Commonalities of Successful Marriages

The basic elements that are so difficult to attain!

Readership: Christians interested in Marriage
Author’s Note: This post is based on a comment I wrote under The Christian Conundrum (2021 March 1), and several other comments from readers under the same post. Links to the original comments are contained in the first word of the paragraph.
Length: 3,600 words
Reading Time: 12 minutes

Introduction

In this post, I want to review some information that has appeared on Σ Frame and Christianity and Masculinity over the last couple months. This information is a summary of certain traits/characteristics that, when taken together, serve to enhance the male-female relationship (i.e. marriage).

Cameron listed three commonalities with successful marriages (even those that started in sin and without proper screening or planning).

  1. The marriage is open to (better if enthusiastic for) having children.
  2. The woman wants to be (primarily) a wife and mother rather than a careerist.
  3. There was evident attraction from the woman directed towards the man from the get-go. (i.e. Scott’s axiom).

This mirrors conclusions I have made in the past, that marriage is (or should be) about sex (largely dependent on point 3, since women are “gatekeepers” of sex) and having children (point 1), and that it needs to have a Headship structure (implied in the combination of points 2 and 3). Also, point 2 requires the woman’s decided rejection of any self-centered personal ambitions, such as the Feminist Life Script or riding the CC. Point 3 and early marriage discourages the latter.

This also explains why many non-Christians have successful marriages and many Christians do not, as I wrote about in The Christian Marriage Dilemma (2021 February 26).

Deep Strength wrote a rejoinder at Christianity and Masculinity which elaborated on my comment. In What makes a Christian marriage successful? (2021 March 2), he added that these three points reflect the Biblical mandates in Genesis 1 and 2. He writes,

In effect, God’s commands of marriage as an earthly institution first with Adam and then as a helper with Eve are to:

  1. Take dominion over all the earth
  2. Multiply and fill the earth
  3. Cultivate and tend to the garden
  4. Obey God
  5. Eve as a helper

So what are men attracted to? Men are generally attracted to physical beauty (e.g. .6-.8 waist to hip ratio), healthy bodies, beauty, etc., which tend to indicate that she is fertile and has a good capacity to bear children — thus fulfilling God’s command to multiply and fill the earth. Femininity is generally nurturing and kind, much like a good helper would be.

So what are women attracted to? Women are generally attracted to PSALM – power, status, athleticism, looks (muscle, etc.), and money and similar things. Power and status? Those tend to correlate with taking dominion. Athleticism and looks/muscle? Those tend to be correlated with protecting and caring for things like the garden and her and her children. Money? Provisioning for her and her children. Masculine traits are helpful for improving all of these to varying degrees.

To circle back around…

These obviously look familiar to Cameron’s and Jack’s assessment of godly successful marriages.

  1. Marriage is open and/or enthusiastic about having children. Check. Be fruitful and multiply.
  2. The woman wants to be a wife and mother instead of a careerist. Check. Helper to her man (wife) and be fruitful and multiply (mother).
  3. Evident sexual attraction. Check. Obviously, a man fulfilling God’s mandate to take dominion, protect and provide for himself (and by extension a wife and children) and obey God (e.g. not put his wife on a pedestal — or as in Heartiste’s rule, “You shall make your mission, not women, your priority!”) is going to be attractive to women. Likewise, a woman that is generally beautiful and feminine will tend to best fulfill the “be fruitful and multiply” and “helper” commands and duties respectively.

These three points might seem like an oversimplified list, however, there are many other factors that work in conjunction with these three points to support the overall state of the union. The remainder of this post will examine these other factors.

Female Virginity is Important

Some readers might object that female virginity is not on the list, but actually, it is listed in the fine print. Virginity and chastity are important because a woman’s N count sharply erodes point 3 and could affect point 1 (e.g. extended family, paternity fraud, etc.).

Concerning how it erodes point 3, Cameron shared a good post from Lori Alexander at the Transformed Wife, entitled, Virginity is a Patriarchal Concept? (2021 March 1). This post includes testimonials from women (and a few from men) about the effects that the lack of virginity/chastity has on a marriage. Here’s one that expresses the basic damage to the soul that results from promiscuity:

“It created an emotional separation basically from sex itself. It’s more of just an act for me than a true connection.”

The non-virgin risks losing the emotional connection inherent in marital sex. The implications of this disconnection are far reaching. This means that her desire for sex, and her enjoyment of sex, is completely dependent on her raw attraction to her husband.

Since ~80% of men cannot inspire raw attraction, this results in the wife only being marginally attracted or not attracted at all to their beta hubby, and leads to a lack of sex, or cold fish “duty” sex given resentfully.

This is a problem because it ruins the bonding and the sense of shared purpose in marriage, and it resets the relationship in terms of female hypergamic-visceral-attraction and the resulting sexual competition.

One testimony emphasizes the lack of the bonding emotional connection in marriage.

“It ruined my view of sex in my marriage for a long time. It affected how I saw my husband for a while too. I treated him like the horrible men from my past that I had no business being with in the first place.”

Another testimony:

“I would say this is my biggest regret in life. God created sex for husband and wife, and it isn’t meant to be shared with anyone else. When you share it, it loses its exclusivity. You almost make yourself less ‘special’, if that makes sense.”

Of course, it has to be “special” for her to enjoy it. Given the high rate of premarital sex, even within the church (65%), this explains the prevalence of starfish sex in marriage, which in turn, makes sex less ‘special’ for men.

And another:

“Having the memories of past lovers. It would have been a satisfying accomplishment to have been a virgin on my wedding night, but because of fornication, I robbed myself of that.”

Translation: “Having memories of past lovers.” = A symptom of the Alpha Widow syndrome.
Translation: “Satisfying accomplishment” = to be able to experience the aforementioned emotional connection during sex.

Because of her exhilarating past experiences with Alpha Chad(s), she sees her husband as a common Beta Bob in comparison. She gave to another man (or men) what was rightfully only her husband’s, and now she projects her resentment at Alpha Chad, and her own shame, onto her husband.

This mental comparison, combined with the emotional triggers, and the inability to bond is the root of the Alpha Widow Syndrome.

This is why women with more sexperience always think they should have top quality men — because only those men can induce the raw attraction that would make sex without the emotional bonding a satisfying experience.

Another which alludes to the bonding experience:

“Oh, man. I wish I had never done it before marriage. It’s awful. Sometimes my past experiences are triggered while I am with my husband, and it’s almost as if I’m letting someone else into our own private bedroom or our own private love and life.”

Female fornication isn’t literally adultery but it has many of the same physical, psychological, and spiritual effects. Instead of valuing marriage and family as a feminine sphere of vital influence, women who indulge in illicit sex come to resent marriage and value promiscuity and divorce instead. Instead of valuing their glorious role as mothers, women learn to despise the notion of having children and value abortion instead. All this is colloquially referred to as “women’s liberation”, but more truthfully, it should be called a “defilement rebellion”.

So you see, female virginity is the lynchpin behind the female life path.

Strong Masculine Figures are Important

All truly successful relationships are primarily built on strong males who take ownership of their life, their wives, their future, and their problems. The foundation of the family is built on masculine strength — a strength which comes not from ego, but integrity, and an unwavering sense of self-worth. Strong men are what holds society together as the world continues to wreak havoc on its foundation.

The influence of a strong masculine male, whether he be a husband or a father, is huge in creating the ambient setting in which wives, sons, and daughters can thrive according to God’s plan. Strong men are often not aware of how much their strength carries the day to overcome the challenges of life, regardless of their own faults. Therefore, those men who possess a well developed masculinity may take this ability for granted, while those who have not yet attained it may fail to recognize its importance and neglect pursuing this aspect of their self-development.

A strong male should be distinguished from a Red Pill male, although it is easy to confuse them as equivalent. RP helps wake up strong males to the proper approach to relationships; they just have to flush out the false ideas they were fed and learn how to properly take the reins of their life. However, weak males, no matter how much RP instruction they receive, will continue to struggle because the foundation of inner strength (which is the essence of masculinity) is not there.

Of course, all males have different innate personalities and strengths from their maker but various negative childhood and parental experiences as well as some unresolved issues or sins leave many men weak, discouraged and fearful of life, relationships, and their future. So, it is these men that need to be taken under the wings of strong males (especially Christian) to restore what the Devil has robbed them of in their past; then the RP truth can finally be leveraged by them. This is what needs to be understood by the strong males out there; that the weak males languish in the shadows, not knowing how to express their condition and issues (i.e., weakness and fears). They need an older brother or a father figure(s) to confide in and who can help rebuild them. Then women will no longer be a fearful, intimidating, or controlling aspect of their lives. Men have to break free of their need of a woman before they can properly handle them. A man’s inner strength (especially from God) is the foundation of this freedom.

With the culture at war against masculinity in general, and white males in particular, men like these are becoming fewer and scarcer today. Few men possess the confidence and skills necessary to push through adversity, and rule their wives and the earth, mainly due to lack of instruction, support, and guidance. This is why forums and ministries like Σ Frame are needed to help the many weak, confused, Christian men out there to be discipled into positive masculinity.

Parenting, Community, and Education are Important

A man can create his own tight knit family if he has a like-minded, cooperative wife, but a tight knit religious community helps immensely. Studies have shown that couples who attend church regularly have a lower incidence of adultery and divorce.

Aside from her own cultivated fear of God, one important factor that keeps women from defecting is a strong connection to her family and religious community — and the continual discernment that she loses this if she does the “girls gone wild” thing. She must be aware of the shame that would result from her actions in the family and community, even if the outside world cheers her on.

The effects of community were painfully evident in one study, Is there any honor or benefit to slut shaming an adulterous wife? (2018 November 24). The conclusions of this study found that there are many benefits and risks that come with this approach, but the effectiveness and end results of this approach would depend on the character of the individual, the social context, and the nature of their peer group as well.

If the peer group / public rejoined the husband’s shaming of the wife by reinforcing the social ostracization, then this may do wonders in bouncing the wayward wife back onto the straight and narrow. We know how women always follow the herd.

On the other hand, if the peer group / public places blame on the husband and supports the wife’s promiscuity, then the husband is only bringing more shame and trouble upon himself.

As you can imagine, involvement in a based social group and/or religious community has to be intentionally sought out, and establishing this connection may involve personal sacrifices.

Moreover, the larger social community surrounding the home can often times make or break a daughter and/or a wife, and by extension, a marriage.

The effects of parenting, community, and education have been covered extensively in many previous posts, most notably these.

“Gestalt” is Important

Elspeth wrote her own list of qualifications of a good marriage, which further augments the three points mentioned above.

“What -historically- makes for a good marriage is the same as it’s ever been. If I had to make a list:”

  • Initial attraction
  • Shared faith and values
  • A lack of previous sexual partners to compare to is very helpful and God’s best.
  • Regular sex as much as is possible (patient practice will make perfect)
  • Treat each other with love as defined in Scripture (1st Corinthians 13, Philippians 4)
  • The wife is to submit to and respect her husband.
  • The husband is to love his wife, lead her in Christ, and get to know his wife so that he can dwell with her according to knowledge.
  • Commitment to vows; nobody leaves.

“If there’s a formula, that’s it. We do these things, but it’s not OUR formula. It’s God’s outline.

It’s not necessarily easy all the time, but we’re Christians. Even when we don’t execute everything perfectly, we don’t have to do it alone. And there should really be a broad agreement that a commitment to Christ invites supernatural power to [help us] rise above our lower instincts.

But no one can make their spouse do these things. We can only control ourselves.”

There’s an important idea lurking behind Elspeth’s formula which many readers are probably not aware of, and that is the concept of “the whole package deal”. We have to accept that life is dynamic, that people are individuals, and that we all have unique desires, spiritual needs, and life-purposes. We have to accept this dynamic and find a way to juggle all the variables and cofactors such that we can make the marriage “work” according to God’s proscribed order. It is not an easy task.

This phenomenon exists everywhere you look. Here are several noteworthy examples.

  • In philosophy, this concept is referred to as holism.
  • In government, it is alluded to in the political axiom, “United we stand, divided we fall.”
  • In social theory, it is called collective strength.
  • In psychology, Gestalt therapy applies this principle to give individuals a healthy and holistic concept of one’s self.
  • Mathematics describes this quality in the axiom, “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts”.
  • In physics, this concept is addressed by what is called superposition.
  • Engineering management takes this approach in Systems Thinking.
  • Additionally, the most successful business enterprises commonly have divisions of labor which address specialized tasks, and these divisions are skillfully coordinated by the management to reach the desired productivity.
  • The same idea is utilized in engineering design, where many light, flimsy struts can be connected to form a very sturdy and rigid body.
  • In a previous post, God’s Concept of Justice (2021 April 2), I referred to this phenomena as The Mob in the Crucible Effect (c.f. “frogs in the pot”, or “crabs in the bucket”), which is based on the premise that we influence those around us, for better or for worse, and that it is the will of God for us to act as independent agents.

Moreover, we are all subject to the decisions and actions of others, especially those in positions of power (including power players in the SMP).

He wants the fruit, she wants the bread!

These Missives are not Unique to Christianity

Concerning the central missives of a Christian marriage, NovaSeeker and I have both pointed out that these missives are not unique to Christianity.

These missives also have something else in common: None of them is a specifically Christian screen.

This was the point of two previous posts, The Christian Conundrum (2021 March 1) and The Christian Marriage Dilemma (2021 February 26).

Cameron pointed out that, because of the Natural Law (alluded to by St. Paul in Romans and formalized in some of the high churches e.g. Catholicism), there’s overlap between Christian marriage (the traditional kind) and natural/pagan marriage.

There doesn’t appear to be a substantial correlation between the degree of success/happiness seen in nominally Christian marriages, on the one hand, and the degree of Christian screening/Christian behavior prior to marriage, on the other. That’s just the stark reality which has been made clear through several testimonies that have been discussed in the comments over the last couple months.

We cannot disagree that there are benefits to screening people prior to marriage. The point is that the explicitly Christian screen doesn’t seem to make a difference, and it isn’t what made certain marriages successful.

In fact, there are any number of screens that one could use for a successful secular marriage. Commenters have brought up a number of examples of long term secular marriages of varying degrees of happiness that have few or no children, women with very high powered careers who aren’t “sweet” and are, in fact, women who would be described as “careerists” by almost everyone here. It is not hard to find marriages like this, with no divorces occurring.

We may be apt to say, “Well that doesn’t mean they are happy!”. That’s right, but it does mean that they are not divorced, unlike any number of “Christian”-screened marriages between people who “followed the Christian rules”.

There is a pervasive notion that Christianity, or faith in God, or what have you, is like a Swiss army knife that can handle every contingency. We want to think that if we can just “get it right”, or be more obedient, or more spiritually mature, or more masculine, or more aware of some other mysterious thing that we haven’t identified yet, then Christianity can make all of our sufferings vanish into thin air. There has to be a silver bullet, there has to be a better screen, something we are missing, something that is the real answer…”

There isn’t. There is only Christ. This is the inscrutable aspect of God’s justice. Sure, every reasonable person understands that probability exists, including free will, agency, and other wild cards, on top of the obvious cause-and-effect going on, but we cannot negotiate with God. We can never say, “I did A, B, and C… (or didn’t do X, Y, and Z), so I am fully within my rights to expect whatever I want from God”, even if it’s something we believe God wants us to have. This is reminiscent of a prosperity gospel.

It’s like NovaSeeker said,

“Again, and I will not apologize for repeating myself here, because it seems needed: that is the point of several past posts. The point is the dilemma that Christians specifically face. I don’t think that Jack or I would deny that there are various kinds of secular criteria one can apply (and perhaps that one should apply) which will lead to different degrees of marital success, depending on what kind of marriage you want to have, where “success” is defined at least as “not divorced” and right on up to “teenagers in love, happy in perpetuity”.”

BUT…

“Your wife can be n=0, from a religious family without divorce, no obvious red flags and … at some stage she just flips the script and decides she finally agrees with the cultural messaging, after all.”

So when Red Pill Christian guys in happy marriages look at destroyed/blown up marriages and tell the broken husband he didn’t vet well enough, this makes Scott want to throttle their necks.

Churches are in total denial about this conundrum, as we have covered before. Pastors and elders won’t address the issue because they are afraid to condemn a common social norm that violates doctrine.

As long as churchianity remains the prevailing substitute for Christianity, this will not change. Churchianity, being a model based ultimately on humanism, and by extension utilitarianism and expediency, cannot, because of its very nature, confront or solve conundrums that pit the tenets of the faith against the ways of the world and the flesh. Because it fears [wo]man more than it fears God, the world and the flesh win any confrontation by default.

Conclusions

In conclusion, there is a misconception about what “Christian” truly means in regard to dating and marriage. To wit, we have the notion that a Christian marriage requires two chaste, professing Christians being properly married in a certain kind of church, complete with public vows and golden rings and the rubber stamps of the church and state. You may choose between lilies or roses, and rice or confetti…

But all these things are rather superficial. In reality, the collection of factors I listed above (Cameron’s 3 points with my extensions) is what truly constitutes a “Christian” marriage (or what should be touted as a Christian marriage).

Here, the adjective “Christian” in front of “marriage” carries the meaning that it glorifies God, fulfills His purposes for marriage, and establishes a sanctified home environment that is conducive to the emotional security and spiritual vitality of the family.

This is what determines whether the marriage is successful, and not the mere absence of divorce.

This is more in line with what Christianity is about, and not white dresses and pipe organs.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Attraction, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Collective Strength, Courtship and Marriage, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Headship and Patriarchy, Hypergamy, Introspection, IOI's, Love, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Purpose, Relationships, Reviews, Sexual Authority, The Power of God, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Commonalities of Successful Marriages

  1. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    JACK,I think this is your best post yet,you &I both know women don’t care much for white dresses&pipe organs either!
    I&burt reynolds,knew’76/’77 PONTIAC TRANSAM’s solve most problems of interpersonal relationships,but who has listened to our 2 most famous ”feild” reports?Short comment,huh?
    P.S.Even jimmy reed found this out in part 3,after he replaced jackie gleason’s non-pontiac transam,that dos’nt drive the girls wild!In other words,keep it relz,jack,out on the highway of Patrimony!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. cameron232 says:

    RE: female virginity/fornication. I suspect in addition to the mechanisms you mentioned (lack of emotional “pair-bonding”, alpha-widow/past comparisons) there’s another thing about female fornication that tends to ruin marriages. I once saw a commenter on RoK put it this way (from memory):

    Men’s committed, enduring love for an individual woman is somewhat dependent on the feeling that “this girl is mine, and mine alone.” Female premarital fornication tends to undermine this feeling in men.

    One of the largest documented differences in male/female psychology is the difference in how relationship jealousy (e.g. jealousy over past lovers or “cheating”) is experienced. Female jealousy is skewed towards emotional jealously, male jealousy is skewed towards sexual jealousy.

    See “The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences” by John Archer, University of Central Lancashire, specifically the section under “Sexual Conflict.”

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331903155_The_reality_and_evolutionary_significance_of_human_psycholo

    I suspect this sort of thing, on average, affects how the man sees and feels about and values and treats the wife. This of course can lead to the downward spiral – each spouse not feeling love, not feeling loved, not treating each other well – then divorce.

    In other words, it isn’t just the female psychology at work here.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Novaseeker says:

    One of the corollaries of this is the following: older people should not marry, and older divorced people should not remarry (regardless of one’s moral theology about divorce and remarriage in general), because these “companionate” marriages will flunk the three-part test (no kids, no mothering) at least, and therefore are likely to fail.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. “Men’s committed, enduring love for an individual woman is somewhat dependent on the feeling that “this girl is mine, and mine alone.” Female premarital fornication tends to undermine this feeling in men.

    I suspect this sort of thing, on average, affects how the man sees and feels about and values and treats the wife.”

    But if the woman is behaving well and making it extremely obvious she is his and his alone, then any jealousy about prior relationships would be irrational on his part.

    “The marriage is open to (better if enthusiastic for) having children.
    The woman wants to be (primarily) a wife and mother rather than a careerist.
    There was evident attraction from the woman directed towards the man from the get-go. (i.e. Scott’s axiom).”

    That would be a good start, but it’s just the start. CONTINUED attraction, sexual enthusiasm for each other and being on the same page goals wise is what makes a good marriage keep being a good marriage.

    “Your wife can be n=0, from a religious family without divorce, no obvious red flags and … at some stage she just flips the script and decides she finally agrees with the cultural messaging, after all.”

    Yep, and then you are screwed.

    Liked by 6 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “But if the woman is behaving well and making it extremely obvious she is his and his alone, then any jealousy about prior relationships would be irrational on his part.”

      Maybe but people think, feel and behave based on instinct and not just based on rationality. We know this about women but it’s true of men as well. And instincts can be very deep rooted.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Perseverating on past events is not “instinct”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @KH,

        Why did men invent and use terms like “damaged goods”, “sloppy seconds”, etc. independent of a woman’s professed or currently indicated sexual loyalty/exclusivity?

        A woman only having sex with the man she married is a very strong predictor of marital stability and this is true even when you control for religious outlook/adherence e.g. true for couples who lived in sin.

        We know this is at least partially caused by female psychology and the resulting behavior. My hypothesis is that male psychology also contributes to this for biological/instinctive reasons.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        If this were universally true no man would ever marry a single mother or a divorcee. And they do it fairly regularly.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        They are desperate. No man on earth would choose to marry a single mom over a virgin if given the option

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Elspeth,

        “If this were universally true no man would ever marry a single mother or a divorcee. And they do it fairly regularly.”

        Is this to me?

        It’s recognized that female virginity is preferable for lifetime, stable marriages to commitment-minded men. We know there’s a strong relationship to marital stability independent of religious devotion. Some of the reasons as relates to female psychology have been postulated by the manosphere and Lori’s post quoted in Jack’s OP backs that up.

        I’m postulating that there’s male psychology at work as well in contributing to marital instability.

        I don’t think I claimed anything was universally true (beyond people acting based on instinct AND rationality) and I didn’t deny that men marry single moms and divorcees. That’s a huge stretch from what I hypothesized.

        I’m not sure why what I wrote would be controversial around here.

        Liked by 1 person

    • “…at some stage she just flips the script and decides she finally agrees with the cultural messaging, after all.”

      I married the daughter of the Republican precinct captain. She’s voted for Obama (twice), Clinton (TDS), and Biden (TDS 2.0) since then. Voted Dem for governor. Gives money to Planned Parenthood. Etc., etc. …

      Doesn’t understand why I spend so much time at the gym or working on things around the house.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. Robert S says:

    Jack,
    Very good post. One thing I would add to the list is a strong masculine male. These are becoming more and more scarce today with the culture at war with manhood. I believe all truly successful relationships are primarily built on strong males whose strength comes not from ego but integrity and an unwavering sense of self-worth. One who takes ownership of his life, future, and problems. I find that strong men are often not aware of how much their strength carries the day to overcome the challenges of life regardless of their own faults. Therefore, they take this ability for granted although few men possess it (mainly due to lack of instruction, support, and guidance). In my opinion, strong men are what holds society together as the world continues to wreak havoc on its foundation. That is why forums and ministries like this are needed to help the many weak confused Christian men out there be discipled into positive masculinity.
    [Jack: Excellent point! I will add this to the post!]

    Liked by 3 people

    • Robert S says:

      Jack,
      Also, to further clarify, a strong male should be distinguished from a red pill male although it is easy to confuse them as equivalent. RP helps wake up strong males to the proper approach to relationships; they just have to flush out the false ideas they were fed and learn how to properly take the reins of their life. However, weak males, no matter how much RP instruction they receive will continue to struggle because the foundation of inner strength (which is the essence of masculinity) is not there.

      Of course, all males have innate strength from their maker but various negative childhood and parental experiences as well as some unresolved issues or sins leave many men weak, discouraged and fearful of life, relationships and their future. So, it is these men that need to be taken under the wings of strong males (especially Christian) to restore what the Devil has robbed them of in their past; then the RP truth can finally be leveraged by them. This is what needs to be understood by the strong males out there; that the weak males languish in the shadows, not knowing how to express their condition and issues (i.e., weakness and fears). They need an older brother or a father figure(s) to confide in and who can help rebuild them. Then women will no longer be a fearful, intimidating or controlling aspect of their lives. Men have to break free of their need of a woman before they can properly handle them and inner strength (especially from God) is the foundation of this freedom.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Robert,

        I think that is a great comment and addition to the OP. This:

        “Of course, all males have innate strength from their maker but various negative childhood and parental experiences as well as some unresolved issues or sins leave many men weak, discouraged and fearful of life, relationships and their future.”

        Men have different innate personalities (I agree childhood and parental experiences have some effect). I’m just pointing that out so it’s not forgotten.

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Also, to further clarify, a strong male should be distinguished from a red pill male although it is easy to confuse them as equivalent. RP helps wake up strong males to the proper approach to relationships; they just have to flush out the false ideas they were fed and learn how to properly take the reins of their life. However, weak males, no matter how much RP instruction they receive will continue to struggle because the foundation of inner strength (which is the essence of masculinity) is not there.”

        Agree! This was my experience too: “RP helps wake up strong males to the proper approach to relationships; they just have to flush out the false ideas they were fed and learn how to properly take the reins of their life.” I realize I was by and large a ‘strong male’ as you put it with a Blue Pill mindset and weakness. Once I took the Red Pill and ingested the thing into my ‘psychological system’ that masculine strength got magnified as the Blue Pill/Beta in me began to recede. It was like, “Oh, now I get it.” The strong masculine qualities that I felt that I had always had began to magnify themselves out in the world, particularly with females, but also with guys too. It’s like the strength becomes a growing energy field out there in the world, if that makes any sense. I’m an older guy, married and not looking to ‘hook up’ with anyone out there, but I’ve noticed that female attraction to me keeps rising, particularly from women in the 35-40 age range, the post wall, but still relatively young women (at least young to me). This is the weirdest thing I’ve ever experienced in my middle age years. But again, I tend to agree with you; Red Pill knowledge tends to really help the men who already have a masculine way of being that’s just been clouded over with all the Blue Pill indoctrination and bullsh*t. Once that begins to clear out, it seems that men and women look at you, and this is very cliché and old school I realize but I’ll say it anyways: They see you as more as a ‘Man’s man.’

        Liked by 1 person

      • Robert S says:

        “Once I took the Red Pill and ingested the thing into my ‘psychological system’ that masculine strength got magnified as the Blue Pill/Beta in me began to recede. It was like, “Oh, now I get it.” The strong masculine qualities that I felt that I had always had began to magnify themselves out in the world, particularly with females, but also with guys too. It’s like the strength becomes a growing energy field out there in the world, if that makes any sense.”

        Your experience is exactly what I was talking about and is going on everywhere. The strong men out there can readily follow and act on the logic, reasonableness and common sense of the Red Pill without a hitch. Just like in Gulliver’s Travels when the Lilliputians tried to tie down Gulliver, the only reason they seemed to have success was that Gulliver was asleep and recovering from a shipwreck. Once he awoke and sat up, all of their ropes and ties popped off of him like they were nothing and the Lilliputians were then terrified at the prospects of what this giant (Gulliver) would do to them. (However, the weak men stay down, but not because of the Lilliputian’s ropes. It is that they don’t even have the strength to get up on their own. Wounds of childhood/youth, confusion, abandonment, discouragement and fear keeps them down.) Now, the strong Gulliver is a metaphor of the last few generations of men who have been shipwrecked by the indoctrination of the feminists, the media, the schools, and the government. However, when they finally “come to” and wake up (via a Red Pill) every restraint these groups put on the men became a joke. This is why the world is working hard to keep this out of mainstream because they know they will have a giant problem on their hands when all of the men wake up.

        You see the gender war is a joke, just as in every other area, men will win it over women, as this movement goes forward, with very little effort (ignore the Marvel movies). This is not due to some physical advantage but is due to the inherent nature and spirit of man. Men were made for labor, dominion and conquest, but women are made for relationships, nurturing, and producing offspring. War is in men’s nature, but peace is in women’s nature, that’s why women need to be protected by men that care for them from the evil men who seek to conquer them. This is the dark side of the Red Pill; the heathen and corrupt men use it for either self-serving or evil purposes. A lot of the talk that I hear in the Manosphere is very disturbing applications of the Red Pill. But, at any rate, the outcome of the gender war is going to be very bad for women. Finding a marriageable man (i.e., one who even wants to marry and plans to be a faithful, monogamous, lifelong husband) who meets their vain requirements will become harder each year.

        Feminism has made women feel good about being egotistical, objectified, narcissists and/or whores, while trying to denounce these labels at the same time. The seeming victory of the feminists is only due to them having been propped up by the evil educational, news media complex and the deep state. At the end of this war, whatever respect most men had for women will be totally gone. The sad reality is that many men are going to punish women for feminism, badly and unmercifully. The Red Pill, without proper guidance, can easily produce self-absorbed, heartless, egotistical and corrupt males. It can make our society largely become self-serving users and abusers (male and female) that will eventually self-destruct. See the fall of Rome for an illustration.

        So, the Red Pill is not enough, it must be followed by the White Pill, that is, clean decent living with family promoted and shaming of the users and abusers of whom the Manosphere has its share. Of course, the final step is the Gold Pill (seeking God). This is why I believe the men here are at the tip of the spear; you can and should lead the coming masculine renaissance. Don’t let the heathen do it, they will cause it to fail because they can only replace one problem with another. Don’t just complain or get lost in your fantasy female experience quest (that goes for the married and unmarried). Don’t just say the legal system is bad and rigged, start developing proper bills for legislation and submit them to your senator. The Left does this all the time, it’s time for the Right to get to work. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Elspeth says:

    “I’m not sure why what I wrote would be controversial around here.”

    It’s not controversial. It’s ideal, and from what I have witnessed (I would wager most of us have witnessed this), even religious, commitment-minded men do not choose with virginity as a necessity. That wasn’t even true when I was single (27+ years ago), and it’s even less true today.

    Believe me, I wish it were true, but reality is what it is. And it’s not ideal.

    Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Yes, men often don’t – we’ve discussed the likely reasons:

      You can’t choose what’s not available to you.

      If the fraction of women with n=0 is tiny, that subset of women may not be attractive to many men and in any event there’s not enough of them to go around.

      Relationships are now seen as temporary, you (or she) can end it. If temporary, why not go for maximum hotness/sex appeal when you choose? Note: this cuts across all denominations – Catholics are only better on paper, not in practice.

      Men are shamed for the traditional preference. What are you, insecure or something? A misogynist? A hymen worshipper? People internalize an awful lot. There’s a reason we use the redpill analogy.

      A psychological coping mechanism by men to deal with what she did – “uhhh, it doesn’t matter that Thad Thundercrotch got her first and I don’t know how many after him. Yeah that’s it!”

      For most men n=undefined-non-zero-integer is better than being alone with no sex or love. Ask Jason.

      All this applies in practice to Christian men and secular men.

      Liked by 5 people

  7. Jack says:

    Update: Based on Robert’s suggestion, I have added a new section, “Strong Masculine Figures are Important”, and I reworked the next section, “Parenting, Community, and Education are Important” to reflect these changes. This added about 500 words to the post.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. cameron232 says:

    An unsuccessful marriage means one or both spouses aren’t happy/attracted and/or one spouse bolts.

    Not sure where this fits in. Thinking about my discussion with the girls here.

    It’s seems to me the men who are most attractive to most women for lifetime, stable relationships are men who are alpha with just enough beta to be “barely monogamous” (my phrase). We know women are attracted to Chads, but I think it’s obvious that women don’t literally want men to cheat on them with other women. Just a little bit of beta mixed in there – just enough so he isn’t literally polygynous – seems to be the sweet spot for women.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Elspeth says:

      Now THAT was a jerk move: “barely monogamous” ? Not sure how a devout man who walks the path of faith with integrity can be characterized as “barely monogamous”.

      The West doesn’t even know what to do now with men who are unapologetic in their masculinity while still loving their woman well. You seem to see the two propositions as mutually exclusive.

      The additions are very good, Jack. Strong male role models who hold women accountable to a high standard is an essential component for marital success for women. And men for that matter.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah – that phrase – pretty rotten of me. I apologize. I guess I also forget that it’s not just the guys here.

        And, I wasn’t just thinking of what the ladies described. I was also imagining my own experiences. There have been slip ups I’ve made where my attraction for specific women was made obvious. It’s weird. It hurt her and at the same time made me more attractive to her. And another women’s attraction to me “helped” me too in terms of my wife’s attraction. And that’s (true or not) a major narrative around here. Not hiding your attraction to other women seems “alpha” to me which of course isn’t my natural tendency.

        So there’s this beta male “don’t want to hurt her” side and then this observation that she’s more attracted to you if you don’t come off as having “oneitis.”

        I guess I meant something like this – I didn’t mean that your husbands were probably “barely not cheating” or something like that. I guess I mean that a man who is confident enough not to hide his attraction to other women is attractive to his woman. And my own experience suggests this.

        But in your case, yes I understand that It’s also based on a mutual understanding that you don’t feel threated by it. And yes, I know he doesn’t do “game.” I don’t either.

        Again – rotten choice of words implying something that I don’t think. Have I dug myself into an even deeper hole with you?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        When Mike was in college and dating his ex (of 3 years), he had a hooters calendar he hid under his bed. One day she came over when he wasn’t home to “clean his room” and found it. Major sh*t show. She self destructed over this stupid calendar his sister bought him for his birthday or something.
        That’s not me. But when he dated her he hid stuff like that.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I don’t “hide stuff” (e.g. the heart guarding thing) for fear of my wife. I don’t fear sh*tshows at all, period.

        I would “hide” e.g. my preferences or “type” (if they were different than her), or I would hide my attraction to another woman because it bothers me that something like that hurts the woman you love.

        Either of these (fear of a sh*show or “heart-guarder”) are beta male traits of course.

        Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Cameron,the only GAMEtm I have usualy played is either electric video games or john lennons ”mind games”(Played this with numerous teachers during the ’80s, I did!) from his number 1 solo hit album,”walls&bridges” from ’74!So I better than most long-term redpillers usualy understand what your ”erractic”(LOLZ!)comments mean!I bet in RL,we would be good friends (that don’t go to strip joints together or to them at all!) like we are here at jacks,also!P.S.What you seem to call alpha&beta is what I&JACK call sigma(Where we show either at diffirent times,hence why it seems I’m two diffirent people instead of just one lovable fuzzball, natural ”gamer”!)

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        “I guess I mean that a man who is confident enough not to hide his attraction to other women is attractive to his woman. And my own experience suggests this.”

        I can’t speak for anyone else, but IMO open leering is disrespectful and inconsiderate to one’s spouse. It’s not like that.
        There seems a middle ground that is missing in this conversation.
        I don’t like deceitfulness and would certainly not like it if Mike was hiding something like that from me. But it’s also deceitful for a non-spouse to “clean his room” to spy on him and look into his personal effects like a mommy would for a twelve year old.
        Plus his sister was just weird.
        To me hair color, for example, is a pretty easy thing to change. It’s along the lines of asking someone to wear high heels or sexy underwear. At some point we all have our differences… is body lotion or deodorant “almost cheating”? After all, this isn’t her natural smell.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Tooth whitening? That’s not her natural smile…
        ect

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        I dress in mom jeans when Mike is away.
        When he’s home I wear the stuff he likes (it’s tasteful and comfortable, nothing out there, just yoga pants and stuff like that). He actually buys most of my clothes (he goes to the big cities and finds what is in style that he likes). Heck he even bought my purse. Is that alpha or beta? I don’t really care either way. But it’s far from “almost cheating”.
        It makes him happy. It is easy. Everyone is different.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        We’re all filtering what the other person writes here based on our own relationships, experiences, etc. and like you said there’s context that’s not evident, limitations on shared details, etc.

        I was almost tempted to ask my wife how she’d interpret it if I asked her to dye her hair dark or put on say a dark curly wig (she has long, straight blond hair which I happen to prefer). Without “leading” her to a specific answer as best as I can. Just out of curiosity. But even then, different context, different relationship/spouses.

        My guess is she’ll say that it sounds like you want the fantasy of a different woman because hair type is fairly fundamental to your phenotype (she wouldn’t use that fancy word) even if technology has allowed us to easily change it. It seems different than deodorant, whitening stained teeth, high heels. When we were young I liked her to wear shoes (heels or not) during you-know-what a few times but it was because the feeling I got was spontaneity (“she didn’t even have time to fully undress!”) not because it e.g. changed her height.

        I could also see how (trying to get inside women’s head) a woman could know her husband was attracted to a different type or to “variety” and still feel like he loved and valued her because he didn’t act on his attractions – he exercised will and love to be faithful to her despite his attraction.

        Just thinking out loud.

        If I decide to do this experiment, I’ll share with the group for educational purposes (if ya’ll care).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        “If I decide to do this experiment, I’ll share with the group for educational purposes (if ya’ll care).”

        I suspect it very much depends on the delivery.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Also, not to harp on this, but the deodorant thing seems different. Men are visual – VERY visual. I don’t think perfumes and deodorant are the same.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        “Also, not to harp on this, but the deodorant thing seems different. Men are visual – VERY visual. I don’t think perfumes and deodorant are the same.”

        Of course it is different. All of these examples are different.
        Sense of smell is pretty important, and more primal.
        But regardless, to me these things (how one dresses, how one wears her hair, makeup, lingerie, hair color, skin… to tan or not or whether to use moisturizer or acne medication, teeth, ad nauseam, etc.).

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Men are attracted to women based on looks above all – yeah I know the pheromone thing but looks trump smell as an attractor BIG TIME – smell would mainly be a disqualifier (given attraction to her looks) if she stinks or something. “She smelled like beef-vegetable soup” – Mike Myers, “So I Married an Axer Murderer”

        Nudie magazines (the web now) and Maxim are popular with men– not replicate-woman’s-smell products.

        The tan thing is closer to hair I suppose – tan is supposed to make you look “healthy”

        Makeup and zit-cream seems to be designed to hide imperfections and infections, wrinkles, blemishes.

        Clothes don’t seem like it makes it a different woman to me whether lingerie, pretty dresses – that’s the accessory not the woman and her phenotype.

        At my gut level, much more than any examples you give, my wife dramatically changing hair color (and say texture) seems like simulation of a different woman. E.g. My wife going from straight blond hair to curly black hair. That’s just my gut feel about it – other people are free to disagree.

        The weird haircolors from anime – pink, blue – so popular now seemed designed to cater to men’s natural attraction to variety.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Also I’m not Mike – NAWALT and NAMALT.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I guess this seems to me like an obvious question? Why did Archie Bunker get mad at Meathead for wanting her to wear the wig?

        It seems like the writers of the show (probably male) interpreted it the same way I did (wrt to Archie’s little girl). That done to his little girl made him angry.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        “I guess this seems to me like an obvious question? Why did Archie Bunker get mad at Meathead for wanting her to wear the wig?”

        Was he? I don’t even remember Archie in that episode. Though honestly I don’t remember much about it, just came to mind with the subject.
        A synopsis of the episode:

        “While Archie is away at his reunion with his old Army buddies, Frank and Irene invite Edith, Gloria and Mike to a movie. Gloria comes home with a surprise for Mike, a short black bobbed wig, which turns Mike on so much that he decides that they need to stay home. Getting ready to make love, Mike is aghast that Gloria has taken it off and she accuses him of loving the wig more than he loves her. They stop speaking to each other until the next day when he explains that the wig would be nothing without her in it.”

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I dunno – I was just going by your description in the other thread – I think I misread what you said – rereading it you seemed to say Gloria got upset.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Reading that description – I still think it’s implied that the negative reaction is because it’s like a different woman. 70’s TV standards were a bit milder. The “you love the wig not me” is comedy goofiness. Oh well – arguing over a 45 year old TV show.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “The West doesn’t even know what to do now with men who are unapologetic in their masculinity while still loving their woman well. You seem to see the two propositions as mutually exclusive.”

        They pretty much are.

        You labor under the presumption that men like SAM and Mike are common. They are not. Men like me have been forced to suppress our natural bents toward kindness and affability, “rules follower”, and “go along to get along” mentalities. We have had to incorporate some a-hole into our personalities and conduct just so we don’t get walked on. That includes having a foot out the door. That includes making clear the fact that we have options and they can be exercised. That includes putting up with zero BS.

        Because that seems to be the only way we can love our women well. That seems to be the only kind of love they respond to. Anything less invites blistering contempt.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Elspeth says:

        “We have had to incorporate some a-hole into our personalities and conduct just so we don’t get walked on.”

        The interesting thing about this bit of your comment is what you describe as “a-hole”. I don’t have a context for that, but I suspect that if I describe some of the ways my husband handled things when I was being difficult and rebellious, some might call it an “a-hole move”.

        I’m sure I did at the time. Now, I am grateful for the opportunity to have been called to account for my behavior when necessary. And I say this as a wife who has always (9 times out of 10) given to being pretty chill and respectful. I was bred to be such, and one of the things SAM was drawn to in me was the serenity.

        And still, he didn’t put up with any random, unwarranted craziness.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @deti
        Properly calibrated a-hole has value to men because it keeps you from being walked on (you) AND because a-hole within limits in an already attractive man enhances his attractiveness or at least doesn’t hurt him.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        @ Elspeth:

        So clearly not upper 10%.

        I call BS. And you know why so I won’t go through the rest of it.

        The point is, and the fact remains, that SAM has never had to run that kind of game on you because you have been so insanely sexually attracted to him you couldn’t see straight, and you’ve been like that from the very get go. You STILL can’t see straight, you’re so attracted to him. And SAM knows that, and has always known that. And he leverages it to maximum advantage. Even if he doesn’t leverage that, he CAN leverage it, very easily – which you and he also know.

        SAM is like the average woman: He is the living embodiment of Dread to you. His very existence in your life, and the fact that it can end anytime he wants it to, is Dread.

        That’s how the average man is with his woman – he has almost no power at all. The only way for him to attain any power is to simply take it, by emotional and relational force if necessary. “We’re doing it this way or I walk.” “I’m not putting up with that anymore. Stop it, change it, or we’re done.” Crushing any nasty, lippy, or disrespectful speech and behavior with aggressive confrontation and correction, and meeting it tit for tat if that’s what it takes.

        This, Elspeth and LIz, is why you do not understand this and will NEVER understand it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “Now, I am grateful for the opportunity to have been called to account for my behavior when necessary. And I say this as a wife who has always (9 times out of 10) given to being pretty chill and respectful. I was bred to be such, and one of the things SAM was drawn to in me was the serenity.”

        Two things:

        1) Most women get disrespectful. Man objects and corrects it, well or poorly. She escalates it. She throws tantrum, screaming fit, yelling match, throwing fists, threatening. He backs down, because he knows she can screw him over, divorce rape him, ruin him financially to the point of living out of his car, and he’ll never see his kids again, and it will be YEARS before he gets sex again.

        That is the AVERAGE man and AVERAGE woman. She has all of society, law, police, the courts, the church, her parents, his parents, her family, his family – all backing HER up. He is all alone. NO ONE supports him – not even his parents. Not even his pastor. Hell, not even his counselor or therapist.

        2) Most wives are not “chill, respectful or serene”. Most WOMEN are not these things.

        I am glad your personal experience was so positive. It is not for most men and women.

        Most women seem to be absolutely grindingly miserable married to the men THEY PICKED. How in the F is that HIS fault??

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Liz: “In other words, you got a high t alpha.”

        Yes. A rare man. A natural. But we hear from the women here:

        “Just go do it!! Just be high T!! Just act high T! Just… I dunno, why do we have to keep talking about this?? SAM can do it ! Mike can do it! Why can’t you guys do it??”

        Again – Most men are not SAM or Mike. Or Scott, for that matter.

        Most men have to be more overt about it.

        Women will do what they will do. I have to live with that, and deal with it as best as I can. I have to be overt and clear: “I get what I want and need, or I’m out. We will do this my way, or we are done.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I have a Austin powers chest rug and other signs of high androgens and I lift heavy – I think alpha personality is a lot more than hormone levels. One of my prepuberty boys is a born alpha – already been thrown in the back of a cop car, little respect for his teachers or adult strangers…”

        And your son will do great with the ladies. Mouthing off to authority figures and adults, and getting into minor legal scrapes, gets you major alpha points.

        Women could change all this right now if they wanted to. If they wanted nice, kind, devout men, they could date, sleep with, marry, and get pregnant by, those men. They don’t want those men. They want rebels and bad asses and players.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “barely monogamous”

      Heh… This phrase may be offensive to women because it piques their sense of security, but a man who’s well read in Red Pill will know exactly what this means — women want a man who is in the top 10%, who always has attention from women, and who could stray at any time if he chose to do so. Cameron explained this thoroughly in his follow up comments.

      “The West doesn’t even know what to do now with men who are unapologetic in their masculinity while still loving their woman well. You seem to see the two propositions as mutually exclusive.”

      The fact that this phrase evokes jealousy and offense indicates that it’s understood that we’re talking about a top 10% man. Women tend to internalize such talk and take it personally. But there’s nothing wrong with that. Men should be doing the talking. Explain, yes, but there’s no need to say “Sorry I hurt your feewings!”.

      “We’re all filtering what the other person writes here based on our own relationships, experiences, etc. and like you said there’s context that’s not evident, limitations on shared details, etc.”

      Yes. Remember, only top 10% men enter into female consciousness. The others are “invisible” and virtually non-existent. If the man in question was a simping desperado who was doing his best to avoid hooking up with drug addled fatties, then this phrase would not carry the same gravitas.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Elspeth says:

        But my husband isn’t top 10%. He is good looking, true enough. Totally straight men have said, “Anybody ever tell you you look like Denzel?” (he doesn’t).

        But we don’t have a lot of money. He supports us in middle class fashion but we are not rich and we live on a budget.

        He’s tall and he works out in moderation but he’s not like Scott, for instance. He’s carrying an extra 25. So not athletic.

        Not powerful. Hard working man but no political or economic power.

        He does have a commanding presence though. People like him. A few hate him but he definitely evokes an opinion.

        So clearly not upper 10%. Just not a wuss.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I don’t believe Sam isn’t top 10 % (you can quibble about the exact percent that makes alpha). Blonde bimbos don’t spontaneously press their boobs into the backs of non wusses. You don’t have to be rich and powerful to be top 10 – no one said top 0.001 %. Men don’t tell you you look like Denzel unless you’re quite good looking – I got told I look like seth meyers.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        It’s not like Seth Meyers is ugly. Now if you’d have said Jonah Goldberg, then…

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        It was jerky for me to point out that the highly valued husbands act a bit jerky – the sweet spot for jerkiness where it doesn’t go to far. Let’s take her friend so I don’t insult commenters here. Its jerky to tell your wife your preference/type is the exact opposite of her – e.g. tall redhead when you’re a short brunette. Women like jerkiness within limits.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Btw Scott is probably top 2% as I’ve said

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        If I had to wrap up Mike’s personality in a nutshell I’d say he is hardworking, an optimizer, and not risk adverse. He is one of the least risk adverse people I’ve ever met…probably a feature of being high T.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Oops…just looked it up and the word is risk-averse.
        Here is an example of his personality.
        When he was dating his ex girlfriend (her dad was former military, she had a military ID card) he asked her to drive him on to the base. He went up to a squadron building, knowing no one, and stepped up to the front desk and asked what he needed to do to get a ride in the back of an F16. He was about 19 at the time.
        They were actually having an exercise at the time (which he didn’t recognize) and looked at him like he had lobsters crawling out of his ears. He didn’t get a ride of course, but years later when he was in an operational unit someone recognized him, “Hey…you’re that guy!”

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “The fact that this phrase [“barely monogamous”] evokes jealousy and offense indicates that it’s understood that we’re talking about a top 10% man.”

        Exactly. Because if it weren’t, no women would care.

        “Remember, only top 10% men enter into female consciousness. The others are “invisible” and virtually non-existent.”

        Which is why, with all due respect, the womenfolk can’t tell us much other than how insanely sexually attracted they are to their bull alphas. They have absolutely NO idea how the average man lives and has to conduct his life. Their advice to men is…

        “Just go do it!! SAM does it!!! Mike does it!!! Just…. I dunno? Just go do it! What’s so hard about being a hugely insanely sexually attractive man who keeps me in line just by looking at me over the top of his glasses?? I mean, c’mon, guys!??”

        Again – I have to be more overt about it. “No. We are doing it this way, or I’m done.” or “You need to stop doing that, right now, or I’ll go see a lawyer tomorrow. What’s it gonna be?”

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @liz , in other words you got a high t alpha

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @ ELspeth , my wife has always insisted that I look like Nicholas Cage – I never took that as a complement

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        “@liz , in other words you got a high t alpha…”

        I’d never say Mike isn’t alpha. He is a good man, and also good at being a man.
        T level is something people have a fair degree of control over though.
        Risky activity itself (mountain climbing, spear fishing, etc.) raises T levels as does weight training.
        Mike is a great public speaker now but he was once very afraid to speak in public.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        A very long rime ago, on a blog that might be deleted now, Hearth ie wrote a really excellent post titled “types of wives”. I could not find it last night.

        Anyway, it was quite insightgul. She pointed out that certain kinds of men need and prefer wives to fulfill a specific function in their lives.

        I recognized me and SAM’s relationship right away. She did so well with it because our husbands are very similar.
        But not every man is the same. Some men really want the status symbol, dolled up wife for their own reasons.

        Ours, being tough men who have fought a lot (literal and metaphorical fighting) want solace. I remember a line she used: “Life is hard. Wife is soft.” Yep. That’s us.

        He wasn’t going to come home and fight. Period, but a man who is strong wants a “strong” wife, for lack of a better word.

        Some men like that challenging though, so long as it’s tempered with respect. A hard needle to thread I think.

        Some men (usually high powered) want a woman to do all the thinking on certain matters. They don’t have time for all that.

        Right. Same here. I’d never pretend my husband isn’t alpha. But he is a good man, and a devout one. He will not entertain thoughts that he knows violate his commitment to his faith. He will bring his thoughts captive. The issue I think we’re having is the conflation of noticing something versus outright lust.

        Example from a convo here: As far as I can tell, Cameron has ZERO, ZILCH, NADA sexual interest in black women. He is very cis-racial.

        Nevertheless, he commented that Candace Owens is more feminine and desirable than the whore Cardi B. He noticed her blouse as pretty and feminine.

        If Lori Lightfoot or Stacy Abrams was wearing that exact same blouse, he never would have noticed that it was pretty and feminine. In other words, he noticed that at a base level Candace Owens is attractive. I highly doubt that any of those thoughts led to leering or lust. He just noticed.

        Yet somehow a married alpha noticing a woman in passing is supposed to induce dread in his wife. Nope.

        I know what I am to my husband. More importantly, HE knows what I am to him.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        That comment is confusing. Sorry.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I have a Austin powers chest rug and other signs of high androgens and I lift heavy – I think alpha personality is a lot more than hormone levels. One of my prepuberty boys is a born alpha – already been thrown in the back of a cop car, little respect for his teachers or adult strangers

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “I have a Austin powers chest rug and other signs of high androgens and I lift heavy – I think alpha personality is a lot more than hormone levels. One of my prepuberty boys is a born alpha – already been thrown in the back of a cop car, little respect for his teachers or adult strangers…”

        And your son will do great with the ladies. Mouthing off to authority figures and adults, and getting into minor legal scrapes, gets you major alpha points.

        Women could change all this right now if they wanted to. If they wanted nice, kind, devout men, they could date, sleep with, marry, and get pregnant by, those men. They don’t want those men. They want rebels and bad asses and players.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @liz et al

        For ed purposes I asked my wife about the black wig thing. Her reaction was the same as mine. She mentioned a scene in Devil’s Advocate when Keanu Reeves is getting ready to make love to Charlize Theron (she cuts her hair and dyed it black) and keanu is distracted thinking about the redhead. She also mentioned it could be an adventurous couple thing but she seemed to go straight for the wants another woman interpretation

        Like

      • Liz says:

        If you go to the Ukraine and say “pick out the pretty girl” you will get a very different product than if you go to the average…say, bar in Cleveland Ohio.
        This is also true of what defines “alpha”. It’s situational dependent.
        Also depends on the person one is asking.
        There was a post at Rollo’s a long while back about an ostensibly alpha teenager. I thought he was a douche canoe, and an obvious one. Ten plus years on, looking at the way his life turned out I was right.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @deti, he’s 11, he just brought a half Asian little girl home last week. My 18 and 20 year old sons (beta like me) haven’t had a girlfriend.

        My wife is betting he’ll be the first to make us grandparents.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        @ Liz:

        https://www.who.com.au/corey-worthington-now-the-party-and-14-things-you-didnt-know

        Here’s a more recent article. You think he’s a douchecanoe. Maybe so, but he’s a douchecanoe who’s laughing all the way to the bank and his mansion he shares with his kinda ordinary looking wife who worships the ground he walks on.

        He could have done worse. Meanwhile, the kinds of guys who are NOT douchecanoes are being ripped apart by the millions in divorce courts because their wives are no longer happy.

        I think I’d rather be a douchecanoe. If I have to be a douchecanoe to keep what’s mine, I’ll happily be a douchecanoe and you can call me one all day long.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        “deti, he’s 11, he just brought a half Asian little girl home last week.”

        Heh. That’s really cute.
        😆

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @ELspeth to be clear about things. Imo, virtually all men experience lust at some point that probably rises e.g. to the level of requiring confession for a Catholic (example). I do not believe y’alls hubbies are any worse than me on this – I may be worse than them. I imagine what varies between men on this is frequency, intensity, and actions I assume.

        What jumped out at me is for them to say they prefer a type almost the complete opposite. In your case he just didn’t lie when asked – I can respect that – I would have told a white lie. I know there other areas of heart guarding – but to me almost all women who value their man care about what they think relative to other women. I guess I am contrasting their alphaness with my betaness. Maybe my wife is more insecure and I intuit this – who knows.

        I just wanted my point distinguished from detis- I don’t know where dread fits in – I’m just struck by them saying those things – I’m not Sam or mike

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        I see where we are going awry, Cameron. You keep using the word “prefer”. SAM doesn’t prefer red heads. He would have married one if he did. Liking a certain look doesn’t mean he “prefers” it over his wife. I know exactly what kind of woman tempts him to look twice:

        5’7″ or taller. Very discernible hourglass shape: full bust, small waist, curvy hips. Long legs. Period. He might even say out loud: “She’s shaped like you!”

        Down side: lots of workouts and intermittent fasting for me.

        I am his preferred type.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Concerning the question of how much attention a married man can give to other women, I think it depends largely on the strength of the relationship and how secure she feels. Mike Davis at Marriage Sex and More plays a game with his wife in which she points out women in public who she thinks are attractive to him, and he gives his critique to her. The discussion leads to more intimate topics between them. This strikes me as being a very healthy, strong relationship — to be able to discuss such things openly and honestly.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I admit I am getting the three ladies stories confused – I just remember preference and “type” being talked about — not how the men find such and such attractive.

        Like

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Deti,you basicaly have to be a douchecanoe all day long when married without $millions apon millions in the cayman islands like uber-rich famous douchecanoes like bill gates,mitt romney&jeffy bezos am I right or wrong?See no P.S.’s today?Its international no post-script day&I’m not a rule-breaker like all the heroic law-makers,as you well-know!”Have you gone douchecanoing down matrimony river today?”could be your catchphrase deti!Turn it into a podcast or a YTchannel too,all of us long-term deti-fans would listen&watch!Whatever happened to that ”DETIsays” site that collected the best of the best of your marital wisdom?You can tell by my comments how much fun I have mentaly every day right?I&rollo could be guest rebels&badasses&players on your first ep of ”douchecanoes live”,even!If this was say 1991,can you think of the money all of us rebels,badasses,players& married attorneys of the manosphere could make on the douchecanoe rivers circuit?Deti you know other than al bundy,your the most famous real badass married man ever on the manosphere,right?This comment hopefuly made your day,deti!Also deti never let anybody talk you out of how you roll,if it was’nt for your roll,where would your kids be?That is what people should remember,not you telling no to your wife,right?

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Deti I read nothing to indicate he was rich or living in a mansion (though the kardashians are so this isn’t the best standard in my estimation. Perhaps his wife is madly in love or perhaps not but according to her they “were in different places” when they first met and years later “fell in love”. I’ll leave it to the reader to interpret that how they may. She was very plain yes and also obese.
        Be that as it may I don’t wish him ill I just see a teen who looks and acts like that and it doesn’t scream success to me on any level. And I have known a lot of successful people.
        Anyway hope you all have a good day I’m off to a funeral, good friend died of prostate cancer. Will be out for the next couple of days.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        Elspeth wrote,

        But my husband isn’t top 10%. He is good looking, true enough. Totally straight men have said, “Anybody ever tell you you look like Denzel?” (he doesn’t).
        But we don’t have a lot of money.
        He supports us in middle class fashion but we are not rich and we live on a budget.
        He’s tall and he works out in moderation… lots of workouts and intermittent fasting for me.
        But he’s not like Scott, for instance. He’s carrying an extra 25. So not athletic.
        Not powerful. Hard working man but no political or economic power.
        He does have a commanding presence though. People like him. A few hate him but he definitely evokes an opinion.
        So clearly not upper 10%. Just not a wuss.

        LMAO!!!

        So… what Elspeth is saying is that Sam is in the top 10% of all men, but he’s not in the top 10% of those men who are visible to women, which is the top 1% of all men.

        But Tingles!, so she’s learned to be OK with that!

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Jack, why doesn’t Mike do the opposite game where he point out guys to his wife…..?

        It’s an alpha frame thing to notice, not hide your attraction to other women. It gets you alpha points assuming she’s already attracted. When I was busted talking to a cute girl online, her immediate reaction was anger AND expressing the desire to F__k my brains out.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “Why doesn’t Mike do the opposite game where he point out guys to his wife…?”

        Because the male should remain the mental point of origin of the discussion. If the discussion turns to the woman’s desires, then it empowers the woman.

        It’s an alpha frame thing to notice, not hide your attraction to other women. It gets you alpha points, assuming she’s already attracted.

        Right. In fact, this might be one kind of test. If it arouses jealousy and anger, then that could be interpreted as an IOI.

        When I was busted talking to a cute girl online her immediate reaction was anger AND expressing the desire to F__k my brains out.

        Yes, this reaction is based on jealousy and female territory guarding. This is super annoying, but it’s a good sign of her interest.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @eElspeth, I would state it this way:I have high attraction to fair complected women and much lower to dark complected (not just Africa American – e.g. I don’t find women from India particuarly attractive). I don’t represent all white men – hunky Swedes Dolph lundgren and Sven Ole Thorsen dated Grace Jones.

        I wouldn’t say zero – Candace has some nice, feminine features. I had the hots for my 9th grade English teacher who was black – it was lust not cute puppy love. Two black girls during senior pictures (who weren’t fat) came up and grabbed on me and suggested they wanted me to be “the creme in their Oreo”. (I suspect they were goofing – but in either case I wasn’t digging it.) So not zero attraction, just not typically my “type” – for some white guys that is.

        Liked by 3 people

  9. lastholdout says:

    “It hurt her and at the same time made me more attractive to her.” — Cameron

    “She self destructed over this stupid calendar . . .” — Liz

    There is a pattern in the many posts and comments throughout the Sigma Frame blog. The pattern is reflected to a degree in the comments above from Cameron and Liz (respectively). Look at the contrast between the responses of Cameron’s wife and Mike’s ex. It is a theme that I have commented on before. Whether a man is Alpha, Beta or something in between, the marital relationship rests in large part on the woman’s emotional and spiritual stability. Including, but not limited to her emotional maturity; how she handles her own cognitive dissonance (black/white vs. shades of gray) -it could also be called grace; how susceptible she is to hamstering; and more.

    Like it or not, the quality of the marriage rests in large part in the hands of the wife. The women bloggers and authors below are proof that the biblical model works and it is their responsibility to align themselves to their husbands, whether they think he deserves it or not. Each of them transformed their marriages:

    The Surrendered Wife a book by Laura Doyle;
    The Forgiven Wife by Chris Taylor;
    Sarah’s Daughter;
    The Peaceful Wife by April Cassidy;
    The Transformed Wife by Lori Alexander.

    Pastors and counselors today fail to acknowledge the instability that a woman’s emotions can introduce, which compromises the call for agapé – love comprised of a “deliberate assent of the will.”

    These women bloggers and authors came to that realization and improved their relationships by their own willful efforts, not because their husbands’ did or said something (performance) that magically unlocked the Sarah, the Proverbs 31 woman, or the Song of Solomon woman within them. It is interesting that each of them came to their realization without the counsel of pastors or marriage counselors. In fact, at least one (Laura Doyle) came to her biblical disposition in spite of marriage counseling. Their changed hearts toward their husbands and their marriages came from the only place it could – the Holy Spirit. And that happened because each of them drank from the cup of humility, allowing the Holy Spirit to work within them.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Robert S says:

      “Whether a man is Alpha, Beta or something in between, the marital relationship rests in large part on the woman’s emotional and spiritual stability. Including, but not limited to her emotional maturity; how she handles her own cognitive dissonance (black/white vs. shades of gray) -it could also be called grace; how susceptible she is to hamstering; and more…. Like it or not, the quality of the marriage rests in large part in the hands of the wife.”

      I would challenge you to reconsider the above statements. I see two ideas here that are incongruent with manhood. First, that women control the marital relationship due to their nature, second that the quality of a marriage is in their hands because of the first idea. I could say much on this matter, but I will try to keep this brief. The first idea denies that manhood intrinsically implies control, dominion and advantage. The only marriage a woman controls is when a man hands the reins over to her which no man should ever do but it is common today. I think you should modify your understanding of control, of which the first step is the mindset that “I don’t need her in my life”, second mindset “I will do what I know is right to keep this ship afloat”, the third is “I will see how she responds”.

      It is a man’s job to make his wife happy and not vice versa but this duty is not what most imagine it to mean. It is not about keeping a smile on her face, but on yours, always being cheerful, encouraging and helping her become what she is supposed to be. However, as you discover what is not in order in her life, you need to identify it and gently apply pressure to her to correct that which is not right (in behavior, attitude, thinking, work ethic, manners, etc.). It is your job to disciple your wife to make her pleasing to God. (See Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew for an illustration.) This is why men need to understand what a successful marriage really is; it’s not necessarily one that lasts or is romantic or is even agreeable. It is one where a man proves himself to God that he can accept responsibility for another soul (his wife’s) so as to help them bear the fruit of the Spirit (if they cooperate). That is what a husbandman is, someone who tends to a vine and makes it fruitful.

      However, if a wife chooses not to cooperate (as God Himself, experienced… see Is 5:1-4), you must set her aside emotionally and continue on with your duties and slowly remove one privilege at a time until she cooperates. (Is 5:5-7) If she chooses to depart when you are doing right, that is not a failed marriage, that is an odious woman revealing herself (Prov 30:23; Matt 22:8). No loss, no failure, no sin, no shame; you successfully did your part; now move on with your life and if you choose to, find another, and start again (Mat 21:43). The notion that any man who is doing right should kotow to his wife is deadly. It is a losing game, that destroys everyone involved, especially if it is to “save” a marriage. Therefore, in my book, a successful or quality marriage is one in which a man accepts his duties and does them in the fear of God, regardless of how his wife responds. Some wives may harden their hearts (Matt 19:8) against a dutiful husband. But if you are dutiful and have done right, then do not let it affect you in the least, remember you don’t need her, she needs you (regardless of whether or not she knows it). And if it gets bad enough and she chooses to depart, God allows it. He permits a termination to deliver a man who has done his duty despite his wife’s evil disposition.

      I believe any other mindset is a victim mentality and unmanly. God gave you the reins, take them up, do your duty and leave the outcome to Him. Life isn’t always about getting what you want (Luke 13:34) or having a happy ending (see Calvary), but accepting the lot God gives you (see Hebrews 11) and making the best of it. Say goodbye to the Hollywood, Disney, and Harlequin notions of life; forget about other’s so called successful, quality marriages (of which many are dubious). I have yet to find one in the Bible. God did not fail with Israel, Israel failed God. Why not just see life as God’s private boot camp to make a man out of you. He will reward you if you let Him.

      Liked by 2 people

      • lastholdout says:

        @Robert S

        Very good extrapolation to the same point.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        I fall squarely on Robert’s side when weighing his comment and lastholdouts. If it were not for my husband’s steadfast refusal to allow my disposition to determine his actions, his emotions, his ability to be okay, we might have had a very different marriage,

        I’ve read almost all of the blogs lastholdout listed, and in the case of at least one of them, the wife testifies that she made her husband’s life difficult for well over 20 years before she got a clue through the aid of the Holy Spirit. 20 YEARS!! Better late than never, of course, but what if he’d made it clear early on that her behavior would not be rewarded, whatever that looked like (and no, I don’t mean abuse)? My husband did.

        Any disrespect and attempts to control him were roundly denounced and not tolerated. I think I may have had a 6 month honeymoon period I figured out pretty quickly that the way to be heard and have a peaceful, loving marriage was to be peaceable and loving. By year three, we were in a very enjoyable groove. Not perfect, as we are imperfect humans, but very little conflict born of my thinking I could bend him to my will. There were times when I have to say something, have to speak up, have to force a confrontation. But because I know the lay of the land, what he will and won’t tolerate, he is all ears on those rare occasions.

        I do agree that women have a lot of ability to set the tone of the home, but I have never believed that the success of the marriage is dependent on the woman’s awareness of her responsibility.

        Women are definitely prone to rebellion (which causes strife), but men are prone to passivity (which allows said strife to run rampant). Both of these tendencies are a rebellion of what God has called us to. Male passivity is usually quieter than female rebellion, but it is no less wrong, which is why I really appreciate Jack adding the portion about strong men to the post.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Robert S says:

        Elspeth,
        Congratulations, you are a wise woman and sound like a real blessing to have around. Now convince your husband to teach other men how to do properly. We need a lot a men like him showing the younger and soon to be husbands how to do it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        20 years?

        Pass

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        “I’ve read almost all of the blogs lastholdout listed, and in the case of at least one of them, the wife testifies that she made her husband’s life difficult for well over 20 years before she got a clue through the aid of the Holy Spirit. 20 YEARS!! Better late than never, of course, but what if he’d made it clear early on that her behavior would not be rewarded, whatever that looked like (and no, I don’t mean abuse)? My husband did.”

        Mine too. But I always look back to his ex girlfriend. He was the same person, but she wasn’t trainable. Maybe it was a compatibility thing. I don’t know. She’s been married and divorced three times now.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth

        You just don’t get it.

        “What if he’d made it clear early on that her behavior would not be rewarded, whatever that looked like (and no, I don’t mean abuse)? My husband did.”

        Divorce rape. Loooong dry spell. That’s what would have happened.

        All because of their poor educations and upbringings when it came to women and how to handle them. SAM could do it. Most men can’t.

        “Any disrespect and attempts to control him were roundly denounced and not tolerated. I think I may have had a 6 month honeymoon period I figured out pretty quickly that the way to be heard and have a peaceful, loving marriage was to be peaceable and loving.”

        Which worked because you were pregnant with his child before you got married and because you were so incredibly sexually attracted to him you couldn’t see straight. You needed SAM desperately because you started your marriage out pregnant, vulnerable, a bit shamed by your family, and incredibly sexually attracted. You were going to do it his way, or he was walking – a fact you knew could happen because SAM had already had a child out of wedlock and that he was supporting. You KNEW he had options – he was already shelling out cash for having exercised one of them before he met you. If he could do it before, he could do it again – and you BOTH knew it.

        It does NOT work for most men because their wives can screw them over any time they want, emotionally, sexually, and financially. It does not work for most men because they’re trying to follow the rules and do it by the book. What they find out is that those are the men who get punished the worst. Better to break every rule there is and just make clear you’re going to stomp around and do it your way or you’re walking – THAT is what gets results.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        The ONLY way any of this can work is for the man to start out early on, with:

        –I need to see immediate signs of sexual attraction literally from the very first 10 seconds of the interactions

        –Everything is done my way, or I’m walking. No second chances, no explanations.

        Most women aren’t going to show immediate attraction. Gone.

        Even more women aren’t going to put up with “my way or the highway”. Gone.

        So a very, very large number of men will go without everything. A large number of women will go without commitment.

        Most men will eventually relent and give in, because getting a girlfriend or a wife is the only way they can get sex. And the sex drive is that strong. Most men deal with women because sex. Most men will soften and abandon those two principles, if they even know about them.

        Today, the only way for a man to have any power at all is to adhere to those two principles – immediate sexual attraction, and do it my way or get out.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “…wife testifies that she made her husband’s life difficult for well over 20 years before she got a clue through the aid of the Holy Spirit. 20 YEARS!!!”

        Mine went 15. Stopped only because I threatened to, and was fully prepared to sh!tcan the marriage if she didn’t turn it around immediately.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Women influence feminine pastors who then preach permanence of marriage to men.

        It’s all a racket

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        –I need to see immediate signs of sexual attraction literally from the very first 10 seconds of the interactions
        –Everything is done my way, or I’m walking. No second chances, no explanations.

        For us, as I’ve mentioned before, he approached me. I was not attracted to him the minute we met. That came a little later.
        We would not get along very well if he used that second tactic. I think we would both be miserable.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “For us, as I’ve mentioned before, he approached me. I was not attracted to him the minute we met. That came a little later.”

        I don’t know what to tell you other than you’re coming at this from a female perspective and what advantaged you. Under those circumstances, today, if it were me, there is no way I’d consider anything with any woman who didn’t show immediate sexual interest.

        “We would not get along very well if he used that second tactic. I think we would both be miserable.”

        I don’t know what to tell you other than you’re coming at this from a female perspective and it hurts your feelings, I guess.

        If Mike had used this second tactic, no you would not both have been miserable, because one or both of you would have ended it not more than 3 months into the relationship and certainly before you got married. Because this tactic works only on women who pass the first test – insane immediate sexual attraction. On other women, it probably won’t. You have to soften it just a little, but ONLY a little. A man has to, HAS TO, take control over all the big stuff and most of the little stuff. A man has to absolutely crush disrespect and mouthiness, and do it with extreme prejudice, from the get go. I am convinced if I had done this with Mrs. deti early on, she would not be Mrs. deti. I would have jettisoned her to the curb six months at the outside – if she didn’t jettison me first.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        What Liz said.

        It has never been “do everything my way or I’m out.” My husband is not interested in being the only brains of this outfit, LOL. He is not interested in a woman who can’t think. He appreciates my mind and says as much. Being the undisputed head is not the same thing as being a tyrant. Again, I marvel that this has to be explained.

        I was attracted to SAM right away, but I didn’t show it, and I didn’t throw myself at him or any of those things. It was the better part of a year from our first meeting before we started dating. I had the good sense to know that I being easy with this particular guy would not end well for me.

        I fear a lot of the principles lack enough nuance, and some men (if taking them literally) could lose out on really good relationships. Personalities are a thing that people have. Some women are Jane Bennett. I was until I wasn’t.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        “I don’t know what to tell you other than you’re coming at this from a female perspective and it hurts your feelings, I guess.”

        It doesn’t hurt my feelings. I know a lot of people and have seen couples who interact this way. Never seen a happy one among them.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “It has never been “do everything my way or I’m out”.”

        Of course not. It didn’t have to be for you and SAM. You are so incredibly sexually attracted to him you can’t see straight. You were pregnant with his child before you even said “I do”.

        But, as I keep trying to tell you: Most people are NOT you and SAM.

        “My husband is not interested in being the only brains of this outfit, LOL. He is not interested in a woman who can’t think.”

        Neither am I. But that doesn’t mean I’ll sit back and take Sh!t or disrespect.

        “He appreciates my mind and says as much.”

        So do I, appreciate Mrs. deti’s mind. That doesn’t mean I’ll allow myself to get pushed around or ruled by her emotions. It also doesn’t mean her mind has the answers. Counsel, yes. Run things, no. But, of course, any assertion of headship means, “I don’t appreciate her mind.”

        “Being the undisputed head is not the same thing as being a tyrant.”

        True. I am not describing tyranny. I’m describing headship. It’s just a headship you don’t like and never had to live with, because, again, it never had to be that way with you and SAM.

        “Again, I marvel that this has to be explained.”

        Again, you and SAM are a rarity. Extremely rare. You have no idea how rare you are. That become more and more evident every day I comment here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “It doesn’t hurt my feelings. I know a lot of people and have seen couples who interact this way. Never seen a happy one among them.”

        Well, that’s not men’s fault. If more women had been nicer and kinder to their husbands, we wouldn’t be in this mess. If more women had been honest, we wouldn’t be in this mess. If more parents had done their F * n jobs and taught their sons this stuff before they got married, we wouldn’t be in this mess. There would be no Red Pill.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Sure. A man will do all that, and then his odious wife will leave him.

        And take the kids. And half his stuff and money. And the house.

        He will be living out of his car for a year. Or a jail cell at the county lockup, because he can’t pay his alimony and child support, and the court is holding him in contempt.

        “Pay, and you can get out.”

        “I can’t pay, I’m locked up and can’t work.”

        “Oh well. Pay, and you can get out.”

        Those are his choices: Stay with the harridan she has become, or live as a pauper and inmate. Stay with her and see your children, or she leaves and you become a pariah and an unknown to your own kids. Stay and put up with the BS, or leave, and suffer the ignominy of everyone around you, including your own parents, including your own pastor, including everyone closest to you.

        Yes, that’s how he should do it. And most men will pay, and pay dearly, for walking that out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Cough just stating facts. If it’s heat of passion you’ll walk in 5-10 years in most states.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        “If Mike had used this second tactic, no you would not both have been miserable, because one or both of you would have ended it not more than 3 months into the relationship and certainly before you got married.”

        That is true.
        Mike’s ex had a crush on him in high school. She wrote in his yearbook, “someday, some day!!” Look how that initial high level sexual attraction turned out.
        Not very well.
        Just sayin.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “*I was attracted to SAM right away, but I didn’t show it, and I didn’t throw myself at him or any of those things.”

        But he knew you were attracted to him. “Immediate sexual attraction” does not necessarily mean “throw myself at him”. It means IOIs, which you were showing. Besides, SAM was fine with it – he had options, which we all know about. The basics were there because, as you said, “I was attracted to SAM right away!”. That’s all that’s required.

        “It was the better part of a year from our first meeting before we started dating. I had the good sense to know that I being easy with this particular guy would not end well for me.”

        SAM was fine with it. He was out there exercising his options, one of which turned out to be long lasting and costly. I’d say it ended very well for you.

        “I fear a lot of the principles lack enough nuance, and some men (if taking them literally) could lose out on really good relationships. Personalities are a thing that people have. Some women are Jane Bennett. I was until I wasn’t.”

        Most men will not be so well off taking advice from women. I spent the better part of 3 decades doing that, and look where it got me. Look where it got hundreds of thousands of men.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Mike’s ex had a crush on him in high school. She wrote in his yearbook, “someday, some day!!” Look how that initial high level sexual attraction turned out.
        Not very well.
        Just sayin.”

        Who said anything about high school puppy love? Besides – things fall apart for more reasons than sexual attraction or lack thereof. I never said sexual attraction was sufficient – only that it is necessary.

        If there isn’t enough sexual attraction there, that doesn’t turn out very well either. Just sayin.

        Ask me how I know.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I’d like to introduce you to something called the American legal system. It directly contradicts your points on who controls the marriage.

        Be as alpha as you want, but a woman’s happiness determines if the marriage will last.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “I’d like to introduce you to something called the American legal system. It directly contradicts your points on who controls the marriage.

        Be as alpha as you want, but a woman’s happiness determines if the marriage will last.”

        Indeed.

        It’s all ultimately performative. In each marriage if a man fails to “perform” the role that the wife wishes, the marriage ends. Some wives want that role to be the strongman, others want it to be the partner, others (a few) want it to be the sidekick. And being very attractive to the woman helps, in all of those situations. But at the end of the day is whether the man is performing the role his wife wants him to perform to her satisfaction, and how attracted she is to him. That’s what matters in the US marital system. It’s all fundamentally performative.

        Now, some would claim, “It’s not performative if you’re naturally like that”, and I agree with that to some degree, but regardless of whether it is easy to perform (because it comes naturally to your personality) or is hard/has to be learned over and against your natural personality, it’s still a performance that is being evaluated by your wife, and if you “fail”, she is at risk of leaving.

        That is the bottom line.

        Liked by 3 people

  10. redpillboomer says:

    “Cameron listed three commonalities with successful marriages (even those that started in sin and without proper screening or planning):
    1) The marriage is open to (better if enthusiastic for) having children.
    2) The woman wants to be (primarily) a wife and mother rather than a careerist.
    3) There was evident attraction from the woman directed towards the man from the get-go. (i.e. Scott’s axiom).”

    Brief caveats from my personal experience because I had/have all three of these working in my 32 year marriage, however there’s ‘fine print’ that one needs to be aware of because the ‘fine print’ can smack you in the face down line in the marriage. The actual fine print might differ for each man with his particular woman.

    For #1 above: Yes, agree; HOWEVER, you need to get an idea on family size ahead of time. I wanted four kids, my wife cut us off at two kids going behind my back to get her tubes tied and whatever else she did to herself so that she couldn’t have any more kids. Why? Because unbeknownst to me, she was dealing with mommy issues (her mother whom I found out later had A LOT of issues) , and headed toward a major depressive episode because of it. She projected all that on to me, Mr. Blue Pill good guy husband, and decided herself that four was too many kids to be having for someone in her emotional/mental condition. Also added to it was the fact that she came from a two kid home and her mother had done a poor job of running the household while her father was away working in the oil fields of Oklahoma and Texas. In short, my wife did not have a good example from her mom on how to be a mother, or really anything else for that matter. Over the years, the more I learned about all this, the more I see how it impacted our early years as a family and almost led to our divorce at about the 7-8 year mark.

    For #2: Yes, good, HOWEVER, you need to find out how strong the LATENT indoctrination of the feminist world has effected her–even the ‘good Christian girls’, i.e. “Honey, being a housewife is all well and good, but you’re not really a self-actualized woman until you have your own career/business outside of the home!” My wife was pretty good with this for the first ten years or so of marriage, she waited until the kids were teenagers, then went at it with a vengeance, school, internships, etc. Mr. Blue Pill here, “You go girl!” until he started seeing the student loan price tag. From no student loan debt to 50k, then my daughter like her mother, and me still fast ‘asleep’ in my Blue Pillness, piled it on even higher. She was a very good student, so instead of attending Carousel U, she went to a top rated school. Proud papa Blue Pill got stuck with the bill, and it was an ouch and a half! Mr. Blue Pill ATM over here is now, to this day, paying $700 a month for the next ten years or so. It is ‘only a decade left’ because my wife is a middle school teacher and there is a program that as long as she teaches for X number of years, it will pay off early, i.e. the government forgives part of the loan–our bankrupt government. Ugh.

    For #3: Yes, this worked well in my favor. She was N=0, or N=1 if you count a teenage blowjob she gave one guy and a hand job to another (I think she was telling the truth here, not a manospherian ‘multiply by three’ to get the truth). She had DESIRE for me, and not just my money. I was 30 when we got married, getting established in my career, beginning to make some decent money, and she was 21 almost 22 and in college. So, it wasn’t gold digging as much as it was I was her ‘dream guy.’ And by that I mean, she actually had a vision of what her husband would be like, she says God gave it to her, and when she met me, she said I was him–i.e. I aligned with that vision. Who knows if I did, but she believes it and that’s what counts. So yes, the desire thing was there, and still there 32 years later albeit not as amped up as it was those first few years. I did get hot sex for a year or two, and pretty much any time I wanted it, so that was a dividend in my favor; produced two kids out of it.

    Point of all this: You can follow all the precepts we lay down here and elsewhere for a successful vetting/marriage, and you still don’t know for sure how things will actually turn out. At the very least, you’ll end up dealing with the ‘fine print’ of the relationship at some point; at worst, you’ll get your proverbial head handed to you on a platter when the thing implodes and/or explodes. There is no ‘yellow brick’ road to marital bliss out there, it’s a real journey through some deep woods with plenty of ‘lions and tigers and bears’ lurking in the shadows. BUT, if you can get through all that stuff, navigate it like my lucky self did, lucky because I was such a Blue Pill sleepwalker who could have easily slept woke myself straight into a pit of relational quicksand and never gotten out, marriage can definitely be a plus in life. It is God’s model for intimate relationships between a man and woman, and it’s the best one we’ve got, if we can get it aligned with God’s ways and his design for it. It’s only by God’s mercy and grace that I’ll have made it ‘successfully’ 32 years this July.

    Liked by 7 people

    • cameron232 says:

      @RPB

      My wife had an awful mother who was a terrible example and no father at all. And she wants as many children as she can have. They’re all unique.

      One thing about my wife that she claims worked in her favor – she doesn’t care about her mother, never entertained any illusions that her mother loved her, is very psychologically distanced from her mother. Some of her friends have bad mother relationships but are sensitive to their mother’s love (or lack of) and they had bad outcomes. My wife says this makes the difference (being emotionally detached from her mother) but I don’t claim to understand why.

      Her sisters grew up in the same household, raised the same way and have had all sorts of problems. Both, for example, had brief careers as strippers, one of them was arrested for stabbing her common-law husband, etc.

      They’re unique and part of it is genes.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. Jack says:

    While I was reading some comments on another blog, I was amazed to see how often God habitually blesses ostensibly bad quality individuals with intimate relationships, but time and again, they either hold the person at arm’s length out of pride, or else they blow it up because they don’t know how to conduct themselves properly in the relationship (by being obedient according to God’s proscribed order). If I were God, I wouldn’t even give them a chance until they cleaned up their act.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “…ostensibly bad quality individuals with intimate relationships.”

      Those are the people who manage to keep those relationships going because they have “hand”. No, you don’t have to be a bad person to have hand, but you do have to be ready to walk and act like a bad person. SAM has hand. Mike has hand. They know it. Their wives know it. Bad women get hand in their relationships because they withhold sex, throw tantrums, and otherwise threaten and misbehave, and it works in today’s society – women are empowered to act like this, and they know it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        That I agree with.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “That I agree with.”

        So, you understand that if you misbehave, treat him poorly, fail to pull your weight, or otherwise fail to act in a manner acceptable to him, he can and will walk. You also understand he has options and that he could exercise them if he wanted to.

        That’s what I’m saying. It’s just that most men, men like me, have to be way, way more overt about it, and we have to be prepared for it. LIke I said – if i perceive or see the Sword of Damocles falling toward my head, we go to DEFCON 1, I push the button, and we will play Global Thermonuclear War.

        I have to be overt about it. SAM and Mike do not.

        Liked by 2 people

  12. Elspeth says:

    @ Liz:

    “I dress in mom jeans when Mike is away.
    When he’s home I wear the stuff he likes (it’s tasteful and comfortable, nothing out there, just yoga pants and stuff like that). He actually buys most of my clothes (he goes to the big cities and finds what is in style that he likes). Heck he even bought my purse. Is that alpha or beta? I don’t really care either way. But it’s far from “almost cheating”. It makes him happy. It is easy. Everyone is different.”

    A lot of this resonates. I wear heels when we are together because he likes them. I dress the way he likes when he is here. He has very strong opinions about what I look like. I don’t have that husband who doesn’t notice for 3 days that his wife cut her hair. SAM is very visually attentive. He’s actually visually attentive in general. He sees things that I miss easily. Almost every anniversary, I am treated to a new dress (of his choosing); usually something cut lower than I would ever choose.

    The fact that men are visual is not news, so it shouldn’t be news to any woman with a red blooded man that whether he says it out loud or not, he sees other women. Which is NOT the same as leering, lusting, fantasizing, or anything untoward. I marvel that this goes without saying. My husband has never been that guy because frankly, that behavior is mostly indicative of one of two things: extreme thirst (never his problem), or a perverse heart prone to lasciviousness (also not something he has ever struggled with, even as a non believer).

    Again, I think it comes back around to the Western evolution to a culture which has neutered or outlawed basic components of masculine behavior so much that even the most benign indication that a man’s whole world doesn’t revolve around his wife and her feelings is viewed as offensive.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      “A lot of this resonates.”

      You do all this because of your extremely high sexual attraction to SAM. That makes you care. It keeps you in line. It gets you to do it the way he wants. This isn’t hard to understand at all.

      “The fact that men are visual is not news, so it shouldn’t be news to any woman with a red blooded man that whether he says it out loud or not, he sees other women. Which is NOT the same as leering, lusting, fantasizing, or anything untoward. I marvel that this goes without saying.”

      SAM does, he’s just not overt about it. He doesn’t have to be – you KNOW he sees other women. Some men have to be more overt about it. Dread. SAM doesn’t have to do anything other than be present to Dread you.

      “My husband has never been that guy because frankly, that behavior is mostly indicative of one of two things: extreme thirst (never his problem), or a perverse heart prone to lasciviousness (also not something he has ever struggled with, even as a non believer).”

      He has never been that guy because he has always had options, and knew he had options. He still has options. He knows it, and – more importantly – YOU know it.

      Most men don’t have anything like the options SAM has always had. A lot of men who do have those kinds of options, do not know they have them, or are severely, severely shamed and discouraged from even so much as looking at them, because sexist, misogyny, hate, rape, evil, perverted, selfish, self absorbed, unGodly – and this is what MEN say to him. MEN in his CHURCH.

      “Again, I think it comes back around to the Western evolution to a culture which has neutered or outlawed basic components of masculine behavior so much that even the most benign indication that a man’s whole world doesn’t revolve around his wife and her feelings is viewed as offensive.”

      This, I agree with. So women need to stop doing this and stop objecting to men being men.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Elspeth says:

    “So not zero attraction, just not typically my “type” – for some white guys that is.”

    It’s perfectly acceptable; no explanation needed. We all like what we like. My point was that you seem able to identify your ability to notice Candace Owens’ feminine attractiveness as distinct from sexual desire or lust, but unable to appreciate that other married men can do the same without it being some indication that they are “barely monogamous” so their wives better watch out.

    My point is that other men -even attractive ones- can also notice without it being something lascivious just as you can.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Elspeth I would just note that I withdrew that phrase as a poor choice of words for the thought I was forming. I just note the betaness in the need to conceal one’s attraction to other women/types whether it’s out of fear of the wife or an exaggerated sensitivity to her feelings.

      This is not a theological point to start a denominational debate: the Catholic position AND practice of confession suggests the reality that there isn’t always a perfectly clear line between noticing and lust – on paper but not in the real world. This applies no less to me than to your men – beta doesn’t mean not tempted, not a sinner.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Elspeth says:

    “So… what Elspeth is saying is that Sam is in the top 10% of all men, but he’s not in the top 10% of those men who are visible to women, which is the top 1% of all men.

    But Tingles!, so she’s learned to be OK with that!”

    Ouch.

    Our life is so normal and average in so many ways, Jack. Obviously, the good looking genes are what they are. He didn’t do anything to earn those; just have two good looking parents. His dad built the frame, too. But all the PSALM/LAMPS stuff? By you guys’ own standards, he falls short in a couple of areas.

    That’s why I said what I said about the 10%. I wasn’t trying to be cagey or downplay the reality that my husband is a cut above average. He is, but the top 10% of all men sounds like a stretch to me, my tingles notwithstanding.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Pingback: Taking Headship by Force | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: 8 Things that Increase Discernment | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: Plans of action on attractive traits for men looking for a wife for a godly marriage | Christianity and masculinity

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