Deciphering Concepts of Attraction

How to interpret the femstertalk about attraction.

Readership: Christian Men
Author’s Note:
This topic came out of a discussion I had with Cameron under the post, The Christian Marriage Dilemma (2021 February 26). The statements in quotes below are from Cameron.
Length: 3,650 words
Reading Time: 12 minutes

“It is a most quirky irony that in a quest to comprehend herself, a woman will speak constantly. It is by merit of solipsism and this constant need for emotional self-discovery that every woman considers herself an expert on herself, and as such, is inclined to talk at great length about herself. In terms of attraction, there is nothing a woman loves more than for a newly acquainted man to tell her something she considers true about herself. A man who seems to know a woman on the emotional level without that woman having to express herself exudes his own enchanting intrigue. By being able to communicate with women on this level, man creates his presence within her solipsistic world. “He just, like, totally gets me!”

This is oft mistaken for narcissism, but should she lack narcissism, such a quality still persists. For not only is self-obsession a product of narcissism, but likewise a product of solipsism. Therefore, being that solipsism is intrinsic to women, self-obsession is an unavoidable by-product. Indeed, a woman’s most profound hobby is that of her self-interest, chiefly, the catalogued history of emotions she has experienced, how they shape who she is, and which ones are desirable enough to be pursued for re-creation.”

Illimitable Men: A Most Solipsistic Nature (2015 September 4)

Women use “attractive” and “attraction” differently from how men do

From a woman’s perspective, her own attractiveness is not a question, because she gets instant feedback from men, in person, all the time. Women note carefully how many men are noticing, and what kinds of men notice (i.e., how attractive the men are). They know whether they are generally attractive and generally what level of man that “ends” or “lessens” at as well. Keenly. So there isn’t any need to write about it. They do write a lot about how to beautify themselves, but they don’t write a lot about what is attractive to men in that visual sense (unless they are writing to complain about it, a la “unrealistic beauty standards”), because they know very well what that is.

Therefore, when they say such and such will attract a man, they don’t mean that. They mean “keep his interest once I have caught his eye” or “make him pick me and not thot-girl”, etc.

Just like when they list qualities they like about men they mention everything but his being 6’2″, buff, athletic and so on … that’s all “understood”. It’s the other stuff they write about — stuff that’s “in addition to” what to them is obvious.

Physical and Verbal Attraction Cues and Miscommunication

“You don’t think women chronically overestimate their attractiveness? I do. I keep seeing these fatties that squeeze into the same tiny clothes that cute girls do with their fat rolls spilling out.”

A woman may dress in certain clothes for various reasons, but a woman certainly knows how many men are checking her out, at all times and in all situations. They are very much aware of the smallest details about their appearance, and how that impacts their reception of male attention. They also know when it starts to die down, and they will do backflips to keep it coming (but only for certain men, of course). Many, many, many women have written about this, how they noticed at some point that they were drawing fewer eyes, and they dislike it intensely. They know.

A woman who is overweight and dresses modestly won’t get any sexual attention from men at all. But squeezing into a dress that is too tight will get her some feedback she likes. You can rest assured of that. To her, that is better than getting no feedback.

You can easily identify the women who don’t care about feedback because they dress down, way down, so as not to entice any men to look at them — it’s easily done, and you see women doing it. For example, some married women who dress down in public are usually happily married and therefore don’t need any attention from other men. If they dress up, it’s to be respectable and classy, not to be meretricious.

Women are Indirect Communicators

 “If you’re right about these female-to-male translations, then most men have no hope for understanding.”

It’s not that hard to interpret the behavior and the verbalizations, but it’s just that with women you always have to pay at least as much attention, if not more, to what is NOT being said as to what IS being said. Women are indirect communicators and tend to use subtle, coded language.

Even a woman who appears to be speaking sincerely, for a woman, will generally not be speaking nearly as directly and openly as a man typically would be in the same situation — that is, there is still stuff being transmitted between the lines even when it seems like it’s a straightforward and direct communication. A lot of information, social context, emotional nuances, and so on, is being communicated by what they don’t specifically say — by what they leave out — and by specifically how they choose to phrase things (often much more specifically considered than many men, who can tend to be blunt hammers themselves verbally and therefore can easily miss the verbal cues coming from women and what they mean).

You have to always ask, “What is not being expressly said here but is important?”, because that is a significant part of what she is communicating. She expects you to “just get it” because women “just get” what they are not saying, or not saying explicitly, and they prefer not to say it explicitly for various reasons which they are not prone to reveal. Asking her about it does no good either. It will only show her what an ignoramus you are (in her eyes) and lower her estimation of you.

Case Study 1 — The Corporate Environment

I worked in an all-female work group for around 15 years. I was the only guy in a group that varied in size between 12-15 women. I became very well versed in indirect communication. At some point it became entertaining watching them all interact at, say, a staff meeting, trying to say things without actually saying them, directly, watching them read the other women’s faces as they were talking to determine whether and how much they needed to get more or less direct in what they were saying, without getting so direct that it would step on someone’s toes. It was like watching an improvised verbal ballet, really …. and all utterly alien to the way men generally communicate or receive communication from others.

Are women intentionally being deceptive?

“Women encrypt communication by using codewords, different word meanings, and they leave things out. Do women do this to deceive men? Or to deceive other women?”

Women don’t communicate this way with the intention to deceive, no. The intention is normally to say things in such a way as to not be so direct as to (1) offend someone, (2) place themselves in a bad light, (3) trigger an openly adverse reaction.

Men tend to be more direct and plain spoken and we tend to prefer that, other than in very specific settings with a set decorum that demands something else. Women tend to not be like that, and often tend to find men’s preferred style of communication to be rude.

In general, women are pleasure oriented, and they will do their best to stay in that mode unless/until one of the following happens.

  • Their anger, shame, fear, or indignation surpasses their tolerance threshold.
  • It becomes clear that they will not get what they want most.

Within the context of a relationship, however, women will break out of pleasure mode in order to implement various games and schemes for specific purposes (e.g. attention, control, etc.).

Of course women lie just like men do — they can and do intentionally deceive. But the indirect communication style, in my own experience, isn’t done to deceive but to communicate things in a way that doesn’t cause feathers to ruffle.

Do Women really think B!tchiness is Attractive???

Cameron linked to this post at the Daily Mail: Why Men Love B!tches (2021 February 24). He asked,

“Are women actually fooled into thinking men find bitchiness attractive and leave submissive women? Does she believe these things or does she know it’s BS? Besides the point of wanting to sell books for cash.”

The author is not wrong in saying that men love b!tches, but you just have to translate her words from Femstertalk to understand what she specifically means.

She is using the word “attractive” differently from how men think of attraction.

She is using the word “attraction” to mean “does the guy pay attention to me, do what I want, pursue me, and stay interested?” — that is how she is defining “attraction”.

She is not defining “attraction” as “allure”.

She is defining “attraction” as “keeping a guy who is visually attracted to me, already, interested in me over a longer period of time, chasing me, doing what I want, and on my terms”.

In all scenarios she is describing, she is using “attractive” as women tend to use it. It assumes physical/visual attraction is already present, so it’s a given that the guy is already visually/physically attracted in the sense we mean of “allured”. Women consider this to be so obvious that it doesn’t need to be mentioned.

She isn’t claiming (or at least doesn’t seem to be) that a woman who is not visually/physically attractive to a man can make a man physically attracted to her anyway by treating him like a b!tch.

Her concept of attraction might be translated into manspeak as “dominate” or “control”, and there is an element of female pedestalization required here on his part. She is talking about how to reel men in and keep them hooked as beta orbiters.  The motive is for her to maintain a steady stream of ego stoking attention.

So when women talk about a woman’s “attractiveness” (to men), they are talking about other qualities that can get the desired effect of keeping the man interested in her and not some other woman. The issue she is addressing is not whether he is expressing interest, but rather the female challenge of retaining a mans continual interest — an issue that arises when women give such men easy sex. So when you read articles or hear statements with this kind of viewpoint, you can safely assume that she’s already given away the milk for free. (Another red flag for vetting?)

It should be noted that women’s behavior has an impact on men differentially depending on the SMV rank of the man and how physically attractive the woman is. Of course, her approach will only work with men who consider the woman in question to be exceptional and not easily replaced. So her strategy doesn’t work with the top men who are most desired by women — because a woman who acts like this will get a “next”, since there is always an equally attractive replacement standing right behind her, waiting her turn to try to snag him. In order for this to work with a highly desired man, the woman has to be very, very attractive herself, and most women like that got the memo about bitchiness long before this book was written, for the obvious reasons she states here.

Her approach, though, works with the thirsty betas. Jack wrote about this problem in Why is premarital sex a sin? (2020 August 14). It’s a sin because it hands power over to the woman and sets up an inverted relational structure. But her idea is that it is not a great strategy to try to reel men in with easy sex, because that gives men what they want for a low price, and then his sexual desire cannot be leveraged for her own purposes. That’s a cruel viewpoint, but it’s also true.

So her strategy becomes, don’t give them sex, be challenging, be difficult. Be like a 5-par hole on the golf course — challenging, time-consuming, lots of arguments, tests, and traps … but there’s always the pin flag at the end giving him a glimmer of hope. That’s what she’s talking about, and it’s very effective if the woman is attractive enough to the man, and the man is thirsty enough, so that she can pull it off. If she does, she frames up the relationship totally in her own frame, with the man qualifying for her, and so it’s a total, 100% dominance win for her.

Now, whether that makes her happy in the long term is something else. But it is a very effective approach for snagging and bagging a thirsty beta male into a relationship in which she can dominate him psycho-sexually pretty reliably, provided that he desires her enough (i.e., sees her as hard to replace) for her to pull it off.

Case Study 2 — Tomi Lahren

Last August, Tomi Lahren rather famously posted a video tirade about men, which pretty much evidenced how “difficult” a date she would be.

Does this really make her much less attractive to most men? Not necessarily, depending on what the men’s options are. As we discussed:

“It was evident that Tomi Lahren’s beau that dumped her complained about her being difficult – she complained about men’s complaints about her “difficulty” (and her friends’).”

Again, the string-along B!tch approach works with thirsty betas, but not with guys who have a lot of options. Guys who have a lot of options will “next” a b!tchy woman, as I said. Lahren isn’t dating thirsty betas, she’s trying for NFL players. So she gets nexted. Makes sense to me. A thirsty beta would not next Tomi Lahren for acting b!tchy.

You’d think that she would eventually wake up and try her hand at a different strategy. But like most women of this variety, she’ll keep pounding away until she meets her fated destiny with the Wall.

What is all the hype about #met00 and “Marital Rape”?

“I bet for a lot of them it’s like being a prostitute to have sex with a man they’re not attracted to. How twisted is that?”

It doesn’t seem that twisted to me, actually.

If men are not attracted to some degree, sex can’t physically happen. So we also have an attraction test. It’s just that ours is broader because sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive, etc.

For a woman to feel violated if she is not attracted makes sense, because she feels like the sex is extraneous to her — it is the man using her for his pleasure. She is not enjoying it, but he is. So that conjures up the idea of prostitution or rape, because that is what is happening in those scenarios, too. So it does make sense to me that a woman would experience it that way. But it’s hard for men to relate because it’s an experience a man can’t have (apart from gay rape, like in prisons) because heterosexual sex can’t happen without male arousal.

“[Women never consider] the cost of them settling because they think men owe them marriage…”

Keep in mind that women have a harder marital equation to solve than we do. Men are solving for attractiveness and agreeableness, generally — Christians add more into the mix, but as we know, many times those are added in after the fact, so to speak. It isn’t that hard to find both in one woman because men are attracted to more women than vice versa. Men’s larger problem is finding such a woman who is, in turn, attracted to them, but that’s a different issue altogether.

Women are looking for two different kinds of men, really — genes men and family men. There are a few men who solve both parts of that equation (and these men are in the highest demand, for obvious reasons), but most are primarily one or the other (or none). And it’s only the first type that generates a sexual desire in women that is equivalent to the male sexual desire for women. So almost all women, if they want to marry and have children (recognizing as most of them do that this is still the best way to do that), will marry guys that they aren’t that attracted to sexually — they have no other option. Not settling sexually means kids outside of marriage, or no kids.

Attraction is not a choice — they can’t make themselves be highly sexually attracted to the family type men in the way they are attracted to the genes type men. They aren’t made that way. This doesn’t mean that women marry men to whom they aren’t attracted at all sexually … that’s only rarely the case. However, it does mean that most marriages are not ones where the woman is very sexually attracted to the husband in the way she was to guys she “just dated” when she wasn’t screening for husband qualities.

So, really, the best case for most women is that they marry a family type man to whom they are at least somewhat attracted sexually, so that the sex doesn’t feel like a violation, even if it isn’t very exciting for them.

So you can’t really separate out the forensic side of it from the other side because most women just have bad options because of how their attraction works.

The Bottom Line is about Control

“I think this woman just wrote these crap books for girlpower reasons.”

Sure, it’s all about power in relationships — that’s clear. It’s about getting the man to do what she wants.

“Yeah, [the author of the B!tch article] wants to encourage women to be something we’re not attracted to. WTF?”

She’s talking about power, not “ideal mates”. She’s talking about how to get, and keep, “hand” in a relationship, from the women’s perspective. That’s why the father wants it for his daughter (she is in control then, not whatever worthless loser male happens to marry his precious princess), but not for his wife (he doesn’t want to be subject to her control/hand). It’s about viewing relationships through the lens of power.

A man can be attracted to a woman who is in power over him, or to a woman who is not. That is not what she is really talking about. What she is talking about is taking a man who finds her attractive and using that to control him, and thereby control the relationship.

As I said above, it’s a given that the man is attracted physically in a way that the physical attraction can be used as a lever to enforce his compliance — to exert control.

“So what about her belief that the submissive yes women get left by men? Does she really believe this or is some weird translation required?”

What she is saying is that the men are more empowered, so they will eventually lose his interest to another woman who is equally attractive, but who makes herself more of a challenge. That is what she is saying there. Whether that is true depends on a lot of factors, most of them relating to the guy’s personality, and his actual options. (Are there other women who are equally attractive who are doing that and getting their way by doing so, or not?)

Remember what I said about how women use the word “attraction” in the sense of “interested in pursuing actively”. She is saying that, as between two women who are equally visually attractive, the woman who plays harder to get will get/keep the man’s attention more. That depends on his personality, I think, but it is true with at least some men, most notably those who are favored by women and thus, can find other attractive options.

The bottom line in reality here is that many very high-powered men, CEOs, managing partners in law firms, investment bankers, senators, etc., are not married to “submissive wife” type women. That doesn’t compute in the Manosphere, but it is nevertheless true. This is the kind of thing she is talking about in her book — men like this can be hooked in by a woman who is attractive enough to lure them in physically and then savvy enough to control the relationship on her terms. An actual “dominatrix” — not the classic one of male sexual fantasies but rather the more prosaic one of the man being led around by his wife, who dominates him both sexually (by controlling his access to sex) and psycho-emotionally, by running circles around him verbally and emotionally. AKA: most American marriages.

Conclusions

Jack has written tomes about how sex should be unique to marriage, but for sexually liberated people who live in a sex-centric culture, it is not. For wimmin like this, sex is for hot men, marriage is for rich men, and unfortunately, they are not the same men. Likewise, their concepts of attraction become complicated, convoluted, and messy.

Furthermore, dropping hints about what women truly find attractive shows their hand in a way that is detrimental to their frame of social control. So when women are pressed for an answer about what really turns them on, they are prone to speak in coded language, toss out a red herring for distraction, or simply change the subject.

Women know that true attraction cannot be negotiated, so why talk about it?

Related

This entry was posted in Attraction, Authenticity, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Communications, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Power, Feminism, Hamsterbation, Handling Rejection, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Introspection, IOI's, Moral Agency, Personal Presentation, Psychology, Relationships, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Solipsism, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to Deciphering Concepts of Attraction

  1. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Ha,tomi ”harley” laurhen,what a jokester!Men who even have a ounce of options&redpill awareness don’t go anywhere near such messed-up in the head&engine wimminz with thier delusional fair-market ”value”!No post-script day has been extended indinfinitely because the professor says so!

    Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      She is the ‘poster child’ for a man running the other way as fast as he can. Men can learn a lot from her PSA for Boyish men clip and followup clip she did last summer. The Manosphere content creators, just about every one of them did an analysis of her clips, they were that viral. To me, she is archetypal for what you don’t want in a woman. The only men who would go for her and put up with her are very thirsty, Blue Pill men.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. cameron232 says:

    Great summary of our conversation.

    “It doesn’t seem that twisted to me, actually.”

    It’s not “twisted” from a biological point of view – I just mean that the primary thing a man gets out of marriage and something that makes him feel loved and appreciated feels like prostitution or rape to her. Twisted. It sounds like, really, most men shouldn’t marry. It’s not an economic necessity for women anymore – men don’t even have that form of leverage/attractiveness anymore. Who wants all the difficulty and responsibility when the act that makes you feel loved/desired can be borderline rape to them? Or the act which is fundamental to marriage makes them feel like a prostitute.

    Also note the comments BY WOMEN I’ve posted from Lori Alexander’s site. Women can feel an emotional connection during sex that I’m sure isn’t utterly independent from her raw attraction but isn’t the same thing as her raw attraction. I think they COULD feel emotional connection to beta-hubby. But they often ruin EVEN THAT by having a notch count as little as n=1 (sex with one other man).

    Liked by 4 people

  3. proprietor says:

    It is an interesting proposition that high-value (wealthy) men often have problematic wives. The notion that bitchiness is an effective control strategy is an interesting one, but I think a lot of it has simply to do with a sort of ignorance. Most of the women that such men are accustomed to, in their upper-middle-class milieu in which they often grow up or at least go to college, are women of this sort. Also, since such men tend to be intelligent, they also tend toward intelligent women, simply because their conversation is more appealing. These intelligent women also tend to be products of university indoctrination, simply because the educational system selects for intelligence and channels these women into the better universities. Usually, it is only later in life that these men realize that they would be better off with a “submissive” wife. But, by then, they are either stuck with their wives or, if they end up single, do not intend to remarry.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Agreed, often these men aren’t natural alphas any way. They’re greater betas (at best) with a lot of money, status. I think women want the alphas (with the minimum of beta to not bolt) in general. The walking ATM machine is the consolation prize to them. If you’re going to take the consolation prize, why not take the richest one – but it’s still a consolation prize – they won’t be happy – they’ll be b!tchy.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      There’s an element to the “it’s who is around them” reality, I agree.

      But it’s also that they themselves prefer women of similar intellect, and precious few of those are around who are actually up for being a “submissive” wife, because most of the women who are of that intellect are educated in the same way. It’s like and like, really. And there is social pressure all around in that social class not to “marry down” in intellect, education, social class.

      If anything that pressure is higher now than it was 50 years ago because mating has become much more rigidly assortative on the basis of education and socio-economic class than it ever was — there are simply far fewer crossover marriages than there were (most of those previously involved lower ed and SES women “marrying up”), which has had a number of effects: two notable ones are the concentration of wealth and power in the new elite class which has resulted from this kind of “closed intraclass mating” system (and this is based precisely on these like and like pairings that create a “marriage of superheroes” type of marriage), and another is that social mobility has taken a significant hit (when very few women are marrying up, those women who would have done in the past but are not doing so now are “stuck” in a lower rung, as are their children).

      The big “winners” in all of this are the upper middle class women — the Betty Friedans of the world. This is no surprise because feminism in the US was always pushed primarily by this group of women, and so it stands to reason that the feminism that they created worked to their interests. They now have pretty much a closed class selection on men of their own intellect and social class (“no marrying down, boys!!”), while also gaining economic independence in their own right within that class. They basically gave up nothing to get this. Everyone else gave something up, including other women who lost access to the men of this social class for marriage more or less — but not upper middle class women. For them it has all been pure gain. And this is why, even today, they are the staunchest supporters of American-style feminism.

      Liked by 6 people

      • info says:

        If God wants to pay them back. Those women will not get the Men they would want. As they would be recognized for their bad character. And the Men dodges the requirement to marry within their class.

        in combination to the fact that those Men will continue to reduce as a proportion of the population.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      “…they themselves prefer women of similar intellect, and precious few of those are around who are actually up for being a “submissive” wife, because most of the women who are of that intellect are educated in the same way. It’s like and like, really. And there is social pressure all around in that social class not to “marry down” in intellect, education, social class.”

      The thought process among men of this caliber is that a woman of similar intellect, ambition, accomplishment, education, etc. will be a better mother and “partner”. She will be more capable in running a household, in parenting, in problem solving, etc.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Also will make better kids, through both nature (smart genes) and nurture (smart nurture) so as to perpetuate/”pass on” the “privilege” of their status down the generational line. And this actually does work, which we are seeing all around us — and the fact that it works is making it even more ubiquitous among this class.

        Liked by 3 people

  4. cameron232 says:

    Not unrelated to this piece: Really this is how I think men can be categorized sociosexually:

    Alpha: men most women WANT to have sex with for the sex itself (not what else she might get). Attraction that mimics the attraction of men to most (young) women. Note: not all women WILL f_ck an alpha given an opportunity – many of them still realize there can be a price to pay for f_cking these guys, a few have moral convictions, etc.

    Greater Beta: men most women prefer to negotiate (for an LTR, betabux) with sexually – men they will have sex with for the appropriate exchange. She has some desire for you, but it’s more situationally dependent and, most importantly, her sexual desire for you is less than yours for her. The best most men can hope for.

    Lesser Beta: men less preferred – but many women will negotiate with them sexually when they can’t get an alpha or a greater beta. Her last resort before she hits the wall or whatever timeline she has in her head.

    Gamma: most women won’t even negotiate (maybe very low SMV women will).

    Note: what percent of men fall into these categories for an individual woman is somewhat dependent on the attractiveness of the woman, her background, and is somewhat situational e.g. top 10% for younger girls using Tinder. Top 1% for Tomi Lahren. My guess is averaged over all women it’s something like: top 20%, 80-50%, 50-20% and bottom 20% but I realize it’s skewing even more towards the top for younger adults nowadays.

    Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Those rich men,mostly put on a mask for the public acting like they want hillary clinton,while going douchecanoing down whitewater river as bill clinton with the women they realy want!Yes you have to be seen ever more high-status with these feral wimminz as their demands grow with every new generation!Cameron your socio-sexual list is a very reasonable caterorization as far as at least 90%of men fall into those categories!

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        prof, I think you’re right – Hillary for public image, power, bigger mansion, etc. – side girls for fun/love.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. cameron232 says:

    Sorry for excessive commenting – so much good material here.

    “That depends on his personality, I think, but it is true with at least some men, most notably those who are favored by women and thus, can find other attractive options.”

    I think this must be a greater beta thing. As we’ve noted in Tomi’s case, actual visceral alphas tend to “next” a b!tchy or difficult woman – I don’t know why these men would leave a submissive woman for a difficult woman (of equal attractiveness). They leave women in general because they have lots of options, get bored, and have little in the way of a conscience that prevents them from breaking the hearts of submissive OR b!tchy women.

    I would guess that a few men who are hyper-dominant, personality wise don’t mind a b!tchy woman because these men deal with difficult people well, it doesn’t stress them out to fight with people. They might “next” a submissive woman for a b!tchy woman for access to “new p_ssy”/variety – of course they know they can “next” the “new p_ssy” just as easily.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      I agree that it isn’t “Alpha” men who are doing that, but it has to be clear what we mean by “Alpha” because even after all these years, men who read these blogs still misunderstand the term when used, because they are accustomed to a different usage.

      Here “Alpha” means one thing: sexual alpha. That’s it. He can be a bartender, a lifeguard, a SEAL, an NFL player, a CEO or an auto mechanic. None of that matters — all that matters is whether he is a sexual Alpha such that he has access, on demand, to hot women for sex, and therefore has an abundance of hot women available to him at all times, more or less on demand. These men will tend not to put up with bitchiness for more than a brief period while the sex is “new”, I agree. Because they have an abundance of equally attractive, or moreso, options.

      Greater betas are very different in that while they have options, they do not have sex-on-demand options that give a man the kind of sense of “abundance” that really makes any one given woman utterly and almost instantly replaceable. Therefore they do not have the abundance mindset that goes along with that actual abundance in access. And therefore they will put up with much more from any given woman. And unlike sexual alphas, who are found in all walks of life, greater betas, because they are betas, are concentrated in the more “striver” oriented fields like law, medicine, business executives, entrepreneurs, business founders and the like.

      Lahren is going for the first type — NFL players who are often sexual alphas. She is finding that they don’t put up with her crap, because if you’re Jay Cutler, you don’t have to put up with Tomi Lahren’s crap. She would have virtually any corporate CEO wrapped around her little finger in a week.

      Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “Here “Alpha” means one thing: sexual alpha.”

        Yes, that how I think I generally use the term. Men that most women want to have sex with without anything in exchange.

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Greater betas are very different in that while they have options, they do not have sex-on-demand options that give a man the kind of sense of “abundance” that really makes any one given woman utterly and almost instantly replaceable. Therefore they do not have the abundance mindset that goes along with that actual abundance in access. And therefore they will put up with much more from any given woman. And unlike sexual alphas, who are found in all walks of life, greater betas, because they are betas, are concentrated in the more “striver” oriented fields like law, medicine, business executives, entrepreneurs, business founders and the like.”
        Very good descriptions; and yes, this was me to a T back-in-the-day, a quintessential Greater Beta. This is what you said in your post that jumped out at me: “Therefore they do not have the abundance mindset that goes along with that actual abundance in access.” Yes, precisely. Looking back on my mid-to-late-twenties, I had PLENTY of access to women, but couldn’t see it because I had ‘Oneitis’ for a hometown girl (I lived half way across the country at the time), and was in an LTR (I thought I was, but she wasn’t, she was following the feminist life script back home and riding the CC).
        Sometimes in looking back I want to kick myself for not having taken advantage of it at the time, but then I think it through a bit more and realize it could have altered my life in a significant way and I wouldn’t be where I am today, i.e. I could have fallen for a gold digger that eventually divorced raped me or gotten some nasty STD, etc. I personally think this is one area we do not delve into much in the Manosphere, the risks of being Chad. It seems to me in some backhanded way we admire Chad because he appears to have an abundance of options with so many good looking women that seem willing to give it up for him when he just looks at them. Seems many of us may wish we had had (secretly maybe) been him, but for whatever reason we weren’t him, i,e genetics, lack of self confidence with women, BP mindset, etc. I guess what I’m musing about a bit here, we might want to take a bit deeper look a Chad, Brad and Tyrone–the quintessential sexual Alpha’s; maybe their ‘good deal’ sexually, is not as good as it appears to us, you know, having all those Stacy’s ‘on demand.’ I think maybe we ‘admire’ them too much. IDK, thoughts gents?

        Liked by 1 person

  6. redpillboomer says:

    “For wimmin like this, sex is for hot men, marriage is for rich men, and unfortunately, they are not the same men.”

    This is an absolute gem of a line that younger men of the ‘Sphere need to be able to wrap their heads around. In their generation, from the female point of view, “Sex is for hot men, marriage is for rich men.” What I believe would make a good Blog post on here is the unpacking of ‘hot’ and ‘rich.’ I know this is being done in virtually every post, but I was thinking of myself when I was a young man. If I had clarity what a woman considered a ‘hot man,’ and what they considered a ‘rich man,’ I think it would have been invaluable to me (even as a new Christian in my mid-twenties) in beginning to ‘de-fog’ my BP mindset and cultural conditioning as it related to women. I think I might have been able to navigate the SMP/MMP much better than I did. Like I’ve said on my earlier comments, I was fortunate because I believe God guided me in dating/mating in my late twenties. Had I been guiding myself, I would have crashed and burned badly. I now can see WHAT He was doing at the time, but I didn’t back then. I was fortunately going with the flow, His flow I mean, and it saved me from a ton of heartache, not all heartache as I shared on another recent post, but I believe 80-90% of it. The title of this post, “Deciphering Concepts of Attraction” is brilliant; however, it’s much easier for me to follow this line of reasoning because I’m older and have a lot of life experience I didn’t have in my twenties and thirties.

    Liked by 4 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Becuase of easy credit the idea of what makes a man rich or marraige material has been greatly inflated

      Frankly I think it’s a bad idea for a man to play the marraige material game. You’d be basically setting yourself up for a life time of livimg with other men’s throw aways

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Rock Kitaro says:

    “In general, women are pleasure oriented, and they will do their best to stay in that mode unless/until one of the following happens…It becomes clear that they will not get what they want most.”

    This so much… It used to piss me off to no end that the Woman I was with finally comes out and tells me straight up what they really think, or communicate how they really feel…only right when I’ve crossed the line of not wanting to be with them anymore. Because the saddest thing was, I DIDN’T KNOW! There was no “Understanding Women 101” class in college or high school, and even my parents taught me based on what they were used to, the old-school ways of courtship.

    So right when I was prepared to break up with them, usually after an argument or them getting mad for some reason that they haven’t and refused to convey…that’s when they finally come out and tell me things like, “I thought you were out of my league” or “I’m afraid you’re just sidelining me…”

    If they had been upfront about their insecurities, and I know it’s not easy, I would’ve changed and been more accommodating, more considerate. Especially when most of them put up a bold front as if nothing ever bothers them and it’s all in my head if I suspect something’s wrong. So, I dunno. I refuse to live my life as if I’m a perennial contestant on a guessing game called “Dating and Marriage.” Just one ex acknowledge this, years after we broke up and became good friends. She was like, “No. I don’t blame you. That’s just who you are and it’s one of the things I liked about you. You don’t put up with ish.” And I smirked… because I didn’t think that was anything special. I thought most men were like that.

    Liked by 6 people

  8. You can have any woman you can afford, at least temporarily.

    Liked by 5 people

  9. anonymous_ng says:

    So much has been written about the effects of hormonal birth control on women’s choices in mates and the problems that can create during marriage once a woman is no longer influenced by those hormones. I’ve not seen much written about the sexual side effects of SSRI use. What if the drug companies are lying through their teeth about the incidence of sexual side effects?

    It seemed that my ex-wife was able to orgasm before starting SSRIs, but was physically unable after. I say seemed because only she knows and we never really had that frank a discussion on the subject only a frustration on her part in the bedroom.

    For many years now, I’ve wondered at the ability of sex and intimacy to smooth over the hurts and conflicts of a marriage without orgasm on her part. I am reasonably certain that absent the ability to orgasm, I would be uninterested in sex. Why would she be any different having experienced sex with orgasm?

    Shortly after my ex moved out, I remember reading a thread on the forums at Plenty Of Fish with the question, “Would you date someone who suffers from depression if it was well controlled by medication?” I can’t remember if I replied to the thread, but my answer is not just “no”, but “hell no!” based on my experience with my ex.

    Just something I think about.

    Liked by 6 people

    • “Would you date someone who suffers from depression if it was well controlled by medication?”

      “Hell no!”, is the correct answer. The thing most laypeople are unaware of is that some psychoactive medications, work for some people, some of the time. Medications need to be adjusted frequently due to changes in patient brain chemistry and other factors. A medication that has worked well previously can lose efficacy at safe dosages and then other meds have to be tried and titrated to effective levels.

      It’s to your own inestimable benefit to not get intimately involved with people with mental health issues.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Absolutely.

        Run, don’t walk, as soon as you hear any news of any actual diagnosed mental health issue, including chronic depression.

        It really isn’t worth it. It will easily ruin your own mental health, and thereby your own life.

        Run, don’t walk.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Joe2 says:

        “It’s to your own inestimable benefit to not get intimately involved with people with mental health issues.”

        I would like to add just don’t get involved intimately or not with anyone with mental health issues, period. It could be your neighbor across the street, some people at church or a co-worker who has mental health issues. They will only drag you into their world of craziness like a big black hole from which it becomes increasingly difficult to escape.

        Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        That includes all mental health issues. Including depression, PTSD, and any cluster B personality disorder. It also includes a history of substance abuse, even if she is in recovery.

        Liked by 7 people

    • locustsplease says:

      Ambien has the opposite effect. My ex took it sometimes and wouldn’t tell me its basically female ecstasy. I saw a documentary on it, and college girls are taking it, walking out of their dorms, and banging every guy in the next room, and not knowing it. After having seen its effects, I personally believe it is a psych drug intentionally meant to do these things, not just a sleep drug with a side effect.

      It took this angry frigid b!tch and turned her into a little kitten in 20 min. If it wasn’t a sleep drug and worked all day, I may have had the happiest marriage on earth!

      Liked by 2 people

  10. cameron232 says:

    “But squeezing into a dress that is too tight will get her some feedback she likes. You can rest assured of that. To her, that is better than getting no feedback.”

    So, I guess what I’m talking about is a 250 pound girl (2X the weight she should be) who squeezes in to a Kelly Bundy type skin tight tube dress. Yeah, I actually see this. The dress is a “sexy” dress.

    The feedback I want to give is “Put some clothes on fat @$$!”, but I’d get fired for that. Unfortunately, it’s illegal to give these girls truthful feedback. So, I can see where they get no truthful feedback and are left to fantasize that they’re getting male attention when really they’re trying to see past her fat @$$ to see the other girl behind her.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      It’s so unfortunate. And so many times, I want to tell them…because I’ve seen a lot of overweight women with pretty faces or pleasant (cooperative) personalities and so badly I want to tell them, “Dude, just 3x a week at 30 plus minutes on the treadmill and you’d be solid.” I actually had a close female friend who was like that a few years back. She at least acknowledged she was overweight and even agreed to let me help her stay on routine by hitting the gym.

      But with her… I did actually work with her. And as much as I trusted her to an extent, the last thing I wanted to experience is being called into my manager’s office and being accused of fat-shaming or harassing her to get into the gym. So when she started to give me attitude and excuses… I backed off. And… the last time I saw her before quarantine, needless to say, she’s gotten bigger 😦

      Liked by 3 people

  11. thedeti says:

    To men, the word “attractive” in all its forms means one thing, and one thing only: It means f***able. It refers to a woman who men will want to have sex with.

    “You’re very attractive” = “I want to have sex with you.”

    “I’m attracted to you” = “I want to have sex with you.”

    To women, the word “attractive” means whatever the particular woman using the word intends it to mean at that moment. It means whatever she decides it means.

    “I’m attracted to you” = “I surmise that you have something I want/need right now, be it status, money, resources, time, attention, or whatever else I have decided that I want/need.”

    “You’re attractive!” = “I think you are a man I could like, get along with, and make and raise a family with.”

    Women conveying sexual attraction to a man use different words. Usually “hot”, “gorgeous”, “beautiful”, or “bangin'”. Especially “hot” or “hawt”. Women are much more effusive and direct about this now. In the 80s/early 90s it was “gorgeous” which morphed into “beautiful”. Now, it’s “hot”.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Jack says:

      NovaSeeker’s post and Deti’s last comment make the point that when women use the word “attraction” (and its various cognates) it does NOT have a sexual connotation. It’s like a luxurious step above being “nice” (which we know is not a compliment to men at all). Whereas men use the word “attractive” as a polite way to say she passes the boner test.

      This is a world of a difference in verbal communication which we should be aware of.

      Liked by 5 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Deti,you have definitely become at least a sigma man,since your redpill conversion!Can you imagine being this wise in your bluepill days?Like I said before you are the real hero married man for all us not married guys,just like in summer of ’12 with the detination site that acknowledged your significance to the manosphere & all men in general,not just married dudes like yourself!I too saw all these changes of how its okay for women to be more ”nice” upfront,while men as rollo says better play by the ”old books” which for some reason has made me the enemy of these modern ”good” people in various places in RL!I still say ”douchecanoes live&the nice f@ckable women who love them” would be the greatest thing you could do for your long-term fans like myself, deti.I of course have always been a ”nice” guy,hence why wimminz usualy act like that stacey thompson,that reporter woman around me in RL,from that flexmagazine video deepstrength posted last week!Their always stunned,kind&in love like most men know women as.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. info says:

    All those female led relationships have the implication of Mankind usurping God. And attempting to tame God.

    Liked by 2 people

    • info says:

      It seems a very fitting relationship to secular Humanists and Humanists in General despite their Christian professions.

      When Mankind presumes to be greater than God. He is ruled by Woman.

      When the Earthly is prioritized over the Heavenly then this inverted relationship is completely valid.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        Indeed. I wrote a line for a character to explicitly say this (mainly in response to celebrities like Beyonce saying women rule the world)… “If it is true that women rule the world, it’s because men have come to love women more than they love God.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        Agreed. Although I would think that it began with being solipsistic. “Man is the measure of all things.” ~ Protagoras.

        And renaissance humanists wanting to deify mankind himself while rejecting God was in turn handed over by God to the rule by women.

        Or this is like a chicken and egg problem which is exactly as you stated. The elevation of woman above her station also results in greater earthliness at the expense of the heavenly.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Scott says:

    I’ve never heard a woman say “attractive” and mean it as sexy/hot. It is usually a placeholder to describe something else. If you hear it, you are in the friend zone.

    Liked by 7 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Scott, my guess is that it means she’ll consider you if she can’t get the commitment of a man she considers alpha. It’s the men they prefer to negotiate/exchange with: “You’re not gross, I’ll give you sex and love in return for money, commitment, and help with the kids.”

      The don’t negotiate/exchange with the alphas in that they’ll give them sex without anything in exchange. Sex with alphas is for the sake/enjoyment of sex with alphas.

      I’ve been described as “attractive” by several of my wife’s friends. That means marriage material and I’m not too gross to consider for marriage.“You’ll do.”

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Scott says:

    Further…

    “Attractive” is roughly akin to “Close, but no cigar.”

    If she is into you that way she will make it obvious.

    And I would also point out that these “IOIs” as we call them around here are not learned, they are innate. Every women does them without conscience knowledge of it. Therefore, all the talk around here about teaching women to do this better is lame.

    Then this thing occurs to me. With regard to, for example, Elspeth’s daughters–one (or a combination of) of these things is happening.

    –They are giving strong IOIs to men that make them feel all gooey down in their tummies, and are not talking about it to their parents. (This is not a judgment. As I said, they can’t help it/don’t know they are doing it).
    –They are giving FAKE IOIs to the men around them that they perceive their parents might actually approve of, and those men can tell it is fake.
    –The aura that surrounds these girls (created by uber traditional mom and scary dad) retards this process so much so that it cannot flourish in a natural way.
    –The kinds of men that would be stamped “approved” by both the girls gooey internal feelings and the parents standards (strong natural alpha sexiness with a great big helping of “I would like to stick around and be a provider, protector and invested dad”) do not exist in great numbers.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      The problem you’ve described with Elspeth’s daughters has no solution in today’s society. There is literally no palatable solution to that problem. The only solutions are 1) remain single; 2) marry men they’re not sexually attracted to. Pre-sex rev, most women held their noses, chose Door #2, and made the best of it.

      The remaining solution is not scripturally acceptable, but most women will do this eventually, and that’s (3) go ahead and have sex with sexually attractive men in direct and knowing disobedience to tenets of Christian sexual morality. They’ll do this because they can, because there are no short term temporal consequences for doing so, because no one – not even their pastors – will hold them accountable, because they just cannot hold out any longer, because everyone else is doing it, and because they just might hit the jackpot and snag that hot guy.

      Liked by 4 people

      • info says:

        @Novaseeker

        Even arranged marriage would need choice and proper vetting of appearance and character of both spouses.

        If not arranged marriage. We shall see how it ultimately shakes out. Lots of things will change.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “And I would also point out that these “IOIs” as we call them around here are not learned, they are innate. Every women does them without conscience knowledge of it. Therefore, all the talk around here about teaching women to do this better is lame.”

      That’s not entirely accurate – it was not teaching women to do this better; it was telling women to make their IOIs more obvious. I suppose that won’t work.

      Okay. Fine. Then the Daughters of Elspeth will remain single well into their 30s. Or they will marry men they’re not sexually attracted to. Or they will give in and have premarital sex with sexy men.

      Then devout Christian men will go without and live lives as incels. Or they will be one of the unattractive men the Daughters reluctantly settle for. Or they will sneak around with an OnlyFans subscription, a sometime sugar baby, hookers, or compulsive masturbation.

      There is literally nothing most men can do to improve their attractiveness to the point of being sexually attractive, of causing tingles, in most women. If they can’t do it naturally, they’ll never be able to do it. So, there it is.

      Great SMP/MMP we’ve got here, huh?

      Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        From what I have seen/my experience, IOIs come from a place that is not consciously controlled. It is natural, fun and obvious. Any attempt to modify it for the purposes of the intended recipient (the guy) would come across as weird or obsequious.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        You would be correct.

        Then the Daughters will go without, sin, or settle for unhappy, loveless, sexless marriages.

        Then most men will go without, sin, or be settled for in unhappy, loveless, sexless marriages.

        So be it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        I guess what that means is that the human mating system only works “naturally” (that is without being arranged, which it was in almost all cultures for most of history) when both people are quite attractive such that the tingles are set off and there is male interest. Doesn’t work otherwise.

        No wonder arranged marriage was the norm historically. Species would have died out without it.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        the human mating system only works “naturally” (that is without being arranged, which it was in almost all cultures for most of history) when both people are quite attractive such that the tingles are set off and there is male interest. Doesn’t work otherwise.

        And that’s just “mating”. In other words, male and female copulate. Sperm and egg are united in the process. That’s not “marriage”.

        No wonder arranged marriage was the norm historically. Species would have died out without it.

        Yes, because if most men are going to have to do without sex, they’ll just do without women. If men didn’t orgasm nearly every time they had sex, most men would have no interest in sex. And we know what women will do: “I’m not settling! I want the BEST! I deserve the BEST! And I am NOT picking any man who is not the absolute best! He has to be perfect in every way! If he is not The One, then he is not for me!”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        “No wonder arranged marriage was the norm historically. Species would have died out without it.”

        Novaseeker is always able to immediately reduce my observations to their final permutation.

        Liked by 5 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      I’m not settling! I want the BEST! I deserve the BEST! And I am NOT picking any man who is not the absolute best! He has to be perfect in every way! If he is not The One, then he is not for me!”
      …….

      We are living in very hostile times, most folks know deep down things will get worse and I think that exacerbates that tendency in women so things won’t improve anytime soon

      Things will probably never improve because men lack the moral and intellectual courage to deal with reality but that’s a whole other thing

      Liked by 5 people

  15. Elspeth says:

    I prefer “Evangelical American Princesses” over “The Daughters of Elspeth”. Besides, my girls are actually chaste and virtuous, ergo, not a part of the EAP paradigm in aggregate.

    Let’s not change the terminology now, please. Thank you.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      lol, I was wondering what they were talking about. hahahaha!

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      No, E, the EAP refers to an entirely different class of women.

      I used the term because Scott did, and because you have referred to your daughters as representative of the paradigm. And I believe they are representative of the paradigm.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        If I was mistaken, mea culpa.

        There is still a feeling of mockery towards young women who, despite walking ghastly and virtuously, take longer to marry. Not sure why, maybe it’s just me.

        Jack’s suggestion (“Maidens in Waiting”) sounds a lot more generic and less personal. No personalities attached. At least then when the whole “they need to suck it up and settle” talk gets started up, my progeny won’t be the targets.

        Lingo has a way of spreading fast on the web.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “There is still a feeling of mockery towards young women who, despite walking ghastly and virtuously, take longer to marry. Not sure why, maybe it’s just me.”

        They take longer to marry because the men who would best suit them are routinely shooed away en masse. The reason these men are condemned is because they are 5-10 years older.

        Another conundrum.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Nope. 8-10 years older is fine by us. Culturally, people haven’t grown up yet. Male or female. True story:

        Husband was talking to an acquaintance about his son. Smart ,M.A.degree. Had a decent job but quit it to work on the Biden campaign. Can’t find one comparable since.

        SAMs thought: “Strike 1 he’s a leftist which I didn’t anticipate. Strike 2 he’s a fool who left a good job in the middle of an economic downturn because ideals.”

        Stuff like this is what young people -male and female alike- are contending with.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        E, I’m going to bring this up only because you did:

        This is one of the problems today with parents. No man is good enough for his daughter. SAM turned away a decent guy because of his politics and his job choices.

        You and SAM can take care of the Daughters however you see fit. But you run the risk of rejecting every man out there and that’s not helping the situation.

        You are not going to get “perfect”. You’re just not. No one ever does. Not even you. Not even SAM.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Are you freaking kidding me Deti?

        So you’d be fine with your daughter marrying an unemployed guy with fundamentally different values from how you raised your daughter -on almost every major issue- and try to lead her away from Christian principles? Just to get her married?

        You HONESTLY characterize THIS as “no man is good enough?”

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        I’m seriously dumbfounded enough that I need to take a poll.

        Does anyone reading along think it is unreasonable to dismiss an unemployed political leftist so committed to the crazy that he quit his job to get Biden elected?

        Just checking…

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        And you think we don’t kniw we’re not perfect? We never claimed to be. What we are is well matched and happy. Same values, complimentary temperaments, etc. So not perfect. Far, far from it. But you know that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Jeez E. Calm the hell down.

        I didn’t get from your initial post on this that he was unemployed. Thought he had a job and was working in the Biden “Administration”. So yeah, if he has no job at all, then yeah, he’s probably not a good choice. But he’ll get one eventually. And when he does, will you and SAM consider him THEN? It’s not like there’s a plethora of choices out there – particularly when all the men the Daughters go to church with are probably neomaxizoomdweebies. You have been complaining for YEARS that there aren’t any good devout Christian men out there. Well….. I don’t know what else to tell you.

        See my other comments. There’s no palatable solution. The Christian men aren’t hot enough, assertive enough, masculine enough, good looking enough, interesting enough, or whatever enough. All other men are unsuitable because they’re not Christians.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Keep in mind these are two dad’s talking. The dad is a believer, so we made certain assumptions about the son.

        To answer your query. If he gets a job, talks to my husband, and indicates that he is not on board with basic Christian, doctrinal truths? Would you consider him?

        Short answer is no. Non Christians need not apply. Take it up with God.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        E:

        Sorry. I don’t know what else to tell you.

        There are no palatable solutions. Currently, the only solution is for the Daughters to remain unmarried and sexless; or marry neomaxizoomdweebies and be unhappily having sex, and mostly sexless.

        What you are looking for is an extremely tall order: A SAM Jr. You’re searching for a needle in 10,000 haystacks. This is a nearly impossible task. I don’t envy you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Elpseth, to me the unemployed isn’t disqualifying (assuming he’s looking) but the leftist is disqualifying – won’t share the same values (Christian and other). FWIW.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I suspect at least some of my sons won’t meet other dad’s qualifications with respect to career success, mechanical skills, etc – e.g my 2nd son doesn’t seem real ambitious so far. I get this impression based off manosphere comments, not just Churchian comments.

        My background maybe skews my view. My dad was an unskilled, blue collar worker who dropped out of college. He worked hard and had a good marriage that lasted from age 20 until he died in his sixties. We were poor only by spoiled American standards. We were happy – mom and dad almost never fought let alone entertained divorce.

        I think Elspeth said her dad was a garbage man – mine cleaned swimming pools.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Elpseth, to me the unemployed isn’t disqualifying (assuming he’s looking) but the leftist is disqualifying – won’t share the same values (Christian and other). FWIW.”

        Cameron: All men will be disqualified for one reason or another. Devout Christian women, or Maidens in Waiting, have an incredibly difficult needle to thread here. As Scott said, they need a strong Alpha who inspires tingles and who is also devout and willing to wait until marriage for sex. They tell us that the men they go to Church with are too dweeby, nerdy, wimpy, boring, weird, and uptight. The men they go to Church with aren’t good looking men. But, the men they find attractive and who tingle them aren’t Christian men.

        The Christian men are unacceptable because they’re not attractive enough.

        The nonChristian men are unacceptable because they’re not Christian.

        I don’t know what else to tell people. This is impossible. There aren’t anywhere close to enough celibate alpha Christian men out there. Even if there are, they’re impossible to find. These Devout Christian Women will just not find anyone. Or they will have to settle, and settle deeply, on attraction. But before they do, they’ll have some sex with some attractive men.

        The only scripturally acceptable solutions are single and celibate, or marry unattractive men. Sorry, but there it is. I don’t know what else to tell the SAMs and Elspeths of the world. I really don’t. It’s just not going to happen for Devout Christian Women. It’s just not.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Deti, Nova has mentioned that most women don’t marry men that they have zero attraction to. I guess these young women’s best hope is to find a greater beta who they have some (non-zero) attraction to.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Deti, Nova has mentioned that most women don’t marry men that they have zero attraction to. I guess these young women’s best hope is to find a greater beta who they have some (non-zero) attraction to.

        Yeah, I understand how it works. I literally wrote the manosphere’s manifesto on this particular issue. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, wrote the book (and I am not exaggerating).

        Remember what we’re talking about here though – there has to be SEXUAL attraction. SEXUAL. She has to want to have sex with him. And when a woman says “attracted”, she means whatever she wants it to mean at that particular moment. So “attracted” does not necessarily mean “wants to have sex with” – for her. For him, it always means “wants to have sex with”.

        Most of these women will have a little bit of attraction, sure. They will want to have sex. Kind of. Sort of. “Yeah, sure, OK, I guess.” But they will not want to have sex with their husbands as much as they wanted sex with men they could not have.

        The amount of sexual attraction they will have will not be enough to bond them to their husbands. It will not suffice to get them through the hard times that every marriage experiences. (Ask me how I know.) It will not last. It needs to last at least 5 years to get them properly bonded, and that weak, lukewarm sexual attraction just will not make it that long. It has to be strong, sustained, durable, and tough. And their attractions to their Christian neomaxizoomdweebies will be weak, precarious, short lived, and fragile.

        They just won’t make it. They’ll have to learn to live with attraction that is lukewarm at best. They’ll have to learn to live with disappointing, unsatisfying sex lives. They’ll have to live with long periods of no sexual desire at all. They will have to learn how to make it with commitment alone, and with few to no good memories to bond them together through the tough times. A good 38% of them don’t make it. They divorce.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      The EAP is a fundamentally dishonest woman – Christian in name only. She demands and gets special treatment as a paragon of sweetness and virtue while nuke rejecting devout men and having sex with sexy men on the downlow. She is not virtuous or chaste. She is a b!tch on wheels and a contentious, difficult, argumentative, and demanding wife.

      The so -called “Daughters of Elspeth” are virtuous and chaste young women who really are observing Christian sexual morality and who are really frustrated with the MMP because they have almost no suitable choices.

      We’ll find a different name, but EAP will not be it.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        Tomi Lauren is the zenith paragon of EAP. I’m sure Elspeth’s daughters are not like that. Maybe “Maidens in Waiting” is a better term for young virtuous women.

        Liked by 7 people

  16. Elspeth says:

    @ Cameron:

    “Elspeth, to me the unemployed isn’t disqualifying (assuming he’s looking) but the leftist is disqualifying – won’t share the same values (Christian and other). FWIW.”

    I agree that “unemployed” is a fluid status that could many any number of things. That isn’t necessarily a deal breaker. But “Quits job to volunteer full-time for a candidate we loathe and whose values we loathe”?

    Dealbreaker.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Like I said – I don’t know what to tell you. The task before the Daughters is impossible. The men they’re looking for are so incredibly rare it will be a miracle if any are found.

      Like

      • Elspeth says:

        No worries. I have not lost faith, Deti.I truly haven’t. I only asked questions because you seemed to be inferring that marrying some man, any many, no matter who or what, for the sake of marrying, was the answer.

        Marriage is not an end in itself. It is a means of bonding, reflecting Christ and His, produce and raise godly children. You can’t really do that with someone who doesn’t share your basic core values. The two things I mentioned were pretty basic. They weren’t unreasonable expectations; shared faith and values, understands the importance of work. I couldn’t figure out why those two minimal standards were so bothersome.

        I fully appreciate that churchian men are well known for the “Nobody’s good enough for my princess!” mentality. I know it, I’ve seen it. That said, I would think by now I’ve painted enough of a picture of my husband, my father, and our general masculine paradigm that churchian female pedestalization is not a part of our ethos. However, that doesn’t mean throwing away any and all standards.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        E

        The problem is not SAM saying or believing “No one is good enough for my daughter!”

        The problem is that the Daughters know the Christian men aren’t hot, and the hot men aren’t Christian at all. Dad likes the Christian men. The Daughters like the hot men. The Daughters also know they can’t have the hot men.

        The problem is that the Daughters want and expect sexually attractive men. But they also want stable, reliable men, like Dad is.

        They can’t have both. Hot, or stable/nice. Pick one.

        The Christian men around you are roundly rejected as not attractive enough.

        The attractive men around you are roundly rejected as nonChristians.

        That’s the dilemma.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Marriage is not an end in itself. It is a means of bonding, reflecting Christ and His, produce and raise godly children. You can’t really do that with someone who doesn’t share your basic core values.”

        Yes. I know how it works, or is supposed to work. I’ve been at this almost as long as you have. I just wasn’t anywhere close to as lucky. And the odds are the Daughters won’t be either. You MUST know that the odds of repeating your success are 1 in 10 AT BEST.

        The problem is that now, men and women expect sexual attraction and attractiveness. The intersection between hot men and Christian men is null set. If it were a Venn diagram, there’d be just two nonintersecting circles about 10 feet away from each other. That right there is why all this is a total impossibility. If it were otherwise, the oldest Daughters would have men by now.

        “The two things I mentioned were pretty basic. They weren’t unreasonable expectations; shared faith and values, understands the importance of work. I couldn’t figure out why those two minimal standards were so bothersome.”

        They’re neither bothersome nor complicated. The problem is that those two things will not be found in attractive men who are willing to wait until marriage.

        What the Daughters want is an impossibility. If they want to marry according to your and SAM’s wishes, they will have to settle deeply on sexual attractiveness.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Marriage is not an end in itself.
        …….

        Marraige is a lot of things. Most of them ranging from unpleasant to hellish

        Liked by 3 people

  17. Scott says:

    “…find a greater beta who they have some (non-zero) attraction to.”

    I actually don’t believe this exists.

    With women its an (extreme) dichotomous variable. [Hell] yes! or [Hell] no!

    This is why you next anyone that looks luke warm. Its not too stupid.

    Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      You could be right Scott. Nova seems to think there’s non-zero attraction that isn’t alpha-high. I think he has also mentioned a woman’s attraction (real attraction not faked attraction) can increase given an opportunity to snag a guy (whether it stays high is of consequence of course).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Scott could be right in the idea that women are only ever viscerally attracted to natural alphas, and that everything else is faked, in the sense that there is not real sexual attraction in any degree. There may be present the kind of emotional attraction that is present in close female friendships, but it isn’t sexualized, but women marry anyway because it’s the best option. That’s possible.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Nova: I don’t believe that e.g. female sexual attraction goes to zero at the 79.9999-th percentile (the exact fraction for “alpha” aside). I think it drops fairly rapidly though – and each woman’s “alpha” and what fraction meet it varies a little (granting that the characteristics of alphas are fairly universal).

        Alpha: “she’s always in the mood” although she may dump him for repeated cheating.

        Greater Beta: ”she’s sometimes in the mood (time of month?) with more qualifications related to her feelings than with the alpha. She’ll do him so another woman won’t do him and the more she sees this as likely the closer he moves towards her alpha.”

        Lesser Beta: she’s never in the mood but will do it if she must (or if she wants to get pregnant and accepts she’s “stuck” or he’s the best she can do.

        Gamma: “Stay away buddy or I’ll scream rape!”

        Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Then 80% of men should not marry at all, ever.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I agree that a lot of men shouldn’t marry – I don’t know what fraction – but probably only a minority should.

        It worked for me and I don’t believe I am in the top 20% – I know I wasn’t as a teenager when she and I met. Maybe marrying young helps.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      If what Scott says is correct, it is utterly hopeless for most men and most women. Marriage just will not happen. Or at least it should not.

      Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Given that most marriages are low sex/ no sex and not a relief valve for a man’s desires and that Christian men are supposed to marry to avoid sexual sins, there is 0 reason why most men should marry

        Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I wouldn’t say it’s completely hopeless. All you have to do is find the unicorn. Easy. We married before my wife was done with college so the scenario of settling with the wall rapidly approaching was not a factor and marriage still ended up sex deprived/sexless for 15+ years. So should not marry is very true and even then under very specific circumstances. The guy needs to vet her and test her like his life depends on it, because he’ll want life to end if he’s wrong, and marriage licenses are certainly out. It makes no sense to cede that much power to a girl so a small religious commitment ceremony is all she’ll get.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah it’s worth a try to do it without a “marriage license”, but you should be familiar with the laws in your state when you do that. Many states would consider you to be married, for purposes of family law, even if you didn’t get a marriage license/officially civilly married, if you did get married in a religious ceremony, and publicly held yourselves out as married (which you would be doing). And in other states even if you skip both of those, you still get pretty much all of family law applied to you as if you were married if you live together, combine assets and the like.

        If you really want to go the route of trying to insulate yourself from having family law apply to you in the context of a marriage (from a religious point of view) you have to be very familiar with the laws of the state where you are, and also with the places where she is most likely to go if/when she ditches you (where she’s from, where her parents are, where her siblings are, where other relevant close-to-her people are) and what their law says about these kinds of things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        The money you’d save on the extravagant princess for a day affair should be spent on consultation with a good family law attorney. There is no perfect bullet in today’s world so the best a young man can hope for is to eliminate as many of the perverse incentives in girls’ favor as he can. Not having a state sanctioned marriage (laws of your state taken into consideration of course) balances the power in the relationship better than when a license is involved. Even if it is perception only, having options, (exhibit A SFC Ton) helps the man avoid the unattractiveness of powerlessness.

        Liked by 1 person

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Scott,your right,that ”attraction”for a hard-working, average man(Beta!),has been dead ever since women were ever encouraged to be their true selves after roseanne barr&oprah started proudly being loud,rich&in your face as in ”were feminists&were in your face!” that rush limbaugh use to play all the time in the 90’s!Then people wonder where all these timid,could’nt care less about marriage or working, men came from(Socons just want to blame porn&v-games,but clearly its not that simple!)?Most wimminz have make-work jobs,not real jobs&the majority of men over the last 2 decades have seen this&demand the same ”right’s”!See how easy it realy is?

      Liked by 2 people

  18. cameron232 says:

    OT: Derek Chauvin married an Asian divorcee, and her kid from a previous marriage is in the picture.
    https://www.twincities.com/2018/06/02/refugee-who-was-shamed-for-her-looks-as-a-child-is-vying-to-be-the-first-hmong-mrs-minnesota/

    “It was at the hospital that she met her current husband, Derek Chauvin. The Minneapolis police officer spotted his future wife when he brought someone in for a health check before an arrest. After taking the suspect to jail, Derek Chauvin returned and asked her out.”

    “Under all that uniform, he’s just a softie,” Kellie Chauvin said. “He’s such a gentleman. He still opens the door for me, still puts my coat on for me. After my divorce, I had a list of must-haves if I were ever to be in a relationship, and he fit all of them.”

    “They’ve been married for eight years.”

    She filed for divorce three days after George Floyd died.

    “Stand by your man…….”

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      If she stayed married to him, she’d soon be a widow.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Joe2 says:

      She filed for divorce three days after George Floyd died.

      “Stand by your man…….”

      I read that this was nothing more than a slick legal move, at that time, for the couple to preserve assets in light of the upcoming civil lawsuits. It may be similar to a divorce that occurs before (husband or wife) enters a nursing home or artificially impoverishing a spouse so that the children can get the money rather than the nursing home.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        That’s possible. It’s equally as likely that the former Kellie Chauvin knew full well her now ex-husband would be offered up to placate the masses, guilty or innocent, and she is protecting herself and her children from what would have been real physical threats.

        Even if Derek Chauvin had been cleared of all charges, his career in law enforcement is over, forever. He would be totally canceled professionally, unable to earn a living because no one will hire him. No employer would want Chauvin associated in any way with them. He and his family would literally have to go into the witness protection program, but even this would be impossible because his photo has been plastered all over the news for a year, everyone knows who he is, and what he looks like. Chauvin would need plastic surgery, a new identity, and probably would have to leave the US to avoid being murdered.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Fundamentally disloyal.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        He got the sloppy seconds of a Hmong Hman. If you were bluepilled you’d think she’d be grateful for him giving her a “second chance.”

        “He fit all my must haves” and “he’s a gentleman” turned into “bye!” real quick.

        Rollo’s “women love opportunistically” comes to mind.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Hmong woman from Hmarathon county, Wisconsin Hmoves to Hminneapolis. Second husband charged with Hmurder and Hmanslaughter.

        Sorry, I just like to do that, smart@ss that I am.

        Like

  19. Random Angeleno says:

    a point or two:
    If I date a woman long enough to be invited into her home, first places I’m looking at is her medicine cabinet and her purse.

    Another reason for assortative mating in the upper class at least from the man’s view is so alimony is mostly removed as a threat. If she has an education, income can be imputed to her and he won’t have to fork over for life in the case of a long term marriage. So it’s child support only and that only lasts until the kid(s) grow up. Tales of lower class women with high school educations going to town on the alimony used to be pretty common once upon a time.

    Liked by 4 people

    • info says:

      Feminism truly is a form of sexual monopoly for career women at the top.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah, all kinds of power though. They’re the only group that gave up nothing in the sexual revolution and the feminist era — it was all gain for them. And boy did they gain.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        You’d think they’d be happier.

        Liked by 4 people

      • info says:

        May theGod either bring them to repentance or doom to their entire monopoly even their attempts to monopolize high status men for themselves. May they be left with nothing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        Women are never happy

        Especially when they get what they want/ ask for

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        You’d think they’d be happier.

        As Linda Hirshman, a card carrying career woman feminist lawyer, wrote several years ago in the wake of the now infamous “women are unhappier than men” studies, feminism was not intended to make women happy, but to make them powerful. It succeeded in that, as she noted.

        The main engine of second wave feminism was the envy of the women of this class for the power and money-making of the men of this class, and so achieving that for themselves was the goal and it remains the goal (too few women are CEOs, for example, in their minds still). This class peddled feminism as liberation for all women, but of course the impacts were “lumpier” the further down the class scale one goes — independence is always alluring in an extremist hyper-individualist society like ours, of course, so it was kind of like lighting a match while standing atop a kerosene soaked woodpile, but the benefits for the lowers were not nearly as clear, and haven’t panned out in the same way apart from sexual freedom. This is one main reason why sexual freedom has become the main banner for much of feminism — from a populist female point of view, this is a “benefit” for all but the most morally reserved women, so it’s the main way that the movement can maintain its relevance for the large group of women who aren’t very concerned about how many rich white women get to become CEOs or how many black lesbian tenured classics professors there are at the University of Chicago.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I wonder how most women would answer – if they were being honest and not giving the “right” (from feminist perspective) answer:

        “given the choice, would you prefer to be happy or powerful?”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        “given the choice, would you prefer to be happy or powerful?”

        What is the point of being powerful if it makes you miserable and ultimately destroys your family and life?
        I’m reminded of an anecdote by Vonnegut, in a tribute to Joseph Heller.
        He and I were at a party given by a billionaire
        on Shelter Island.
        I said, “Joe, how does it make you feel
        to know that our host only yesterday
        may have made more money
        than your novel ‘Catch-22’
        has earned in its entire history?”
        And Joe said, “I’ve got something he can never have.”
        And I said, “What on earth could that be, Joe?”
        And Joe said, “The knowledge that I’ve got enough.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “What is the point of being powerful if it makes you miserable and ultimately destroys your family and life?”

        Liz, I’m pretty sure you’re speaking only for yourself here. Nearly all women, including Christian women, really really like the power feminism gives them, and women aren’t giving that power up any time soon.

        It’d be a lot easier to believe a statement like this if women didn’t love the power feminism gives them I might start believing it if women start relinquishing that power en masse.

        –greater and tighter abortion regulations

        –affirmative action, Title IX, sex harassment, FMLA laws abolished

        –broad descriptions of bona fide occupational qualifications in employment, based explicitly on sex

        –“marital rape” abolished

        –give up the right to vote; eligible voter rolls consist only of men who own real property

        –removal of restrictions on discrimination in education and employment based on sex and marital status

        –complete overhaul and rollback of divorce laws. No fault divorce tightly regulated, granted only on the following conditions: the party wishing to leave the marriage must vacate the marital home, automatically relinquishes ownership of the marital home, and relinquishes primary residential custody of the children to the non-leaving party. The leaving party pays child support.

        –The at fault party in the divorce takes a property division hit. The nonfault party gets the marital residence and custody of the children.

        –Child custody defaults to the father, unless one of the above applies.

        –Alimony limited to 5 years in all cases.

        –Child support is premised on what it actually costs to support a child of that age, not a percentage of the payee’s income.

        –No more imputed income presumptions in alimony and child support.

        When women start agreeing to those things, then, and only then, will I believe women would rather be happy than powerful. Until then, it’s just lip service.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I disagree.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Deti, that’s fair but I don’t think they have any idea what makes them happy or what they want. Just noticed this thread is for dudes (sorry about that) so I’ll bow out.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Deti’s legal list is a good start to mitigate the downside risk for men in marriage. The hurdle to accomplishing any of what he wrote done is that 60% of the population continues to benefit (50% women and the top 20% or so of men) from the status quo. It is more likely that society breaks down to the point these current laws are rendered useless than they get changed.

        Liked by 4 people

  20. cameron232 says:

    Also OT: It’s a good idea for young women to go to work and leave their babies to be watched by young men not related to the baby:

    “The victim was being watched by Lake, along with two other children, on April 13 while their mothers were at work. In a video call with the mom of the other children earlier in the evening, DeHart was ‘in good health and alert, but was crying and fussy’. By 9.30pm – just over four hours later – Lake called the second mom and told her DeHart had ‘rag dolled’ and vomited up something red. An affidavit says the boy’s mother returned to the Las Lomas home shortly before midnight where she found her son unresponsive. The two other children in Lake’s care were also found with injuries, authorities say. DeHart died on April 16.”

    9:30pm to Midnight!!!

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9495417/Babysitter-24-killed-boy-one-wrestling-moves-angry-torn-pillow.html

    Like

  21. Elspeth says:

    @ Liz:

    thread is for dudes

    I was avoiding this thread as well, until the Daughters of Elspeth thing started, so I weighed in. I should bow out, too.

    Apologies, Jack.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Pingback: Descriptors of Beauty and Attractiveness | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: How is Godliness Attractive? | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: A Man’s Ability to Read IOIs Depends on Having a Firm Grasp on His Personal Archetypal Mythos | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: The Feminine Christian Marriage Quadrilemma | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s