds of women he would be generating IOIs from if he were at that “realistic improved” level, and decide whether they would be of interest to him — and if not, then he needs to decide between (a) permanent monk mode, (b) moving locations/pools (he can try a different “subgroup”, where he lives, or he can try a different place altogether like Aaron Renn did or try a different country like Jack did). That’s about it. If a man isn’t attracted to the women who are giving him IOIs, that won’t change by shaming him for not being attracted to them, whether that shaming is coming from feminists or from natalist Christians. We have talked ad nauseam over more than a decade around these parts about why there are so many men in this situation (the “hypergamy” word is a the “Cliff’s Notes” version), but as a practical matter, for the men who are in that situation there aren’t many options other than the ones in this paragraph.

      As for your daughters, Elspeth, I will say this. It’s an unattractive truth, but the reality is that the guys who are surefire Christians and are interested in marrying without having sex first in the relevant age ranges for your daughters (and frankly also outside those age ranges) are mostly very odd and therefore unsuitable for marriage for those “odd” reasons. Normal guys are not very interested in marriage at that age in 2021, to begin with, but the ones who are interested and suitable are almost never interested in marriage without having sex prior. And by “normal”, I don’t mean “secular”, I mean mainstream Christian guys — the ones who aren’t “special” and therefore unsuitable.

      I get that this is a serious problem for you, I really do. But it’s a different problem than the one we are discussing here, which is why it can be frustrating to have this conversation. Men are facing a problem of not having attractive women (to them) be interested in them. Women like your daughters are facing a different problem — not of not having attractive men interested in them, but of there not being any significant number of attractive and suitable men interested who are also interested in staying chaste. I get that this is a problem, but it’s a second level problem, whereas the one that the guys are facing is a first order problem because it relates to attraction itself. Two different issues, and two different kinds of issues.

      Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth doesn’t get this because she is married to a natural.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Scott is a natural.

        That doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy, not at all, but it means he can’t relate to men who are not naturals.

        Scott can see color. I’m color blind. It’s that simple. Neither is good or bad. It just so happens that the current environment is very dangerous for men who are color blind, so women who want to get married need to be more obvious about it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        @ Nova:

        “It’s an unattractive truth, but the reality is that the guys who are surefire Christians and are interested in marrying without having sex first in the relevant age ranges for your daughters (and frankly also outside those age ranges) are mostly very odd and therefore unsuitable for marriage for those “odd” reasons.”

        I appreciate your acknowledgement of this truth sir, genuinely, as I have read time and again that it’s not true. In reality, it’s been true for a long time, even 28 years ago, back when I was single.

        I learned a long time ago to “own my stuff”, acknowledge my sin, and be truthful about it. My choices regarding my husband were powered by my own lust, but here’s the truth.

        It was very disheartening as a naïve young woman to learn that church-going, Scripture knowing, outwardly gentleman-like men were not at all interested in chastity. With SAM I knew what I was getting; good, bad and ugly. Our courtship wasn’t always easy, but it was always honest.

        I chose what was -at first- a hard road, but I did it with my eyes wide open. At least I wasn’t dealing with a used car salesman selling me a car which was shiny on the outside with all kinds of shenanigans waiting for me under the hood.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Scot is also professionally trained to observe human behavior.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Nova said: “It’s an unattractive truth, but the reality is that the guys who are surefire Christians and are interested in marrying without having sex first in the relevant age ranges for your daughters (and frankly also outside those age ranges) are mostly very odd and therefore unsuitable for marriage for those “odd” reasons.”

        Elspeth said: I appreciate your acknowledgement of this truth sir, genuinely, as I have read time and again that it’s not true. In reality, it’s been true for a long time, even 28 years ago, back when I was single.

        I learned a long time ago to “own my stuff”, acknowledge my sin, and be truthful about it. My choices regarding my husband were powered by my own lust, but here’s the truth.

        It was very disheartening as a naïve young woman to learn that church-going, Scripture knowing, outwardly gentleman-like men were not at all interested in chastity.

        But that’s not what Nova was talking about. He was talking about the usual, ordinary Christian man who’s willing to wait for sex. He was NOT talking about the ordinary, every day, average unmarried man at church between ages 15 – 35. The former types of men are “odd” – the weird, the strange, the physically unattractive, the mentally ill. But this also describes the extremely devout, who are viewed as so far out of the mainstream as to be considered “odd”, or at least “peculiar” at best. All these men are considered by most people, but especially by women, as “unsuitable” (i.e. very undesirable and unattractive).

        You, on the other hand, are talking about the latter. These are men who were raised in church but who are secular in worldview and life outlook, who live in the world and are mostly “of” the world. In other words, they’re much like the vast majority of women who are attending church, the only difference being that the men are much less sexually active than the women. Most of the women are having or have had sex, mostly with men other than the men they attend church with.

        Yes, it’s true, these men aren’t interested in chastity. Then again, neither are the vast majority of the women they’re in church with . Another major difference being that the men are open about this while the women are not. The women have everyone else ignoring their immoral conduct, and if they cannot ignore it, they defend, excuse, explain, and rationalize it.

        This is not a “men are better than women” argument. This is an acknowledgment of the reality on the ground in church for men and women.

        Liked by 1 person

  34. feeriker says:

    It just so happens that the current environment is very dangerous for men who are color blind,

    And most of us, I would venture to assert, are color blind to some degree.

    Liked by 3 people

  35. feeriker says:

    Not entirely OT (NB: Adult language, as is usual for Captain Capitalism):

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Elspeth says:

    But that’s not what Nova was talking about. He was talking about the usual, ordinary Christian man who’s willing to wait for sex. He was NOT talking about the ordinary, every day, average unmarried man at church between ages 15 – 35. The former types of men are “odd” – the weird, the strange, the physically unattractive, the mentally ill.

    If that’s what he meant, I missed it. I perceived his saying that men besides the men in the quoted portion -by and large- are not at all interested in a dating/courtship model that excludes premarital sex. It was a breath of fresh air to hear a man in the sphere say it, because no one ever before conceded that point. In fact, just the opposite was forcefully asserted; that “real Christian men” are perfectly fine waiting. This, even though knew full well that it wasn’t true.

    I didn’t need to be told that the weird, the strange, the physically unattractive (a broad brush IMO), or the mentally ill are a class all their own. And that with that, a different standard. I wouldn’t think Nova would assume I needed to be told that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      From a plain reading of his and your statements, it appears to me you’re talking about two different things.

      For the purposes of this particular discussion, I don’t think it matters too much that the latter category – men raised in the Church but in and of the world – aren’t willing to wait for sex. Christian men don’t exactly have a monopoly on sexual immorality.

      You conspicuously omitted the extremely devout, which should be exactly the kind of men that “real Christian women” should be “attracted to”. However, “real Christian women” avoid and reject these men as well – something I’ve NEVER heard women in the sphere concede.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Of course I’ve conceded it! I lived it. My route to the altar is one big concession of the fact that my Christian faith didn’t compel me to seek out a particularly devout man. I thought I had done that once or twice, until I realized that I hadn’t and so went on about my business.

        But here’s the deal. I can’t speak for the vast majority of women in the church, but I do know that there are young women who look and wait for the devout guy. Sometimes they find him. We have a very pretty cousin who did just that. She is the only person I can think of who that happened to, though.

        I don’t want to argue, really. I am just pleased to know that there is some credence given to my assertion that many lifelong churchgoing, Christian men are unchaste too. I already knew it full well, but…

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I do know that there are young women who look and wait for the devout guy. Sometimes they find him. We have a very pretty cousin who did just that. She is the only person I can think of who that happened to, though.

        The young women who look and wait for the devout guy are few and far between. (Conspicuously absent from your statement are that said young women are attracted to the devout guy. Also conspicuously absent is the quality of said marriages, which is something that’s important to the men involved, though it might not be important to the women involved.) The fact you can think of only one woman in your entire life who did so is similarly telling.

        I am just pleased to know that there is some credence given to my assertion that many lifelong churchgoing, Christian men are unchaste too. I already knew it full well, but…

        OK, but Nova was manifestly not talking about lifelong churchgoing yet unchaste Christian men.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      It’s also a fact that almost all “real Christian women” in (and out of) the sphere were attracted to, and married, men raised in the Church but at least acting in and of the world. Men who failed to adhere to basic tenets of Christian sexual morality. Why? Because the men raised in the Church but acting in and of the world were attractive men who boldly made moves; and extremely devout men were either ignored or made no moves.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Because the men raised in the Church but acting in and of the world were attractive men who boldly made moves;

        True, but I found it off-putting. I desired to be good. They succeeded with other women though, most married pretty women, and the two that made moves on me are divorced now. I left that religious world behind long ago (no depth of theology), but my family keeps up with all those people. Both men were philanderers.

        My husband was not.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        True, but I found it off-putting. I desired to be good.

        And yet, you married an attractive man who boldly made moves.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      I was talking about two kinds of men: (1) chaste men in the Church who are willing to be virgins until married (these typically fall into the “odd” category) and (2) normal Christian men who are not “odd” but who are also not willing to wait until having sex. I read you as saying that (1) are unsuitable for non-Christian reasons and that (2) are unsuitable for Christian ones.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. Elspeth says:

    And yet, you married an attractive man who boldly made moves.

    You left out, and who wasn’t a hypocrite.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      and who wasn’t a hypocrite.

      But who nonetheless failed to adhere to basic tenets of Christian sexual morality.

      It’s a tough row to hoe when we demand that today’s Christian men and women follow said tenets when we didn’t ourselves. The fact that it worked out doesn’t excuse our failures. It just means some people were damn lucky.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        But who nonetheless failed to adhere to basic tenets of Christian sexual morality.

        My husband had no such foundation to build from. Just the opposite in fact. My FIL was a trip until he got old, LOL.

        I was the compromiser. And to my father’s credit he held me solely responsible for my behavior. Never blamed that bad boy for corrupting his daughter.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Never blamed that bad boy for corrupting his daughter.

        He got to corrupt women BECAUSE he was a bad boy.

        The chaste Christian men never had a chance, did they?

        Be a bad boy, indulge yourself in pleasure, come to Christ, be forgiven. Be a chaste Christian man, follow Christ, you get no pleasure, no wife, and no family.

        Be a bad boy? you get everything. Be a chaste Christian man, you get nothing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Scott, nova

        I have to go there on this one. trigger warnings. Discussion of sensitive but true information ahead.

        The differences between Scott and Ex, snd SAM and Elspeth are in my opinion as follows:

        Ex is white. Elspeth is black. Black women statistically have the fewest options of any women. Currently, Only one in 4 black women marries in her lifetime. I suppose when E married, that stat was better, probably 1 in 2 or 3. The point is that E was damn lucky and she knew it.

        Second: Scott and Ex had no kids. E was pregnant when she and SAM married. She had already made the decision to have sex with SAM and have his child before the I Do’s were even spoken. Ex could easily leave her marriage; E could not.

        The truth is many times uncomfortable. We must have the courage to both speak it and face it.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      To me, here’s the bottom line. When we demand that today’s Christian men and women observe Christian sexual morality, we disadvantage them. This is because they limit the pools of available men and women so much that there’s almost no chance of them even finding each other. Further, the observance of Christian sexual morality strongly discourages overtly sexual interest and behavior from men to women (but does NOT discourage the reverse). Male overt sexual interest and behavior is derided and condemned as hyperaggressive, worldly, and not consistent with a Christian life.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Ah. So it’s better to be committing sexual sin if you are not a Christian because at least you are not a “hypocrite”. I see.

      If that’s really true, then Christians should all pursue non-Christians, because at least the sexual sin that occurs prior to marriage (which is factually present in almost all couples) is not hypocritical for one of them.

      Honestly, strike three for Christian men when it comes to mating. Even Christian women will prefer non-Christian men to you, and will hold them to different standards than they hold you, because at least they are not hypocrites.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I was sharing the rationale of my 21-year-old self, Nova, who saw I guy I really wanted. It wasn’t right but that was my reasoning.

        See my other comment to Deti to get my understanding of the big picture.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        I was sharing the rationale of my 21-year-old self, Nova, who saw I guy I really wanted. It wasn’t right but that was my reasoning.

        I get it. But I don’t think your thinking is limited to you — that is, I think quite a few other young Christian women think the same way.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        then Christians should all pursue non-Christians,

        This is what Christian women are already doing. They do this because the “extremely devout” Christian men that Christian women claim to want (to their churches) are avoiding sex. Christian women won’t have anything to do with extremely devout Christian men.

        I find it fascinating that people here are demanding that Christian men be bold and decisive and act like men, then suppress their natural sexual desires to the point of not even being allowed to express them overtly. People right here are telling Christian men to be devout, but “don’t ever express sexual interest!! Dont’ you DARE pursue women sexually!! Don’t you DARE act like men!”

        We can’t win for losing. If we follow our faith, everyone, including Christian women, actually avoid us and reject us. If we don’t follow our faith, everyone, including the Christian women who claim to want us, condemns us.

        How the hell do you expect Christian men to ask women out, but not act overtly sexually? How the hell do you expect Christian men to approach women, but be nonsexual about it?

        How the hell do you expect Christian men to be bold and decisive without being masculine?

        How the hell do you expect Christian men to be masculine and yet not express ANY outward, overt, sexual interest in women?

        What the hell do you people want from us?

        What more do you expect us to do?

        How much longer do you expect us to put up with this?

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I was sharing the rationale of my 21-year-old self, Nova, who saw I guy I really wanted. It wasn’t right but that was my reasoning.

        And you did what you had to do to get him. Just like most all other Christian women do.

        Christian women are excused and defended for just “doing what they gotta do”. Christian women are excused and defended for having premarital sex.

        Christian men are condemned, shamed, and abused merely for EXPRESSING sexual interest. They’re condemned, shamed and abused – and they’re not even getting to have sex. All they’re doing is saying they want sex. All they’re doing is trying to act like the men that women claim to want. All they’re doing is being men.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Something else:

        As for Christian women who lament the dearth of devout Christian men to date and marry – I’ve been here offering a solution and it gets shot down. I tell Christian women to at least open up avenues and opportunities for these devout, observant Christian men that they (say they) want, and I’m told it’s not going to work because these Christian men just aren’t attractive to these Christian women.

        You want these Christian men (or claim you do). But you’re not attracted to them. You certainly shoot down any suggestions on how to get them. So I can only conclude that Christian women really don’t want these devout Christian men they claim to want. You don’t really want those men. I know this because you don’t date them. You date the men who ask you out, which is nonChristian men. You have sex with them, and you marry them. You say you want these men, but then you show that you don’t want them.

        So I guess I have to throw in the towel on that one. I admit that I don’t have any good solutions.

        The solution that Christian women have come up with is to take their chances with attractive nonChristian men, or attractive, nonobservant, disobedient Christian men. I know this because Christian women date, have sex with, marry, and reproduce with, non Christian men and nonobservant Christian men (not necessarily in that order). Christian women are supported, helped, encouraged, and forgiven when they do this. At the very least, their sins are excused and explained away.

        Yet, Christian men are faced with the following choices:

        –follow your faith and remain an incel; or

        –take an “if i can’t beat them, join them” attitude, refuse Christian sexual morality, and do your best to get in on the action.

        And I’m going to admit right here – I took the second option. Know why? Because the very church I belonged to and its people punished, rejected, and avoided me for observing to the very tenets they demanded I observe. Because I couldn’t get anything by obeying.

        Christian women are being helped and encouraged when they eschew Christian sexual morality, but Christian men are shamed and condemned even for expressing a desire for sex.

        There are no good solutions here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Deti

        Yet, Christian men are faced with the following choices:

        –follow your faith and remain an incel; or

        –take an “if i can’t beat them, join them” attitude, refuse Christian sexual morality, and do your best to get in on the action.

        There’s a third option. Find a more faithful church.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        This subthread is fascinating. Elspeth, who took the exact same path my ex wife did, ended up continuing to be infatuated and deeply passionate and respectful for her husband.

        My ex was chasing the carnal/not really Christian/not even close to a virgin version of me because it was exciting for her. Her parents hated me. I was rockband drummer (literally) smoking, drinking bad boy. Once I tamed, and became a good Christian husband, (after securing me using the “everything but intercourse until the wedding” method,) she became bored and disenfranchised with me.

        Is it any wonder I became a man-whore when I joined the army after my divorce? It’s what they want. Even the Christian ones.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Elspeth, who took the exact same path my ex wife did, ended up continuing to be infatuated and deeply passionate and respectful for her husband.

        I suppose the difference is that in the eyes of E, SAM “performed” … he improved/changed/evolved on a schedule that never “disappointed” her, and so it evolved into something else. In other words, in E’s case, “the bet paid off”, at least enough, in her own perception, for her not to make the decision your ex did.

        I think that the key, though, as you have intimated here is that almost all women would kill to be the one who gets to place the bet, whether they are Christian or not, because they know that being the one who gets to make the bet is itself a high marker for them … even if the bet doesn’t “cash”, again in her own eyes and perception, down the track.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar

        I couldn’t find a “more faithful church” in junior high and high school, when all of this training took place.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Scott, nova

        I have to go there on this one. trigger warnings. Discussion of sensitive but true information ahead.

        The differences between Scott and Ex, snd SAM and Elspeth are in my opinion as follows:

        Ex is white. Elspeth is black. Black women statistically have the fewest relationship options of any women. Currently, only one in 4 black women marries in her lifetime. I suppose when E married, that stat was better, probably 1 in 3, or maybe even 1 in 2. The point is that E was damn lucky and she knew it. She was going to hang onto SAM as if her life depended on it, because it did and she knew it and still does.

        Second: Scott and Ex had no kids. E was pregnant when she and SAM married. She had already made the decision to have sex with SAM and have his child before the I Do’s were even spoken. Ex could easily leave her marriage; E could not.

        The bottom line: It’s a hell of a lot easier for a nonblack woman with no kids to replace a man than it is for a black woman with a kid to replace a man. Single black mothers are a dime a dozen, and subject to all the stereotypes we know about (regardless of whether they would apply to E).

        The truth is many times uncomfortable. We must have the courage to both speak it and face it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        This is a good comment. I’m not triggered nor do I disagree except on one point.

        I KNOW (like for a near certainty) that I could still have gotten married if my man hadn’t been the man he turned out to be.

        But overall, you’re not wrong. Which is why we have worked to teach our girls to be quality women in every way.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        Fight pilot community probably has a higher divorce rate than the overall population.
        Devout Christian men in that community (at least the ones I am familiar with) have far lower divorce rates by comparison. Most of them are white. All of them had children though. I don’t know any Christian men who didn’t want kids.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Just to add, It’s true this is an isolated community.
        But removing variables/confounding factors helps compare apples to apples.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Devout Christian men in that community (at least the ones I am familiar with) have far lower divorce rates by comparison. Most of them are white. All of them had children though. I don’t know any Christian men who didn’t want kids.

        Sure, of the devout Christian men who manage to get married, they’d probably have lower divorce rates.

        The overall divorce rate among Christians is 28%. Not too much better than the 45 to 50% figure for all marriages. But since we’re comparing devout Christian men (unattractive men) to fighter pilots (very attractive men) yes, I’m sure there will be a wider disparity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth

        you and i have had a lot of back and forth over the past few days and I thank you for engaging me in good faith.

        I didn’t mean to suggest you were damn lucky you got anyone to marry you. I mean you were damn lucky to get an attractive man like SAM to marry you.

        Of course you could have gotten married to a man other than SAM. Of course you could have married if SAM had not turned out to be the man he is. Everyone can find someone to marry them. The fact that my parents were married proves that. The fact that I’m married proves that.

        The low marriage rate among black women is a result of their own choices. Every one of them could be married if they wanted to be.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        I didn’t mean just any old someone. I meant a decent guy. Not with the same objective appeal of my guy, but…

        My dad was livid with me, but you’re right. People were already running cover for me. Even men. There is an almost knee jerk desire to protect the “good girl” who was seduced.

        Liked by 3 people

  38. Elspeth says:

    This is all true. So these young people have some choices to make, and some questions to ask themselves. What’s it worth? What do they value more? This life or the next? Our children by the way, are standing on their own convictions. Not mine, and not SAM’s. Right now they are solidly convicted to do what’s right by their Savior. At some point they may decide to compromise. That’s between them and the Lord. Not my life. Not my soul. Not ultimately.

    We failed the test and received mercy. We have been granted grace upon grace. But had any one of us died while living that sinful life. The fact that I was head over heels for my husband didn’t change the fact that he wasn’t my husband.

    And then… there’s the question of what happens if they do compromise for the chance at a ring. What if they compromise and it doesn’t come through, he decides to move on, that it isn’t going to work out? How many times should they compromise in hopes that the next Christian guy who is struggling with sexual temptation will be “the one”?

    For me, as awful as this might sound, that’s almost as big an issue as the spiritual one. There’s no guarantee that the gamble will pay off. You know my story, deti. This could just as easily have gone the other way. Easily. Then you know what I’d be? Just another statistic. I can’t even imagine that I would have half the life I have now. Somebody would have married me. That I feel fairly certain of, but woe would have been upon that poor man!

    It’s very easy to say (especially to the woman), “Well, if you want to be married, this is the cost of entry.” But the stakes are much higher for us. So much higher. No matter what the culture has been screaming at us for the past 60 years. It’s a lie.

    And then, there is the sin factor, that is always looming large in the room.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Yes. All true.

      You didn’t address the dilemmas Christian men face – dilemmas I myself faced.

      1) Christian men are roundly shamed, abused, and condemned for overt expressions of sexual interest. This just has to stop, and women have to stop doing this. With all due respect, women and sanctimonious clergy, shut up about this. They are men, doing what men naturally do. You want them to take the initiative, then b!tch and complain when they do the precise thing you’re telling them to do. It’s just that you don’t like the way they’re doing it. You don’t like that it’s direct, overt, and clear. You wrongly complain that directness, overtness and clarity are aggression and assault when it comes to sexual interest. THEY ARE NOT.

      What’s really going on here is that you don’t like average men trying to act like attractive men. You don’t like it that average men have wants, needs and desires. You don’t like it that average men are overtly and directly expressing those wants, needs, and desires. You don’t like being faced with it. Too damn bad. DEAL WITH IT.

      You want them to be men, then you b!tch and complain when they act like men. You want them to “man up”, then b!tch and complain when they “man up” according to their own definitions. You just don’t like that they’re doing it the way they want, and not the way YOU want.

      Women and clergy, you don’t get to express an opinion about this anymore. You’ve done enough damage already. SHUT. UP.

      2) Expressing sexual interest is what men do. They are MEN. You have GOT to give them room to BE MEN. For the love of God, LEAVE THEM ALONE and GET OUT OF THEIR WAY.

      3) When they fail to observe Christian sexual morality, you have GOT to give them a path to redemption and forgiveness instead of shaming and condemning. This is a major reason men are leaving the church. It’s mainly why I left for a long, long time. You people make it sound like you literally hate men and hate what men are and what they do.

      4) Would you people PLEASE stop lecturing us about p0rn. Would you people PLEASE stop hammering us over the head with false claims about how we are worthless unless we marry a slut and father her children. PLEASE stop with the false claims that no man is worth anything unless he is a married father.

      5) If the church doesn’t start ministering to divorced men, it’s going to die, as well it should.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I am not too worried about the girls here. The girls have all the support and instruction and help from the church, from clergy, and from other women that they could possibly want. The girls will be just fine. They get all kinds of sympathy and empathy when they lament their singleness. The girls get all kinds of instruction and training on how to meet and date men.

      Their sexual immorality will always be excused and explained away. If she had sex, it is because some man (probably an unchaste Christian man) tricked and duped her into it. Their single motherhood will be explained as the sperm donor/baby daddy/ex husband’s moral failings. They will be heralded as heroes merely for not having abortions. They will be welcomed back to the church with open arms – all they have to do is say a meek “sorry” and all is forgiven. They will be supported with praise, moral shelter, and money.

      They will settle for husbands, and if it doesn’t work out, they’ll get some alimony and a lot of child support. They’ll continue to get the moral high ground because, well, if she’s divorced, it has to be because her husband is an evil, terrible man.

      The girls will be just fine.

      Liked by 2 people

  39. feeriker says:

    5) If the church doesn’t start ministering to divorced men, it’s going to die, as well it should.

    The church doesn’t minister to men, period, divorced or not. Other than the tiny handful of elected elite who are “pastor’s ‘yes men,'” churches would just as soon that all men be gone. They’re a threat to established feminine-primary order. The biblically literate family man who is not one of “the Elect” and who can call BS on pastoral heresy is at the top of the expulsion list.

    Liked by 3 people

  40. feeriker says:

    And most clergy are basically women so it’s probably a good idea to ignore them as well.

    It’s probably more accurate to describe them as “castrati,” but your point is well taken.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. feeriker says:

    The overall divorce rate among Christians is 28%.

    It’s that low? The last figure I recall seeing (can’t remember the source) for Christian divorce was 38%, ten points higher. That figure is probably at least ten years old. In fact, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to learn that the “Christian” divorce rate is well over 40 percent now.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      I stand corrected – it is 38%.

      I think it was 28% among Roman Catholics.

      Because you raised this, I spent about 15 minutes or so trying to find current information on this and I couldn’t easily find anything more recent than the source for those figures which was the Barna study in 2008 or 2009. Shaunti Feldhahn tried to run the numbers to argue there was a lower overall divorce rate and Dalrock dealt with that in a few posts.

      Start with this one and go to later links.

      https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/nowhere-close-to-true/

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      The bottom line is that I’m not sure there is current reliable information on Christian divorce rates. Maybe we have to wait for the 2020 census results to come out and the GSS to identify it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah and then there will be all kind of “No True Scotsman” stuff going on as well, once the numbers become available.

        Liked by 4 people

  42. Elspeth says:

    @ Deti:

    Something just occurred to me and before I take a net hiatus for a few days, I wanted to address this:

    you and i have had a lot of back and forth over the past few days and I thank you for engaging me in good faith.

    I didn’t mean to suggest you were damn lucky you got anyone to marry you. I mean you were damn lucky to get an attractive man like SAM to marry you.

    I’m going to return your good faith and say that even though I had prospects, and decent ones (even in my state at the time), you are 100% correct. I would not have fared this well for a few reasons. My life would have been completely different. maybe not worse, but very different, and I really love my life, and my husband is who I have to thank for that.

    He has always had a particular vision for what his life would look like. What his marriage would be like (and what it wouldn’t be like. How his wife would carry herself, and after all these years, I still pause, think and ask, “Will SAM like this?” before I buy almost any article of clothing that will be worn outside my house. He had a way he wanted his children to carry themselves. The whole nine. None of it involved being rich, and thank God because we never actually managed that.

    He was looking to build a certain ethos in which his family flowed. And frankly, all of that was very different from anything I had a frame of reference for. I’m bookish, always have been, and despite not being bookish himself, he saw the value in a wife who reads Boethius and relishes history and tradition. So he allowed me the freedom to indulge that and paid for all those interests. He figured it would pay off in having a wife who is anything but a stereotype, and he was right. Especially considering where I hail from, something he negs me about from time to time.

    In retrospect, his choosing me seems like it should have been a foregone conclusion. I can see now what he saw, even though I was not the hottest woman he could have had. He had vision.

    Any other life might have been adequate, because I am a relatively content person by nature. Low maintenance, even compared to him. But whatever life I would have had, it would not have been this. And I really love this.

    So I again concede your point.

    Liked by 3 people

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

  44. Pingback: Charting the Red Pill World | 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