How is Godliness Attractive?

Does spiritual maturity count for anything in the SMP, MMP, or marriage?

Readership: Christians
Theme: The theme for September is The Maturity of Faith.
Length: 1,500 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes

Introduction

For all of my life, and probably for many years before that, there has been an unstated presumption that godliness is attractive.

There have been many sermons preached and books written over the decades which have encouraged young people to “draw near to God” as a way to become more attractive to the opposite sex and to find a husband or wife.

Whenever young people have lamented about their problems in finding or attracting an appropriate partner, the usual response from religious tradcons is that they “need to love God more”, or that they are “not close enough to God”. Likewise, the standard advice given to married men seeking to improve their marriages is for them to “grow in godliness”.

This explanation seems to imply that “loving God” or “getting closer to God” (whatever that might mean), will magically bring that special soul mate into one’s life, and the resulting bliss will allow one to live happily ever after – or so it is naïvely believed. Likewise, this advice to married men presupposes that him being “more godly” will somehow transform his wife into a faithful submissive nymph and all marital conflict will then evaporate overnight.

Yes, “godliness” is toted as the answer to all ills, yet this “godliness” was never defined well enough that a man might take some actionable steps to become more attractive. So in short, all this talk simply amounts to a trite dismissal of the issue, if not downright man bashing. Meanwhile, it is easily observed that church going men are on the less favorable end of the SMV scale.

The Arguments

First of all, what is godliness? When people use the word “godly” in reference to someone, I presume it is, in general, a shorthand way to describe a person with some combination of the following traits.

  • Having a thankful attitude.
  • Faith that is shown by trust and confidence.
  • Having a sufficient amount of self-discipline.
  • Able to draw proper boundaries in their relationships with others.
  • A degree of wisdom characterized by the discernment of good and evil.
  • Emotional and spiritual maturity; consideration for others desires and needs.
  • Having good, wholesome habits; cleanliness, regular exercise, proper diet, etc.
  • A healthy self-respect; acting appropriately and in congruence with the social context.
  • Manifesting fruits of the spirit; peace, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control, and so forth.
  • For men, focusing on their work, their mission. For women, cultivating a spirit of kindness, humility, and grace.
  • I will presume that men who are more masculine and women who are more feminine are more godly.
  • Knowing one’s self; values, personality, personal desires, personal weaknesses, what is needed for one’s spiritual growth…
  • A healthy ego characterized by a combination of an appropriate self-esteem and humility; not too arrogant, but not supercilious nor obsequious either.

Readers may add others. I’ll offer a more complete list of kinds and sorts in an upcoming post. &

The fact that these traits are attractive has certainly been manifested in many observable, but admittedly anecdotal examples, which create the appearance that “godliness is attractive” is indeed true (at least in those cases). But the examples given always include people who are already quite attractive, so the connection to these traits of godliness is not so clear.

On the other hand, there is weighty evidence that apparently shows the opposite to be true. For example, Heartiste has made it abundantly clear that women, and I will add that even “Christian” women, are passionately attracted to rogue figures, while men, yes, even “Christian” men, are attracted to porn and sluttiness – not godliness.

“Oh my god!” she says, while she kneels before the lord and master of her heart.

Christian blogger Dalrock always excoriated any admonition for men to grow in godliness as a form of game. He was convinced that the attractiveness of a man in women’s eyes has no correlation with his spiritual maturity. He believed there was more to it than Mere Christianity.

Experiencing attraction is quite simple for men; a woman is attractive if she has good health, youth, indicators of fertility, thin, long hair, WHR = 0.6, and a certain feminine allure… If she is “doable”, to put it bluntly. It’s not nearly as simple for women; a man is attractive if he is 6 feet tall, has charisma, and a nice harmony of PSALMS – which would easily put him in the top 5% of all men.

But then there is the question of whether “attractive” is equivalent to godliness, or if it truly means whatever we think it means. There is the notion that one’s “love aura” is somehow related to godliness, spiritual maturity, and so on. But is this kind of emotional and spiritual maturity a fundamental element of the attractiveness that is associated with sexual appeal, or how attractive one is to the opposite sex? More pointedly, is spiritual maturity responsible in any way for the same kind of attractiveness that can actually draw IOIs and wedding proposals?

Similar to the confusion about what “godliness” means, never does anyone go into detail about what attraction actually means, nor how godliness is attractive, nor how to be a “hawt sexxxy Christian man”. Such a train of descriptors seem to be an absurd oxymoron, and yet we are expected to overlook this connotation and understand that the underlying assumption is true.

But is there any truth to this claim?  If so, then why does it remain hidden from our conscious understanding?

Where does godliness fit into the attraction equation?

How does Attractiveness relate to Godliness?

Before we dismiss the whole notion that godliness is attractive, I’d like to examine this topic in further depth, and blend it into this month’s theme about the Maturity of Faith, which includes Growth and personal transformation. I hope that readers will find this topic as fascinating as I have.

I’ve touched on this subject before – many times – for example…

The post, How to Develop an Attitude of Detachment (2020 July 10), gave us an understanding of how detachment is very healthy, psychologically, socially, and spiritually.  When we understand how maintaining Frame is the same as setting socio-emotional boundaries, then we can also understand why detachment is attractive to women — because it is an indicator of inner strength, authentic independence, and maturity in a man.

In another post, A Revised Understanding of Game (2020 September 14), I pointed out that the essence of Game lies in a man’s charisma, his discernment, and his skill in drawing boundaries. I took this further in Mood can be Hypnotizing (2020 October 16), in which I described how charisma is an important part of attraction.

Birds of One Feather Flock Together (2020 October 26) described two contextual states in which one experiences interpersonal attraction. I labeled these two types as a carnal attraction or a spiritual attraction.

The Motivation of Desire (2020 December 1) made the claim that a woman who submits to the spiritual authority of Headship is more attractive.

“A woman usually won’t submit and respect a husband unless she feels a strong need for security, love, attention, and guidance.  She might do this out of her own willpower, knowing that it’s commanded in the Bible, and/or because it’s the right thing to do.  But she won’t experience the renewing power of authority in her soul unless she has some kind of internal motivation to do so (e.g. a strong libido, desiring the joys of sanctification, feeling broken by personal failures, or having various spiritual needs like trust, forgiveness, or a venue for expressing humility).  This internal motivation is what drives the heart to be authentic and open.”

The Greatest Archetype (2021 May 21) conveyed the cat-and-mouse game that is played between a man and a woman as an archetype of Christ’s relationship to the church (and by extension, individual men). RedPillApostle summed this up quite succinctly as follows.

“Marital headship is God’s model for the family that mirrors that of Christ and the church, albeit without the perfect headship of Christ. As such, the wife, much like Peter in the example, needs to come to her end as the strong, independent woman that tries to usurp the husband’s headship before she will take her role as the helpmate. When she does get to the point of submission to her husband’s headship, she will start to see the real blessing of peace in her life. God did not make women to be able to bear the responsibility of headship, He made women to fall in line and support a man’s headship. The marital relationship, with the fullness of intimately knowing another person emotionally, intellectually and physically, is richer and experiences the blessings of peace when it aligns with God’s design.”

In summary, I do believe there is a connection between spiritual maturity and attraction, sex, and love, but the connection is abstract and therefore not clearly apparent. We’ll be investigating this phenomenon in a series of posts this month, and then our readers can decide for themselves.

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, Boundaries, Charisma, Desire, Passion, Discernment, Wisdom, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Introspection, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Personal Presentation, Relationships, Self-Concept, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to How is Godliness Attractive?

  1. cameron232 says:

    I’m open to being convinced but I’m skeptical that women are attracted to godliness. I do think we need to define attraction. Eros is the “visceral attraction” we talk about. I think that’s what we generally mean.

    For men I can only relate my personal experience. When I was a young-un (unattached) there were two types of girls that interested me. There were “hot” ones. These were the ones that I thought about having sex with (pure lust). Then there were ones I fell in love with. These were ones that I thought were attractive but had some other quality besides pure lust-enticement – sweet, nice, whatever. I did not generally envision having sex with them when I was simping on a “nice” girl. They were “special”, “set apart”, etc.

    So yes, female godliness (chaste, sweet, etc.) was “attractive” to me in the long term partner sense, the romantic googly eyes sense. And yeah, I’m sure I would have enjoyed “doing the deed” with the “nice” girls if the opportunity came. The “hot” girls were “attractive” too but I did not feel “love” for them in the sense of wanting a LTR with them, of one of them being “the one.” Did not get a romantic feeling from the “hot” ones. I think men can be “attracted” to short term relationship “hot” characteristics and long term relationship “sweet” characteristics provided the “sweet” girl is above your attraction floor.

    That’s how I worked as a young man-I don’t know if that’s how most men work. When I met my wife it was love and lust. Somehow she fulfilled both.

    For women, I think attraction has almost nothing to do with godliness. I suppose maybe for some subset of women who are raised in sheltered homes, and taught what men are really like and what to look for, it’s possible that average looking beta male Christian leader type is attractive. I suppose women are capable of being “attracted” to a man who’s likely to end up being a good long term partner. I suppose women could consciously will this sort of “attraction” in the sense of picking a good Christian man. I don’t know – I remain skeptical.

    I’m skeptical of this Christian leadership is godliness and is attractive to women stuff. Convince me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Cameron,

      I believe there are ways that Godliness is both attractive and unattractive.

      First, Christ is the perfect exemplification of Godliness and I would argue that he had more in common with the Alpha Chad when he walked the earth than the “beta males Christian leader type” than we’d like to admit. There is obviously a serious break from the Chads regarding sin, but think only of the Chad’s attributes, not how they are put into practice by a horny alpha male.

      Christ did what was right without worrying about consequences. He steadfastly followed his purpose and mission on earth ignoring distractions to the point of calling the cornerstone of the church Satan for suggesting that he not follow the mission. He as physically tough (manual labor and 40 day fast), mentally tough (tested after starving for 40 days), wise (mental and intellectual jousting with the Pharisees) and he bucked the status quo to the point it would be accurate to label him a radical. Even seemingly “beta” teachings were counter cultural for the time. Turning the other cheek is not the eye for an eye of the time and forgiving 70 times 7 times drew amazement. So I do think that some aspects of Godliness can be attractive, specifically those aspects that are overtly masculine, but we’d need to define Godliness differently than what is implied by current church leaders because faithfully attending Wednesday night prayer meeting is not necessarily a panty dropper.

      The other aspect of this discussion to consider is that Godliness on this earth is going to be rejected by the world We are directly told this many times in the bible, Matthew 10 for example, that we’ll be hated in this world because of Christ. Applying this concept to attraction, and correctly placing churchianity firmly into the “of this world” category, because it is, there are aspects of Godliness that will be unattractive to churchian woman. This means the vast majority of women in church are going to be ruled by the tingle-o-meter and follow secular trends. This is more in line with what we see, which is cultural Christian, scriptural knowledge devoid, women chasing men that check their biological and sin nature tingle boxes of attractiveness.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “So I do think that some aspects of Godliness can be attractive, specifically those aspects that are overtly masculine, but we’d need to define Godliness differently than what is implied by current church leaders…”

        None of these things make women want to have sex with men. Those things make women want long term relationships with those men, want those men as husbands and fathers and plowhorses (oh my!). But not want to have sex with those men.

        Exhibit 1: Elspeth (ESPECIALLY). Exhibit 2: Liz. Exhibit 3: Mychael. NONE of these women got with their men because they’re such nice, stand up guys who love the Lord. These women got with their men because they were physically good looking men who refused to put up with one ounce of sh!t from their women. Their men did not comport themselves primarily as Christian men. They comported themselves as masculine men with boundaries who made it clear things would be done their way or E, Liz, and Mychael would not be their wives.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Agree to your first paragraph.

      I believe that women often have godliness on their check list for a long term relationship, but it’s low priority and negotiable for them. It absolutely is not something that is sexy or stimulating to them.

      In my observations of the churches/young adult groups I spent time in during my 20s, the only people who got into relationships and married were people who wouldn’t be considered godly, or really that involved in the church or even Bible study.

      In fact, it was exactly the opposite. There were young men who were Bible book worms working on godliness and church involvement. Some were low smv, some were high on paper, but had personalities that made interpersonal communication miserable. Not one of them were in relationships. They are still single.

      As per the women, most went outside the church and faith for boyfriends and husbands.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        During the roughly decade between my marriages, I attended church very sporadically and had several LTRs with good church girls. But once we started dating, their attendance dropped off and we had a more or less secular boyfriend/girlfriend relationship.

        Meanwhile, the church guys who came to every gathering, lead Bible studies, never missed a sermon had no chance. None.

        Why is this confusing to people?

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Scott, out of curiosity: from your observations, where the men who attended church functions etc. moderately attractive, successful, have personality quirks?

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        As a follow up to my last question, part of my observations were that the single men who remained in church in their 20s all grew up in the church (most of the time the same one they were attending). Many were home schooled. All also very blue pilled in how they viewed the world and women.

        I think real men gain absolutely nothing from the modern church. It’s a waste of time. Even when they are serious about the Bible they realize that church is a waste of time because it’s mostly comprised of losers who purposely don’t care about the Bible, and battling that is a losing issue.

        (I personally made the decision that I’m not stepping foot inside another church again. All of the congregations in my community are so off base and far from god).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        They come in, Bible under their arm, sit in Bible studies and talk about Bible verses. The say things like “I prayed on it” or whatever. They seem so hopelessly unaware of what nerds they are.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Here’s another question: have you ever met a woman in your entire life who was interested in discussing theological issues?

        Note: it’s ironic that the males in the church singles group think it’s productive to start such conversations, expecting women to interact when scripture tells women to be silent on such matters.

        Also part of my observations: these nerds who grew up in church and study theology all the time are entirely ignorant on some Bible basics, especially when it comes to what scripture says about men, women, and marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        If by “interested” you mean (in the context of this conversation) “wants to be intellectually stimulated by reading Gods holy word and get turned on by it” no.

        They do show up for Bible studies though, and talk and talk and talk about their subjective interpretations and feelings. Bible studies are like group therapy so men really don’t need to be there. Unless you are picking up church chicks.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Like, it was quite common that I would be at my girfriends house Saturday night, get up and go to church together Sunday, go back to her place after church and spend the day together before I had to go back to my apartment and school the next day.

        The single guys at church were like waifish non-entities floating into view for a few seconds of conversation, and gave off absolutely zero threat vibe to me.

        Later I would be told “that guy that talked to us has been chasing me around for a year and he still doesn’t get it.”

        I had about three that went kind of like that. Each one lasted about 3-6 months or so. This didn’t seem weird to me at all at the time. I just thought “those guys will find one eventually. They seem nice enough.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I’ve observed this many many times.

        Pretty much the exceptions to this are the relationships where a desperate woman cons a man. I know several guys who got some dumbass reason married women significantly older than them (I’m talking decade difference).

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “During the roughly decade between my marriages, I attended church very sporadically and had several LTRs with good church girls. But once we started dating, their attendance dropped off and we had a more or less secular boyfriend/girlfriend relationship.”

        Yep. And I’m extremely confident you had sex with, or did some sexual things with, those church girls. Because a man being “Godly” is NOT attractive. No, a man being ATTRACTIVE is attractive. A tall, fit, in shape man with conventionally attractive physical features is attractive. Confidence, dominance, and IDGAF attitude are attractive.

        Proving Deti’s Second Law: There are no differences between secular girls and Christian girls. Christian girls are just girls with some Christian worldview/morality overlaid over the top.

        Christian girls will toss their Christian sexual morality right out the window in the presence of a sexually attractive man.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I’ll add to your statement: Christian women don’t really exist even in Christian culture. I’d challenge most female church attenders faith any day of the week.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Deti-

        When I write about being with them Saturday night and going to church the next day, I didn’t go home.

        And we weren’t reading poetry.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        “Yep. And I’m extremely confident you had sex with, or did some sexual things with, those church girls. Because a man being “Godly” is NOT attractive. No, a man being ATTRACTIVE is attractive. A tall, fit, in shape man with conventionally attractive physical features is attractive. Confidence, dominance, and IDGAF attitude are attractive.”

        I may have relayed this one once before, but it was a formative event for me.

        When I was like 14 (HS freshman), I took a girl to the winter formal. I had worked myself up into the courage to ask her out for quite some time, and she said yes. But I was very timid. Guys around me (including my older brothers) were giving me advice about being way more bold, way more assertive and I was not taking it. I had already watched too many movies where the nice guy gets the girl.

        At the formal, we held hands, kissed once or twice and at the end of the night, I said good bye. I thought I had NAILED it! I was going be in there!

        The very next Monday, I was walking by her locker and a guy that was no where on my radar screen had her pinned against the locker sucking face, hands all over each other. The look on her face was pure ecstasy. I thought they were going to F_$% right there up against that locker.

        I never made that mistake again. I have never missed an IOI and what it actually means since then. Its not rocket science. If you don’t go for it when the signal comes, you lose and someone else will take your chance instead.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “If you don’t go for it when the signal comes, you lose and someone else will take your chance instead.”

        This makes it quite clear that when (some?) women want to get it on, it doesn’t really matter who it’s with, as long as he passes her hypergamous filters. Men need to be aware of the fact that when a woman gives out IOI’s, maybe she’s not thinking this guy is anyone special, she just wants to F_@$ and she’s fishing around for a sexual partner in the vast ocean of men.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        Secular men going to churches to pick up chicks isn’t a thing. Marginally Christian men do well with marginally Christian women, but despite all of their sinful weaknesses, they have some desire to be a Christian and a decent person. I say this as one of the ones who found her husband outside the church.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Secular men going to churches to pick up chicks isn’t a thing.”

        Correct. Secular men find Christian women outside of church. Christian women just find secular men outside of church. All interactions between Christian women and secular men take place away from church. This is by design because said Christian women lusting after secular men do not want anyone at church knowing this is going on . Makes it easier for said Christian women to sin.

        This is particularly true because Christian women positively HATE the Christian men they go to church with. Women constantly talk about how hopelessly unattractive the men they go to church with are.

        “Marginally Christian men do well with marginally Christian women, but despite all of their sinful weaknesses, they have some desire to be a Christian and a decent person.”

        Sure. It’s just more important and more fun to have premarital sex than it is to pursue Christianity, especially when you’re young.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Secular men find Christian women outside of church. Christian women just find secular men outside of church. All interactions between Christian women and secular men take place away from church.”

        It’s kind of the opposite in Asia (like many other things). There are some women go to church to meet Western men. They’ll come frequently enough to give the impression that they’re committed. Then they’ll do a coy little cat-and-mouse game as a sort of “fitness test” to see who’s up on their game, who’s open to messing around, and who can keep a lid on it. They’ll pretend like they’re single and pious, but outside of church, they’re living like Rhianna (well, maybe not quite that bad).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I personally know guys who went to young adult groups to practice game. Some were successful.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      As a general note, men naturally have the ability to find a woman attractive for sex, even though they have 0 desire to be in a relationship with her or even speak to her after.

      Women now have this capability – whether it’s because of modern changes in social norms , or because most women for the past 2 generations are on some form of medication that alters the balance of their hormones (perhaps both play off eachother).

      I say this because I think while women have always had the ability to adapt to a new man due to death/war/conquering, the hyper sexuality that most women exhibit today is not normal or natural.

      For instance, the number of women who go to the gym to beef up and look like male bodybuilders is concerning and disgusting.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “As a general note, men naturally have the ability to find a woman attractive for sex, even though they have 0 desire to be in a relationship with her or even speak to her after.”

        Yes, e.g. a tattooed whore (including high end literal prostitutes) with a nice body is “attractive” in the sense of pump and dump desire but there’s something about her that’s disgusting. The disgust is in the idea of getting into a relationship with her. Well that’s “attraction” of a different type than beta simping attraction over a nice girl who would be a good wife and mother. The nice girl can be sexually attractive to. Male trade space for mate selection is “hot” vs. “nice, agreeable, chaste….etc.” Some men choose differently and circumstances like societal norms on relationship longevity influence this. If things might end anyway (50/50) why not go for maximum “hotness?”

        “Women now have this capability”

        Yes, women now talk about men in terms like “that’s one to f_ck, that’s one to marry.” But I don’t know if that’s something new or if they were always like that (by nature) and it’s just that now they have the opportunity (without the cost) and are so “empowered” that many of them don’t feel the need to hide their nature anymore.

        I could see where women parallel men in finding some partners attractive for STR and some for LTR.

        I still think in the end, with all this talking we do here, it boils down to this. The average man is much more sexually attracted to the average woman than she is to him. Women’s sexual attraction only starts to come close to that of men’s when they’re dealing with the top attractiveness males. Thus, Scott’s axiom. Your lowest risk is when she’s hot for you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “…the hyper sexuality that most women exhibit today is not normal or natural.”

        I disagree. You’ve never heard of “boy crazy” girls? Women’s hypersexuality and hyperattraction to very masculine men is very natural and normal. Women do this all the time. (Go read the story of Oholah and Oholibah in Ezekiel 23 and get back to me.) The problems happen when girls are allowed to make their sexual decisions based on their attraction to very masculine men.

        All you’re seeing now is unrestrained female sexuality, where women can have sex with anyone they want, anytime they want, under whatever circumstances they want.

        “…the number of women who go to the gym to beef up and look like male bodybuilders is concerning and disgusting.”

        This is only tangentially related to female sexuality. These aren’t expressions of female sexuality so much as they are expressions of physical and social power over men, or worse, wanting to BE men. Female bodybuilders are just as attracted to very masculine men as are other women — if not more so because of the steroids these women use to bulk up like that. The drugs they take to bulk up literally turns female bodybuilders into men — masculinizes their facial features, makes their breasts disappear, and enlarges their clitorises.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Agree in part, but we have to acknowledge that processed foods, birth control (which most women are on), head meds (a majority of women are on), and other Rx that screw with hormones also have an effect on their sexuality that makes them even more aggressive.

        The problem is that we don’t really have any observations on this matter from men who were alive pre 1950s who can give us hints as to how much modern medicine f’d everything up.

        Like

      • info says:

        “Women now have this capability – whether it’s because of modern changes in social norms, or because most women for the past 2 generations are on some form of medication that alters the balance of their hormones (perhaps both play off each other).”

        Birth control destroys femininity:
        https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/milo-birth-control-makes-people-less-attractive/
        [Jack: See my study of Abortion and Birth Control for more info.]

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Scott says:

    No one, in the history of humans has ever looked across a crowded room and fallen in love someone’s character.

    Just take the list you provided, and say “these things are good personal habits and traits to have. And your wife or prospective girlfriend will like them. She will want to go for it with you…if she already thinks you are hot.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • info says:

      “No one, in the history of humans has ever looked across a crowded room and fallen in love someone’s character.”

      He certainly didn’t swoop him and save her from slavers. If she saw him kill criminals first hand then her attraction may certainly have been aroused.

      Like

  3. Scott says:

    Also, and we’ve been over this territory a bazillion times–when a woman says “attractive” she NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER means:

    When I see you reading your Bible I get wet
    When you pray I get all warm and tingly down in the lower part of my belly and pelvic region
    When you change diapers and sing our kids to sleep my heart starts pounding with desire and I want to jump on you and f&$% your brains out
    When you walk little old ladies across the street I can’t wait to get you naked and give you your own personal porno movie

    …unless she already feels that way about you.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      Deti discussed this in a much better comment a few posts back when he described what married Christian men do in response to the wives completely shutting down and becoming stingy, misanthropic malcontents. They read Christian self-help books, listen to James Dobson and attend Promise Keeper rallies. And it gets worse.

      With over a decade of availability of red pill content on display for everyone to consume, any man who is still hoping to get his wife all excited about him by being more Godly is a willfully ignorant idiot.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        It’s this comment:

        Carousel Widow in Decline – Part 4

        Reprinted here for everyone’s convenience.

        I want to comment on something here that men often do when dealing with recalcitrant wives digging in their heels and doubling down on bad behavior. I have done this. Other men have done this. It seems to be intuitive to a lot of men, especially good decent Christian men who are trying to do the right thing by their families.

        The pattern seems to be this. Husband does well, follows all the rules, does what he’s “supposed to do”. He is good, kind, giving, and providing. Wife shows unloving behavior. Gets angry. Withholds sex. Shows disattraction and disrespect. The pattern continues.

        When they fight or disagree or try to talk out their differences, husband attempts to persuade wife of his goodness, kindness, and all the benefits he brings. He tells her she is acting contrary to scripture. He brings words, logic, and persuasion in an attempt to make sense of this. It makes no sense to him — he is doing everything he’s supposed to do. He is doing everything the church, his pastor, and Focus on the Family/Family Life Today/Steve Arterburn told him to do. He’s decent. He doesn’t cheat. He doesn’t drink or gamble the family finances away and he hasn’t infected his wife with any STDs. He works and provides for his family. He fears God. He is following Scripture.

        He has done everything his dad, his mom, his pastor, and James Dobson told him to do. “Wife, how you’re acting makes no sense!! Don’t you know that Dennis Rainey over at FL today says that what I am and what I’m doing is what is attractive to women!?!”

        Where we men make our mistakes is in talking with our wives and reasoning with them. They’re being emotional and irrational, so reason and logic will not sway them at all. The way you deal with a wife doing this to you is with expectations, boundaries, and consequences. You use FEAR. You need to make her understand that if she cannot meet expectations and respect boundaries, the consequences will be that you will take away what you bring. She will do what you want and give you what you need, or she will not be your wife anymore.

        Because, you see, that’s what women do to us men. They use fear. “Do what I want, or I will not have sex with you.” “It needs to be how I want, or NO SEX FOR YOU.” So you do that to women too. “Do what I want, or you will not be my wife anymore.” “You will give me what I want, or the privileges you did have will be taken away.” “Give me what I want, or I am divorcing you.” “I need sex. I need it from you. If I cannot get it from you, I’ll get it somewhere else.”

        No more logic or persuasion. No more “I am doing what I’m supposed to do, sweetie, now will you please do what YOU are supposed to do?”

        No more “Just tell me what you want me to do and I’ll do it!”

        No more “Your behavior makes no sense. I am doing XYZ just like James Dobson says I’m supposed to; now YOU need to do ABC like I want you to because James Dobson says women are sexually attracted to men who do XYZ!!”

        No. NO NO NO!!!

        The ONLY things that work with women are “Here are my expectations and boundaries; and here are the consequences for your failure to meet and respect them.” And then follow through.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Keepest thou pimp hand strong!

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        @Scott

        “They read Christian self-help books, listen to James Dobson and attend Promise Keeper rallies. And it gets worse.”

        When they say Man up. They mean the opposite. They can only ape Masculinity not embody it.

        They are as thoroughly negatively affected by Bridal Mysticism and Chivalry as many of the Trad-Cons.

        Like

    • Scott says:

      You married a woman who you had wear down? A woman you had to rationally convince to go out with you and consent to date you?

      This is your life. Sorry.

      Liked by 3 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Also, and we’ve been over this territory a bazillion times–when a woman says “attractive” she NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER means: When I see you reading your Bible I get wet, when you pray I get all warm and tingly down in the lower part of my belly and pelvic region, etc,”

      Correct. When I started attending a large singles group and attracted the attention of the good looking late twenty somethings in attendance, it was NOT for my godliness whatsoever, i.e. NOT for my regular church attendance, NOT for my interest in the singles group as a place to be with like-minded, spiritual young people, NOT for my consistent daily quiet times, NOT for my desire to learn more about God, NOT for any of those reasons. However, the attraction was FOR my decent good looks and build, but even more so FOR my job (as an Air Force Officer), FOR my upscale condo (really nice place), and believe it or not, FOR my Pontiac Sport edition Firebird with T-tops. I think the car was the clincher and thing that sent the tingles into overdrive, if the other three things hadn’t already got the job done making her wet.

      Not bragging whatsoever, just looking back on it now through a red pill lense. At the time, I thought it was my godliness that was the clincher. I laugh at that thought now! My blue pill mindset at the time really had me believing they wanted me because I was a ‘godly, eligible Christian bachelor.’

      Like

  4. rontomlinson2 says:

    We’re are coming from a society where Christians were apparently in the majority but in fact many or most were hypocrites.

    We seem to be heading towards a society where Christians will be a persecuted minority but this very persecution will reveal them to be genuinely Christian.
    .
    In the first case the Christians are damp squibs but in the second case they are rebels and therefore may prove attractive to women.

    Liked by 2 people

    • info says:

      @rontomlinson2

      The Heroes of Faith were historically Men who routed Armies(Hebrews 11) and who had the faces of Lions:

      “Some Gadites defected to David at his stronghold in the desert. They were mighty men of valor, trained for battle, experts with the shield and spear, whose faces were like the faces of lions and who were as swift as gazelles on the mountains.” ~ (1 Chronicles 12:8).

      “Mighty Men and King David who was a great Warrior who rescued Sheep from Lions who carried them away.”

      If you have seen the Roman statues of the Emperors like Aurelian, Trajan, and Julius Caesar, you get that impression.

      Like

    • info says:

      Our Lord himself fits the archetype of the Alpha Male.

      Jesus forced others into his frame.

      “He does not allow the encounter to focus on himself against the Pharisees. He knows they are testing him, trying to make him say something in violation of the law; or else back down in front of his followers. Instead Jesus throws it back on their own consciences, their inner reflections about the woman they are going to kill. He individualizes the crowd, making them drift off one by one, breaking up the mob mentality.”

      Jesus doesn’t follow conversational threads like an attention starved beta; he breaks them and makes his own. He answers ambiguously. He puts people in the defensive crouch, where tingles are born. Jesus follows the statement-statement-question format of effective discourse control.

      The priests send spies, hoping to catch Jesus in saying something so that they might hand him over to the Roman governor. So they asked: “Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

      Jesus knowing their evil intent, said to them, “Show me the coin used to pay taxes.” When they brought it, he said, “Whose image is on it?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” And they were astonished by his answer, and were silent.”

      https://heartiste.org/2014/04/17/jesus-had-game/

      Like

  5. thedeti says:

    Sorry. Can’t get on board with this. Not yet, anyway.

    The only thing I can agree with is that a woman’s “godliness” and spiritual maturity makes it easier for her to settle into a wife role as long as the sexual attraction component is taken care of. Elspeth is your textbook example of this. Elspeth settled into her role as SAM’s wife, but only after establishing hard, visceral, “can hardly stand it, so hot for him I’ll do whatever he tells me to do” sexual attraction. If that hard visceral “I’ll do anything you want me to do” sexual attraction had not been there, it would not have worked.

    First, this post goes off the rails because it doesn’t define attractiveness properly and it panders to women. To men, the word “attractive” means one, and only one, thing: It means f_ckable. It means “wants to have sex with”. To women, “attractive” and its forms never ever mean “want to have sex with”. They mean everything from “kinda like him” to “he would make a great husband”. (If you want to know if a woman is tingling, watch her face and mouth, watch how she holds her body, and listen for the words “hot” or “gorgeous”. But that’s a story for another day.)

    If we are going to talk to men about this subject, we must define and use terms properly. A better term for what you’re trying to say is suitable. Godliness makes women more suited to marriage. A man can see that an attractive (f_ckable) woman is suitable for marriage because she has Godly attributes. Or, at least, more “suitable” than an unGodly woman.

    Godliness does NOT make a woman more “attractive” (f_ckable). Godliness CAN make an attractive woman more suitable for marriage.

    Then, there is this brainf_ck of an idea that Godliness makes men more attractive. Holy sh!t what a mess. This entire idea of godliness being attractive is borne of Church ladies in the 1970s and 80s scrambling to keep young men in Church, on the plantation, and brainwashed. This entire BS operation is a massive fraud and coverup perpetrated on innocent young men who didn’t know any better, but believed the adults entrusted with teaching them the truth. If educational malpractice were a thing, this would be it.

    This was all about women desperately needing to hide the truth from their sons – they needed to keep women’s slutting, poor character, and overall horrid treatment of men from their sons. So they concocted this idea that “women don’t care about sex” and “girls just want to be wives and mommies” and “women’s sex drives are pure, noble, good, and all for the purpose of making families”. Women and their willing sycophants and Church flunkies created, out of whole cloth, this notion that girls and women who proclaim Christ are nothing like the sluts, wh0res, and low class women “outside” the church. That when a girl accepts Christ, her entire sexual nature is transformed such that the only men she can be “attracted to” are the boys and young men she attends church with. It is utterly false and not one letter of it is true. God only knows how many wrecked lives and failed marriages this particular bit of religious and educational fraud caused. We here at the Christian Red Pill are STILL cleaning up this mess.

    Godly “detachment” isn’t attractive to women. The only thing that makes it look more attractive to women is the ability of the detached man to say “no” and to walk away from situations and people who don’t serve his purposes. But none of that means anything unless she has an immediate physical attraction to him.

    I cannot stress this enough: Absolutely none of this – detachment, spiritual maturity, mission and vision on point and dialed in, discernment – means a damn thing UNLESS that man is also physically attractive, fit, in shape, confident, dominant, making bank, has an abundance mentality and willing to laugh in that woman’s face and tell her to get out of his sight if she steps out of line. So let’s not forget everything we’ve learned in the hopes that Godliness will somehow make us more attractive to women. Because it will not, not even a little bit. All the typical PSALM things have to be fully there and locked in before Godliness means anything in terms of men’s relationships to women.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I’ve got a whole list of “tingle tells” I can share, but I’ll do that at a more appropriate time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Deti, I agree with almost everything you said.

      “A better term for what you’re trying to say is suitable.”

      I guess this doesn’t capture my personal experience (which is maybe unique to me).

      To me the attractive, “sweetheart” of a woman produces feelings of attraction that are distinct from sexual attraction, even though I think the physical/sexual attraction has to be there. The visceral sexual attraction might be lower than the woman who gives you the “can barely contain your Woodrow in your trousers” feeling but there’s a “something else” that I think of as “attraction” with a girl you perceive as “sweet.” Is this not part of the attraction that the “romantic beta male” experiences?

      When you say “suitable” it sounds like a rational choice of who would make a good wife and mother but for me there’s more feeling in it than that. I equate “attraction” with “feeling.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        To me the attractive, “sweetheart” of a woman produces feelings of attraction that are distinct from sexual attraction, even though I think the physical/sexual attraction has to be there. The visceral sexual attraction might be lower than the woman who gives you the “can barely contain your Woodrow in your trousers” feeling but there’s a “something else” that I think of as “attraction” with a girl you perceive as “sweet.” Is this not part of the attraction that the “romantic beta male” experiences?

        I know exactly what you’re talking about. This is the feeling of “this woman is more than just a sex partner, more than a woman I’d like to have sex with. This woman makes me feel wanted, needed, accepted, and loved.”

        But those are not feelings of attraction. Those are feelings of love. Attraction is a bare minimum; and attraction must be there FIRST. But those feelings of want, need, acceptance, and love are different, separate and apart from the sexual attraction component, and are overlaid on top of sexual attraction. They are not “part of” attraction. They are separate from it, overlaid over the top, and are cultivated IF AND ONLY IF sexual attraction is there FIRST, and she demonstrates her sexual attraction to him FIRST.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Could be. I have felt this non, or extra-sexual attraction to women that I didn’t get, just was around. So to me what I’m describing is more than the feeling of being wanted, needed, accepted, and loved from a committed female partner in a relationship. I felt this with women who didn’t return my wanting, longing for her. To me, this is the essence of beta male SIMPing. I mean there was something else, innate about the woman beyond sexual attraction.

        Maybe it’s the feeling you get with the expectation you’ll get those things from the “sweet” woman you’re targeting for a relationship.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Pretty sure you are blue pilled

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        No, I’m not….

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        This is what I disagree with.

        “To women, “attractive” and its forms never ever mean, “I want to have sex with him”. They mean everything from “I kinda like him” to “He would make a great husband”. (If you want to know if a woman is tingling, watch her face and mouth, watch how she holds her body, and listen for the words “hot” or “gorgeous”. But that’s a story for another day.)”

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “To women, “attractive” and its forms never ever mean “I want to have sex with him”. They mean everything from “I kinda like him” to “He would make a great husband”. (If you want to know if a woman is tingling, watch her face and mouth, watch how she holds her body, and listen for the words “hot” or “gorgeous”. But that’s a story for another day.”

        What in your opinion is wrong with that statement?

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Your definition is wrong. Attractive is the same for men and women.

        Someone already pointed it out, but women do make trade offs if a person is wealthy or powerful. It’s transactional – if they were not wealthy or powerful women would not be interested in less physically attractive men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        There was a discussion here about what women mean by “attractive”. It was said that when women are viscerally attracted to a guy they refer to him as “hot” or “gorgeous.” When they say “attractive” they mean “meh.”

        It seems to me they have three reactions to men:
        Yes!
        No!
        Maybe (meh).

        “Maybe” with a period not an exclamation point.

        Maybe’s might be divisible into “preferred” Maybes and “If I have to…” Maybes.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Cam,

        If a woman is not “Hell yeah!” or “Hell no!” about a man, she’s usually “Meh, yeah, sure, OK” about him. If she’s in the middle about him, that’s usually where it stays. She can become willing to have sex with him, IF AND ONLY IF he goes all in with commitment and resource availability. She will willingly trade sex for resources.

        This has always been the basis for most marriages. Most marriages are not Elspeth/SAM, or Liz/Mike, or Mychael/Scott. Most marriages are “Sure, I’ll have sex with you, so long as you commit everything you have to me, FIRST.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Deti,

        How “transactional” the relationship is, is inversely related to how attractive the man is. It’s more transactional if the man is less attractive.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Your definition is wrong. Attractive is the same for men and women.”

        I disagree. “Attractive” means very, very, different things to men and women.

        “Someone already pointed it out, but women do make trade offs if a person is wealthy or powerful. It’s transactional – if they were not wealthy or powerful women would not be interested in less physically attractive men.”

        There’s a difference between “interested in” a man and “sexually attracted to” that man. Women can be “interested in” men who aren’t physically attractive… for relationships. Women marry men they’re “interested in” but aren’t “sexually attracted to” ALL THE TIME.

        Women have very, very different standards for men they’re “interested in” vis-a-vis men they’re “sexually attracted to”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Lexet and Deti,

        “Someone already pointed it out, but women do make trade offs if a person is wealthy or powerful. It’s transactional – if they were not wealthy or powerful women would not be interested in less physically attractive men.”

        I know in a way we’re haggling over the definition of “attractive.” IMO, given the context and mission of this website, we mean the phrase we usually use: “viscerally attractive.” Romantic love, the eros, so yes, who you’d want to have sex with, make a baby with and keep doing this with over a lifetime. The idea we’re struggling with is how to help goobery Christian boys to be attractive to women instead of the women being drawn to Chad. Can “godliness” get her attention away from Chad and to him?

        I was thinking about this yesterday. It’s not really clear to me that male wealth and even status make a woman enthusiastic about sex with a man. Women, at least when they’re not crazy hot for a guy, have more control over their sex drive than men. I can see where they have sex with a rich or powerful man for the perceived benefits, the thrill of the access to power, locking him down, keeping him, etc. I have no clue if Melania was smoking hot aroused for Donny T.

        Where I’m at today is I think what is attractive to women (viscerally attractive) is: handsome, physically imposing (height, muscles), and personality dominant/confident). I think that’s what “cranks women’s engines” to borrow Elspeth’s phrase. Godliness in a man doesn’t crank women’s engines.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Also, with all due respect to Lexet, whether high status and wealth are attractive is kind of a moot point for most men. Most men can’t have these any more than they can look like Chad.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “The idea we’re struggling with is how to help goobery Christian boys to be attractive to women instead of the women being drawn to Chad.”

        We can’t. The only thing we can do is help goobery Christian boys be less goobery and to looksmax. Women will still be drawn to Chad and then will settle for a less-goobery Christian boy who can bench 250 and squat 350, is fit, and is making bank.

        “Can “godliness” get her attention away from Chad and to him?”

        No.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “I know in a way we’re haggling over the definition of “attractive.” IMO, given the context and mission of this website, we mean the phrase we usually use: “viscerally attractive.” Romantic love, the eros, so yes, who you’d want to have sex with, make a baby with and keep doing this with over a lifetime.”

        Yes. And this is a discussion and haggling that need to be had. We need to get this all out on the table for men. Women hem and haw over this because at the end of the day, they do not want to admit that most of them are marrying men they do not want and aren’t sexually attracted to. They don’t want to admit that because that means admitting they aren’t good enough, nice enough, hot enough, or whatever enough, to qualify for the men they want.

        Let’s just get past all that and get this out there for men. Women will have to solve this problem on their own. — I’m here to help men avoid marrying women who don’t want to f_ck their brains out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I mean look at female-oriented porn hospital shows and movies. The dude the female viewer is hot for is a tall handsome doctor. Physical hawtness AND status/money. But there aren’t female-oriented porn hospital shows and movies featuring normal looking doctors. The doctors status and money doesn’t make female viewers hot.

        Like

    • Lastmod says:

      So what happens then if the man has an accident…… paralyzed….. can’t get the job done anymore…. Can she leave then because she can’t “f*ck his brains out”? My mother looked like an Auschwitz survivor the last six months of her life… Was my dad then allowed to leave because she could not “perform”? It worked for Newt Gingrich…… bringing divorce papers to his wife’s deathbed…

      Sex is one part of marriage….. I will admit probably an important part…… With that said, after a hard terrible day at work, a man comes home. His wife is just drop dead tired from sick kids… and she doesn’t feel too good either…… She just wants a hot bath, and hubby just wants the kids put down to bed and wants a beer. Sex may have to wait for a day or two.

      So is the marriage failing now? So all arranged marriages are doomed? Wife sees / meets husband… She isn’t attracted to him physically….. So this marriage is doomed? No…. probably not.

      You cannot just account for personality, cultural norms, and other factors that come in during a marriage or why people get married.

      So….. a woman has the tingles HARD for a man. Marries him. Wife is a terrible mother… but she has the tingles HARD for him….. so the marriage will now “work”?????

      Too many variables to just make it ONLY this. If that were the case, only hot people would have married (woman selecting the man she has the HOTS for) and 90% of us would never be here because that is the only way marriage will work.

      Come on now… 🙂

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        The sexual attraction has to be there from the very beginning, from literally first sight. No, when she’s dog tired and is he, they won’t have sex that night, not after 10 years together.

        The point is that during the first couple of years together, they were f_cking like rabbits because they couldn’t get enough of each other. It’s THAT kind of attraction that gets you through the “She’s sick, I’m tired, he lost his job, she found a lump in her breast, he’s depressed, her mom died…” tough times.

        The sexual attraction from her to him is an ingredient that’s been long neglected. It’s time we acknowledged how important it is — because the lack of it is why so many marriages are failing nowadays.

        And, yes, it is UTTERLY hopeless for most men, because most men just don’t generate that kind of attraction in women. They just don’t. I don’t. I am not that kind of sexually attractive to most women; and I picked a woman or let myself get picked by a woman who just didn’t feel that way about me. It happened to me. It’s happened to millions of men.

        I’m lucky. Most men in my position get divorce raped. If you take me, and transport me back 30 years ago to age 23, I’m one of those guys for whom it is utterly hopeless. I was 23. I was losing my hair prematurely. I was being openly laughed at and mocked. I was nuke rejected more than once. Women made it very clear — I just wasn’t what they wanted. The ONLY reason I was wanted was because I would soon have a law degree and that means I would have a good job making good money and a few women wanted to hitch onto that wagon, IF AND ONLY IF I made them my girlfriend and pledged myself to her and bought her expensive things and dated only her and spent all my time and money on her. But to me at the time, that looked like “attraction”. It was not. It was “How can I use Deti? How can I exploit him? How can I take advantage of this situation and milk Deti for all the cash and money I can get out of him? How can I get Deti to marry me and thereby conscript him into my lifelong servitude?”

        THAT is what we’re talking about here.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I think it’s recognized that there’s more to marriage than sex, but that, and children, are the two most fundamental ingredients. It’s why we choose to give up everything for women instead of hanging out with our best bud for the rest of our lives.

        I speak to a number of men in real life who are in clinically sexless marriages. Who have to bug her until she relents and the woman describes it as “marital rape.”

        And yes, I think the lack of women’s attraction for their husbands makes them unhappy which manifests in ways other than just lack of sex.

        Our parents and grandparents time was just different.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        You make some excellent points, Jason. One of the reasons marriage has crumbled as an institution over the past 60 years is because when people commit to “for better or worse”, they have a stunning lack of imagination of how possibly bad “worse” can get.

        People like Newt Gingrich (and I know women do it, too) are actually not so very uncommon. The formerly famous black model B. Smith’s husband didn’t leave her when she began suffering from an early onset of Alzheimer’s, but well…

        And of course, Pat Robertson famously advised a man with a terminally ill wife that divorcing her and moving on with someone new wouldn’t be a sin.

        The reality is that very few people marry thinking about the realities that our grandparents took for granted as a part of life. But now, when everything is about personal happiness and “muh ‘nads!” this is what you get.

        I actually believe that a strong physical chemistry and sexual relationship has always made the difficult times in marriage more bearable. Think Victoria and Albert, or Napoleon and Josephine. And it’s probably always been pretty rare for the average married couple to have that kind of visceral physical connection.

        The difference is that before, people actually believed in duty and honor, and because the culture wasn’t as morally bankrupt and psychologically damaged, women did their sexual duty even when they didn’t necessarily feel like it, and men probably were satisfied with that, not demanding that the wife be super hot for him at every encounter.

        That’s just my theory on the subject.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “muh nads”

        Elspeth that’s so out of character for you! I laughed really hard at that!

        I agree with your paragraph about sexual chemistry. I think a problem is it’s more likely the husband will feel it than the wife.

        People had hard lives and few options. It’s different now. I do agree with “’til death do us part” of course.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I’m still laughing! I think it’s ’cause this nice lady wrote that.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        Sorry Cameron, 🤭.

        I actually have a friend who used that phrase when describing how dysfunctional most people’s approach to marriage is, and I never forgot it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        No no it’s ok. It was hysterical. You’re such a nice lady.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “…when people commit to “for better or worse”, they have a stunning lack of imagination of how possibly bad “worse” can get.”

        Don’t worry, E. most men will never get the chance to divorce a wife. An increasing number of men won’t marry in the first place. And of those who marry, most of their wives will divorce them first.

        This isn’t men’s fault. This is on women. I don’t really care about Newt, or Pat, or B. Smith’s husband. Drops in the ocean of divorce wreckage women created. But I suppose that’s men’s fault too….

        It’s not about “muh nads”. It’s about keeping your promises. It’s about doing what you promised you’d do. It’s about keeping your word. It’s about doing your job as a wife. Women: When you marry a man, you represent to him you’ll be his sexual outlet, and when you fail to do that, you break promises.

        That is not men’s fault.

        Men are not wrong for expecting their wives to do their jobs. Men are not wrong for expecting sex from their wives. Men are not wrong for expecting wives to do what they promised they’d do.

        It is not men’s fault for expecting that. It is not men’s fault that women can’t or won’t do their jobs. It is not men’s fault for expecting sex from marriage, and men are not bad or wrong for calling women out on this. It is not men’s fault that 70% or more of divorces are filed by women. So, no, it’s not “muh nads”. It’s women’s “personal happiness”.

        This is not men’s fault.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I’m sorry deti, but I have no idea what I said that indicated that women should ever be excused from doing their marital duty.

        I have a decade+ long record of admonishing women to submit, to reverence, to have sex with their husbands, and lots of it. Most of those writings you have read on various of my blogs.

        So it makes no sense to me why you felt the need to do say all this to me. And women have sexual needs too.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “So it makes no sense to me why you felt the need to do say all this to me.”

        I said it because you’re here defending women and prattling about men allegedly saying “muh nads” and other nonsense. And intimating that all this is somehow men’s fault. Or that a few men divorcing sick wives is like, the norm, when it is not at all.

        “And women have sexual needs too.”

        And their husbands, and ex husbands, are forever standing at the ready to service said sexual needs. Except for when said women reject and denigrate and divorce and ruin the men they initially accepted. See, men are there to take care of those needs. The reason they’re not getting serviced is because those women kick those men out and reject them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “And women have sexual needs too!”

        Which men are more than happy to help with. Hubba hubba.

        Just trying to lighten mood.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        You wanna hear something really funny (haha or strange funny, take your pick), Cameron?

        The friend who used that term in our conversation wasn’t even referencing a man. She was referencing a younger woman who had cheated on her husband (an older man) with a younger man whom she eventually left her husband for. She had a history of complaining about his lack of… “keeping up”. My friend said in response to that, “She destroyed her child’s home and family because all she can think about is ‘muh ‘nads!”

        Being clueless, it made sense to me since I knew that biologically/scientifically speaking, both men and women have gonads. I had no idea that as a slang term, it refers solely to men until much later. When I wrote the first comment of this digital interlocution, I was referring to both men and women.

        Somehow (ahem) my comments were automatically interpreted as an indictment of men when that was not what I meant at all. Women also destroy their marriages due to being in heat for something that they perceive they don’t receive from their husbands.

        I am still incredulous at the way Deti assumes I am picking on men when he knows better that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        You even spelled it with a little apostrophe before “nads” hahaha. Ok last time I mention it. That put me in a jolly mood all evening.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        “You even spelled it with a little apostrophe before “nads” hahaha. Ok last time I mention it. That put me in a jolly mood all evening.”

        Never underestimate the extent of my cluelessness. Never. If I hear about the behavior of a person’s decisions as directed by their sex organs, I hear “this person’s decisions are governed by their gonads.” So my friend’s comment made sense to me.

        Although, I am happy to have made you laugh. The world could use a lot more laughter.

        Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “The idea we’re struggling with is how to help goobery Christian boys to be attractive to women instead of the women being drawn to Chad. Can “godliness” get her attention away from Chad and to him?”

      Possibly. Good Christian boys are going to have to up there masculine traits, i.e. looks and physique, to up their visceral attraction; AND they are going to have to learn some game, not the PUA crap, but how to act around a woman that ‘turns her on’ to him–not like some beta schlub.

      It makes me think of the worship band at my church. There are a couple of young men that when I look at them performing on stage, I’d bet anything the younger women are attracted to them. Why? Looks, physique, and what looks to me like confidence (not Chad like cockiness, but genuine young man’s confidence). Then there are others up there, even though they are good musicians, I’m like jeez they need a masculine makeover. They’re not going to get the Christian chicks until they get to work on improving themselves… AND godliness is NOT going to do that for them, unless they’re content to be with the homeliest looking young women–not pretty, overweight, those kinds of girls. Don’t get me wrong, they look like fine young men, but they are not viscerally attractive; however several of them could get there, but it is going to take some work that’s for sure.

      Like

  6. Lastmod says:

    Well, when I re-read Hawthorns “The Scarlet Letter” a few years back, the adultress Hester Pryne was not attracted to Rev Dimsdale because of his “godly” manner. “He was dashing, handsome and had a profile that stirred the heart”

    I wasn’t raised and active in the church from birth, nor was I sold on on “looks don’t matter to women” mantra that was heavily purported for the past twenty years (changing now…..but no one seems to remember that this was taught as and sold as ‘gold’ to millions and millions of men)

    Marriage is too easy to end now (Thank you Governor Reagan). There was a time when a couple “just had to make it work” and the wedding vows, in a church (even if you were not devout) still meant something. Vows made before community, family, friends, each other and god kind-of meant “something”. A couple may have had problems, but in the end had to work them out. Most did.

    I am still stuck on that god made man in his image, and “loves you” so very much, but if he created you “below average” in looks, well…..you just have to “suffer” and “understand that there is no marriage in heaven”

    Seems to me like god “changed his mind” around 1970 when it came to “good christian marriages”

    Today, a man has to know his mission in life at age 2, work really hard, develop a gazillion skills, study the right things, say the right words, know his plan in life…………and all of this just gets tossed out the window if he was fortunate to be deemed handsome on a cultural standard.

    We also assume that attractive women are somehow godly, or are ready to be a wife……..

    I think what Jack is saying above is good for any man to cultivate, Christian or not to have have at least a bearable life in the modern West………………but marriage today is pretty much an “elite” club that most men are not going to be allowed to enter

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “looks don’t matter to women”

      Jason, not defending the PUAs that led you astray but in all fairness WOMEN have been saying this for a long time. Sometimes directly (“looks don’t matter”) and often indirectly (“we select for things other than looks”, “looks matter more to men than us”). I have seen women do this in discussions that I am participating in. I have participated in conversations where women say “women don’t experience sexual lust, just lust for other things like money, power.”

      I don’t know if that’s where the PUAs picked up on this message but many women will downplay men’s looks. To me this ties into what Nova said on female communication being covert and full of hidden meeting and how much of what is communicated by women is what is left out of their words.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lastomod says:

        Every PUA. Every self help book of the 1990’s til now, every dating expert who was a “guy’s guy” was purporting this. Every blog, every v-blog, every church leader, every dating guru, every expert on women was saying “looks don’t matter to women”

        I read them ALL

        Don’t turn this now on “women” and make them to blame. These same men have always said “watch what women DO, not what they say”

        When it came to THIS….they were the ones selling this point, teaching this point, and making it as TRUTH

        The Game backlash, and PUA Hate and anger in the man-o-sphere on these matters inst coming from women. It is coming from MEN who wasted most of the youth and better years believing this. Most men now who purported this seem to be by slight-of-hand running away from this past “gold standard” statement.

        No apologies will be coming and many men like myself are now scratching our heads, and many men are a tad bit “upset” at this. I kind of knew all along that looks DID matter but I tried to deny this. I should have went with my gut, and got on with my life a long time ago. This powerful mantra was part of the reason why I wasted SO much time trying to improve something I could never improve, because they DID matter to women. A lot. A ton. Yes, even….especially in the modern church.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “Don’t turn this now on “women” and make them to blame.”

        I don’t know to what extent these people whether PUA jerks for pastors or whatever took this message from women. That’s all I”m saying. I never told anyone this so I don’t have any need to put this on women and get out of the responsiblity of what I didn’t do. I only discovered this stuff 5 or 6 years ago.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        They were selling a product and message to unattractive guys. And they make bank because unsuccessful guys keep going back for more advice

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Unless you are an uber alpha rich don’t give a F&%$ Jack Nicholson type, looks matter to women.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Women want looks. However, it’s something they can forego given a trade off. This is literally impossible for a man, as a man wants sex and can’t have it with a limp dick

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Hmmm. I could have low standards. A woman would have to be pretty fugly or morbidly obese to literally not be able to get it up. You’re not even talking “would f_ck” you’re talking “could f_ck”. You’d think most (younger) chicks would pass this very basic test. Mohammaden men manage that with goats.

        But yeah get your point.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        In the words of “ole blue eyes” — “Put a bag over it and do your business!!”

        Like

      • Jason Piecuch says:

        And… what I am going to say is going to make some butt-hurt at me.

        In the Dalrock comments section, on “Return of Kings” and in classic man-o-sphere stuff… for a long-ass time, if you DARED mention looks mattered to women:

        You were labeled a loser, a beta, a cuck, a man who puts-women-on-pedestals, and belittled.

        I was the target of some of this, dare I mention it, in those moments.

        Notta ONE of you or any other “real man” said, “Wait…. ol’ Jason is on to something here…” The deafening silence was common, or I got many of the above comments dumped on me, or the outlier stories, “I know a guy who is 5’6′ dates nines and tens…… is funny, and is not attractive at all!”

        Now? In 2021 it just seems to be like “1984” here.

        “We have always believed looks mattered to women and we never said or stated anything differently, and if we did… it was in relation to this or that…”

        Just interesting that’s all. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        No butt hurt here. I got crap at dalrock’s for all sorts of things.

        For saying a Catholic can’t divorce his wife and remarry even if she cheats on him: “You’re a TradCathCuck.”

        For saying I’d prefer an overweight nice girl to a beautiful b!tch: “All fat girls are sluts and/or have bad character!”

        No one defended me. I don’t remember a particular case of people attacking you on this but I wasn’t that active on there and was a late comer.

        Yeah there were some real douches on that site.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        I don’t recall ever saying, thinking believing looks don’t matter to women. That would be odd.

        Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        “Jason, not defending the PUAs that led you astray, but in all fairness WOMEN have been saying “looks don’t matter to men” for a long time.”

        And men, who, for all of recorded human history up until about a half a century ago knew better, donned the fool’s garb and believed them. The ancients knew better than to EVER take anything any woman said at face value. (This is why, with the exception of a few prominent civilizations that collapsed because they did the opposite, women were NEVER allowed full autonomy or power throughout most of human history.) I guarantee you that in EVERY ancient tongue there was a popular expression that was the equivalent of today’s “pay no attention whatsoever to what women say; pay full and undivided attention to what they do.”

        How and why men threw away ten millennia of wisdom and common sense is one of today’s most maddening and tragic mysteries.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Scott et al. I do remember commenters saying things like “I know this guy who is short and chubby but he has game and slays the chicks.”

      I remember guys talking about marginally attractive celebrities like Bill Murray being wanted by women, but they’re famous so that’s different.

      I never read the PUAs for obvious reasons. Roissy was unpopular as a hedonistic nihilist at the websites I read. I still think these guys may be lying about scoring with all these chicks. Rollo sounds like a nasally voiced dork. Roosh is a normal looking dude. I’m sure he was banging hundreds of chicks. The only thing that makes it believable is sometimes guys claim they have dozens of tries for every success. If your goal is to dip your pinky in her kitchen sinky then trying dozens of times with skanks might work I guess.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        I remember that too. I also remember pointing out that it sounded like snake oil salesman trying to sell “how to pick up women” seminars.

        The closest I have ever come to talking about whether or not looks matter is when I tell people to stick to within one whole number of their own on the 1-10 scale. And I also like to point out that this kind of assortative mating was the norm until recently.

        Its weird when you see a 3 with a 9. Somethings not right there.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Of course, it helps to remember that I am culturally southern California all the way.

        So aesthetics are super important to me. Probably more than they would be if I was from like Nebraska or whatever.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah most people married someone similar. I’m sure a few rich guys married women much more attractive than them.

        I wonder if what’s happening is that unattractive women and men dont marry now — that neither is willing to settle for the other, like people did in the old days.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        It wasn’t salesmen pitching their books or whatever on Dalrock in the peanut gallery comment section. Many men, most men… some of them here who comment on this forum. Several years ago, “looks don’t matter to women…. We must teach men Game….”

        Now? “Oh looks matter to women, of course they do.”

        No one was saying this years ago in the sphere, and now “everyone” speaks like its common knowledge. Scott I am not implying that you stated such things directly…… but I never heard once on Dal’s comment section, “looks do matter to women”.

        It was the opposite, and it was GOLD on that forum and accepted as truth.

        I don’t know or care if Dalrock personally believed that to be true or not (he probably did believe it, but never said it… or directly). Not to pick directly at Dal, but it was on other “real man he-man” forums as well. If you dared mention that “Ummm… Looks matter to women…” in 2015 for example…… many would come on like Joshua, the walls would come a-tumblin’ down, and Lastmod here was really, really buried and zero came to my defense.

        Not that I was onto something, cause I wasn’t……….. but I think too many were so blinded by “Game”, and how it was something “holy”, and if anyone without “authority” dared say anything against it…

        A simp you were!

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Jason, this is also replying to your last comment as well as the video.

        First, as an aside, you’re not “ugly.” You’re a normal looking 51 year old man. You look like me except you’re taller and I still have my hair (through luck of the genetic dice). If you’re “ugly” then I’m ugly.

        I can understand your frustration with the changing of the manosphere narrative. I respect your right to vent that frustration including here. I’d want to if I were you.

        This is a small website with a small number of regular commenters. This is not the PUA crowd. From what I can tell almost ALL the men here are more of the “discontented by being screwed by wives” types. No sex marriages (RPA, deti at one point I think), abusive marriages (deti, “whiteguy” I think), adultery-abandonment (Scott, Nova). I can’t imagine Scott or Nova or Deti saying “looks don’t matter.” I don’t remember Jack from Dalrock but I wasn’t there that long. It’s also true that many men haven’t been here very long and are still forming opinions on things and are also prone to aping what other men say AND to things like the fact that women often say or imply “looks don’t matter.”

        You wrote: “Many men, most men… some of them here who comment on this forum.”

        Who? Is there a reason you won’t name the regular commenter here? If it’s for the sake of being polite, then I understand.

        The PUAs are not here at Sigma Frame. They are salesmen, literally selling books and coaching. The anonymous goofballs are probably trolls/online-larpers. I’ve told you before I think some commenters have completely fake life stories and are probably making sh!t up from their mom’s basement. You take some of these fakes and their BS about extraordinary success with women too seriously sometimes.

        This is the internet. Every guy scores with tons of chicks, benches 500, has a ten inch wang, and will beat you up without even having to leave the comfort of his keyboard.

        I’ve been tempted to call bullsh!t on a few commenters here and they could have called bullsh!t on me a few times too.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Fair enough. Back in the days when I first started reading and commenting at Dalrock, I didn’t know it then, but now I realize I was trying to relearn what I already knew as a much more “alpha” teenager than I was as a 38 year old married guy. My natural abilities in the realm of something like “intersexual dynamics” had been buried under nearly 2 decades of blue pill conditioning.

        My confident, don’t give a s#!+ outcome independent style vis a vis women was beaten out of me by evangelical preachers and James Dobson. By 2014, I had rediscovered what I always knew worked and my marriage got way better.

        I had to remember how to trust my instincts and stop being such a tradcon/Dennis Pragerite/Focus on the Family wife worshipper. It was never my style, and Dalrock reminded me of that.

        So whether or not I should defend single 45 year old guys from the changing winds of whether or not looks matter to women in the canons of PUA/Game theory was simply not on my radar.

        Sorry about that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Reading the phrase, “dip your pinky into her kitchen sinky”, caused me to lose 5 IQ points today.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Adam Sandler quote from the movie “Little Nicky.” I screwed it up. It’s “wash your winky in her kitchen sinky” Now you’ve lost 10 IQ points.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “By 2014, I had rediscovered what I always knew worked and my marriage got way better.“

        Scott, you’re saying your current marriage was problematic until you rediscovered Red Pill? I kinda assumed she was crazy for you from the beginning.

        The only time Red Pill would have helped me in my marriage was when I physically abused her in 2013. I was too Blue Pill simping in the way I reconciled things with her after the incident. The reconciliation would have been quicker and less painful if I had been more Red Pill in the process. You know what brought her back – part of it? Not Blue Pill flowers and notes and getting on my knees and begging her forgiveness (I literally did this the day after the incident). What accelerated the fixing of things was things like her BFF literally taking advantage of the “cold war” between us and trying to mate poach me. Sorry, but Red Pill is real even if it doesn’t perfectly explain every situation.

        I should have defended Jason just like I should have defended guys like him in HS when he was getting beaten and tormented. Yeah, that’s weakness and cowardice. I’ll own that.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        I wouldn’t say it was ever problematic. But I definitely needed to get out of my head and stop worrying about how to keep things going.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        Cameron,

        First. HS was a long, long time ago. Yes, it happened. It was bad….but I now understand that I wasn’t alone. High school was terrible for most boys (the 80 / 20 rule in effect even back then). It’s such a “magical” time in your life, a time I wouldn’t wish on anyone 🙂

        What could you do back then? You gonna take on the whole school? No. What could I have done? I have the answer now:

        Fight back, expulsion be damned.

        Even if I housed and lost…….. I had to stand up for myself in the end. I didn’t.

        The same with many an Incel today, the angrier side of Black Pill and Red Pill……. You have to adjust, fix and / or accept where you are. You cannot expect others to fight your battles for you. If you and another were “best buds” in high school and this was happening and you didn’t do anything…. sure that may be different.

        You should not be punished for feeling zero guilt for anything back then…… and I should have just stood up for myself. If I had a a son, or daughter…….. and he / she was going through this……. and he / she was expelled for fighting back or defending their own personal honor?

        My daughter would be getting rewarded with a spa treatment with mom, and my son would have had a full day of dad time. Both would be expected to return to school, after I talked to the principal… Both would still be expected to get their homework done while expelled, and both would have been told they did the right thing…. but to remember they are in school to learn and to not look for conflict. “Confront your enemies when necessary; Avoid them when you can.”

        As for looks. Looks to women are subjective like wine or coffee, or what brand of cigarettes you smoke. Yes…… we know that 20% of men can do zero wrong. They could come to work a mess…. and still get the swoons. They could still stop traffic and cause a gridlock at 3AM. Life isn’t fair. The have no idea how EASY they have it on these matters.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Women have an attraction floor like men. Probably an attraction floor for enthusiastically having sex with a man and one for dating/marrying a man.

        Women’s attraction floor for dating/marriage might be higher than men’s (nowadays) but their attraction floor for enthusiastically having sex with a man has always been way higher than men’s for them.

        They’re made that way. Made to be the gatekeepers. If they worked like men they’d get knocked up by the first mediocre-genetic quality knave they ran into.

        Women’s attraction patterns are a feature and a bug.

        Like

  7. dpmonahan says:

    Saying “godliness is not attractive” is true if by it you mean that men who think that being pious will land them a wife: they are engaging in magical thinking or “secret king” thinking.
    It is false if you mean that virtue is generally unattractive. Virtue is a good quality, a perfection of some potential, and is naturally attractive, just not always attractive for sex. Some virtues, like confidence, taking care of health, or developing social graces, can help in that department, but there is always going to be a physical baseline.
    The difference between virtues that get you into the kingdom of heaven and virtues / physical qualities that make someone want to have sex with you is based on something real, the distinction of body and soul, but there shouldn’t be this huge dichotomy because these things should all exist in the same person to some degree or another.
    I think the dichotomy is cultural fall-out from the sexual revolution: we got rid of cultural norms that conditioned and trained people to be husbands and wives, we now condition and train them to be sluts / chads / incels.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      I note that you did a post on this at your own blog less than a month ago.

      You’ve fallen prey to the same flaw Jack did in his original post – you failed to define terms appropriately. Your comment’s accuracy is wholly dependent on an elastic, expansive definition of “attractive” – it’s true as long as “attractive” means whatever you want it to mean.

      Virtue does NOT make men more attractive except to the extent it causes men to set boundaries for acceptable behavior from others. It MIGHT make men more suitable for marriage. But as you said, if you don’t have the physical attractiveness to back that up, you’re just p!ssing into the wind. If you’re an unattractive man, no one cares about your “boundaries”. People feel free to walk all over your “boundaries”. If you are unattractive and have no sexual value, you can have all the “boundaries” you want and it doesn’t mean a damn thing.

      Like

      • dpmonahan says:

        I’m not equivocating attractiveness in general and sexual attractiveness but I can see why you might think that.
        Attractiveness is whatever draws you to someone, what you like about them. If you have friends, it is because you are attracted to their virtues, the good qualities they’ve developed, or maybe were born with and didn’t ruin.
        Sexual attractiveness is a lot more or the physical end because it is about reproduction but there are still virtues involved, being in shape is a virtue, confidence is a virtue, a man being able to exercise authority is a virtue, etc.
        A man who reads his bible and prays but is a fat simp has some virtues but not the ones he needs to get a wife.
        I could be wrong about a lot of this but the basic idea is that there isn’t a natural dichotomy of sexiness vs goodness but a spectrum of good qualities that people should be developing.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Attractiveness is whatever draws you to someone, what you like about them.”

        No. That right there is where you’re getting tripped up.

        Virtue, “godliness”, and kindness don’t serve men well today. They might “draw” women to them, but only for use as plowhorses. Those characteristics do not even make men good husbands. They make men into good bondservants, workhorses, and drones.

        If I were a woman, OF COURSE I would be “drawn to” a virtuous, kind, Godly man who can set boundaries. Know why? Because I can use him. I can enslave him into my service. I can make him do whatever I demand – all I have to do is marry him and threaten to divorce him and sic the church and police on him if he doesn’t comply with my demands. And because he’s virtuous, godly, and kind, he’ll do it – because he’s also obedient and submissive to authority. He’ll set boundaries, but the minute he does that with me, I’ll just go to the pastor and accuse that husband of “abuse”, and that pastor will haul me in front of the church for “discipline”.

        This right here is why guys like Paul Maxwell are renouncing Christianity – because the Church HATES us men. HATES us. And wants to use us and beat us into submission.

        No. NO.

        NO MORE.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Scott says:

    The reason these posts exist is the same reason game exists.

    Men want to unlock the secret of female sexuality by changing their behavior (or something else about themselves)

    If all the women on earth tomorrow suddenly announced that the sexiest thing on earth is a man who can walk on his hands, there would be a hand-walking clinic popping up on every corner.

    But as I have continually pointed out, in various ways, using different formats and examples, the most important thing to know about all this is your psycho-sexual developmental trajectory starting at about age 10 I reckon is king. And most of that is biological.

    If you missed it, and skipped off the atmosphere of the planet known as “the boy meets girl story” it is not likely that you will ever be invited to that party at 30 or 40 or whatever. I’m really sorry. It makes me want to blow the whole world up when I think about it.

    Remember the 90s TV show “The Wonder Years?” Remember the character Paul? He was the guy who never was going to hit that stride. We all know/knew him. If you were him, and you are here reading, I’m really sad for you.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      I think you are correct about this.

      The Christian worldview and Christian sexual morality were a successful attempt at tempering all this. It worked, so long as almost everyone got with the program. Men got a wife, but they had to work themselves to death and they were responsible for her and any kids they had. Women got husbands, but they had to have sex with men they didn’t really want, and they had to take orders from him and do what he said.

      Women finally decided they didn’t want the negatives of that deal anymore. “We will go to school and get jobs and work and support ourselves. Please, just don’t make us marry those yucky beta guys, don’t make us do what they say, and for the love of God, PLEASE do not make us have sex with them or have their babies!”* We gave women their wish.

      The point was that Christian sexual morality was a way to keep the worst parts of male and female human fallen nature in check. To get us to “the better angels of our nature”. It worked – we built the most powerful economic and social engine the world has ever known, that brought more peace and more prosperity to more people than the world has ever known. The compromises needed to build that engine were that everyone doesn’t get to have all the sex they want with whomever they want. And it worked.

      Paul from The Wonder Years would still get a wife. Sure, she’d be a b!tch to him sometimes, but 100 years ago, Paul lived in a society that would back him up when he put her back in her place. Now, the woman who would be Paul’s wife divorce rapes Paul, or never marries him, preferring carousel rides to taking care of Paul’s house and having his children. Or, she marries Paul, but her “price” for staying is she gets to say and do whatever she wants, can treat Paul however she wants, and can sex-deprive Paul and make his life a living hell – and society will back her up 100%. That’s the difference.

      100 years ago, the Pauls of the world had OK marriages. Today, the Pauls of the world languish in incel hell.

      Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Scott, here is where it may be useful to note that women may discriminate more brutally against unattractive men than they do positively in favor of attractive men. Paul from the Wonder Years wasn’t average, he was an unattractive mega-dork.

      There is a fair amount of space between the guy that makes ‘em all wet and the mega-dork Paul.

      Yeah, it still sucks b@lls for the mega-dork Paul. Godliness or game won’t make him attractive.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        E.g. it hurts you more to be short than it helps you to be tall.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Height is a really interesting one. I was already 6’2″ by my junior year in HS, where I remain to this day. I lost about a half an inch somewhere, so its like 6’1 and some change. But I have always taken it for granted. I am not a giant, but tall enough to where I rarely meet people taller than me.

        The other day Mychael said she was looking at me, lying on the floor on my stomach, taking a nap. She said she had the thought “my husband is a really bug guy” (and she liked this).

        I am 8″ taller than her, and about 85 lbs heavier. She disappears when I hold her. And she likes that too. I guess its pretty important, and we have no control of it.

        It’s just something I never think about.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Depending on how you count height (shoes vs. no shoes) I’m 5-10 or 5-11. My wife is 5-3. That difference seems to work out well.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        I’m a “bug” guy. Like from the Kafka book.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        5’3″?

        Thats a super cute size.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah Sir Mix-a-Lot likes that height:

        “36-24-36? Ha ha, only if she’s five-three.”

        That was my senior year of high school – you were in your early 20s.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “I’m 5-10 or 5-11. My wife is 5-3. That difference seems to work out well.”

        You and me brother! My wife has said many times as she pulls in close to me, “We fit together perfectly!”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        My husband consistently dated tall women. Not sure why but it is fortunate for me (and by extension my girls) that some men like tall women.

        I have a pic as my lockscreen on my phone of SAM and me. I shared it with Scott and Mychael.

        In it, I am wearing heeled boots. I could live without the heels, but SAM likes them, even on my 5’9″ frame. Even in the heels, he is still obviously taller than me.

        I’m not sure I would have been okay if that wasn’t the case.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I am not attracted to tall women but probably would be if I were tall. There’s nothing defective about tall women they just “fit” well with tall men. I always wanted to be 6ft like my dad – really tall comes with inconveniences.

        Like

    • Lastmod says:

      AS a younger man Scott…this statement of yours would have made me VERY angry. Now? No. Its a truth. I wasn’t Paul from the “The Wonder Years” but I wasn’t Dylan from “Beverly Hills 90210” either.

      I agree…this trajectatory starts probably in the formative years….sure, a guy CAN get on board a little later…..but if a man is indeed well into his mid / late twenties…probably NOT going to happen unless he is properly setup, or does the “creepy guy” thing and orders a bride from the Phillippines, or Thailand……..

      This soft “blackpill” thinking btw mentions nowhere to “go kill yourself” or become an angry basement dwelling Incel.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Jack says:

    “…when a woman says “attractive” she NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER means:

    When I see you reading your Bible I get wet…”

    Let’s not confuse doing things that have the appearance of godliness, with actually being Godly in character.

    When Deti lays down the law with his wife, he is enforcing Headship. Isn’t that more godly in character and more spiritually mature than if he played the beta schlub and let her be the boss?

    Now, does that make him more attractive? Not sure about Mrs. Deti, but for some women… Yes!

    Like

    • Scott says:

      No married man reading here cares about that. If I do something that makes any woman other than my wife get excited, what difference does it make?

      And the single guys who are thinking about marriage are saying to themselves “holy crap. If that’s what I have to do when I get married, no thanks.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      True only if “laying down the law” makes women want to have sex with me more than they would if I did not do that.

      What’s “attractive” (i.e. makes women want to have sex with me) would be my ability to say ‘no’ and then act consistently with that ‘no’; coupled with my physical appearance being conventionally appealing – in shape, fit, taller than her, masculine appearing face, masculine appearing body, V-shaped taper from shoulder to waist.

      “Godly character” and “spiritual maturity” do not mean a DAMN thing without a favorable physical appearance. As Exhibit Number 1, I give you Elspeth. Exhibit 2: Liz. Exhibit 3: Mychael.

      The defense rests, your Honor, and moves for directed verdict as the opposing evidence is wholly insufficient to support an adverse verdict, and no rational trier of fact could ever reach a verdict based on said opposing evidence.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Appearance vs. doing is only something that matters for those already in a relationship.

      It has 0 to do with initial attraction.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        And even then, I am not sure I understand why it matters.

        During my divorce, when I was devouring all the James Dobson et al. crap I could, and doing all this heavy lifting to become whatever it is she wanted, she would say, “You’re just checking boxes. Its not real.”

        And all I could think was, “I’m checking boxes because I love you more than anything in the world and I want you to stay. At least I’m doing these things.”

        Nope. You have be doing them “for the right reasons.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • lastholdout says:

      “Now, does that make him more attractive?”

      Yes (for a wife whose spiritual maturity is wanting), in the sense of him validating his strength. It doesn’t directly give her the tingles but reaffirms in her mind that he is there to lean on. She feels secure. He’s passed the sh!t test. Her insecurity has been once again deferred until it rears its ugly head the next time. It’s a cycle – “Show me again that you love me.” Not unlike a child. This has nothing to do with the husband, but is in the woman’s own weakness. I think men need to be cautious of what they take ownership of.

      A spiritually mature wife has the emotional composure that doesn’t require cycles like this, e.g., Elspeth, Mychael, Liz. Their husbands are blessed.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Lastmod says:

    Most of the married people I knew when I was in church attendance had been married at that point for 20-30 years. They met at church camp, or a Salvation Army retreat at one of their many camps. They knew each other since they were kids kind-of thing.

    I can’t hate on that or be angry at that. That is kind-of how it should be I guess in a Christian circle or frame of mind……no hate here.

    What got my dander up, and boy I had to hold it in. These same men would shake their heads and say…….”men just don’t want to put-the-work-in and “man up” today.” and countless statement like this.

    I gentle once mentioned that its different today, and di mention looks and they too had swallowed this kool-aid “looks really don’t matter to women” statements. One Sunday during adult Sunday school…..and I can remember this clearly……we were discussing proper marriage and the like….and every single woman. Every one of them “But….but there are no real, mighty men of god here!”

    It was funny because my Corps (Salvation Army church) had way, way more men than women, and most of the men were single. I laughed and said “What you mean is there are no very, very attractive or handsome men who make a good way above average living are here…and just happen to love jesus more than anything.”

    This caused howls, and got everyone up and annoyed. Suddenly all the “god doesn’t care about that statements” flowed at me….from the women…AND from the men! Mind you…..most of the single women in my Corps were not hot…may were cute, average, pretty…but boy oh boy…..the expected the best….but “looks don’t matter to women” was the answer.

    My advice to younger men: Be an a-hole, live at the gym, do a job and just “get by” and THEN after you find a hot gal to marry…THEN get all holy”

    The way that is taught and is being taught now gets men zero (except Chad-types) and women are still let off the hook for their behavior.

    Liked by 6 people

  11. Jack says:

    “…this post goes off the rails because it doesn’t define attractiveness properly and it panders to women.”

    I’m not redefining attraction, or what women say is attractive. I’m not arguing about what women find attractive. No. I’m redefining what it means to be Godly. We have the notion that going to church, reading the Bible, being “nice”, forgiving, forbearing, and so on, living a clean straight life, and never offending the Mrs. is what it means to be Godly. But maybe… the blind, bumbling, idealistic Mr. Magoo is not an accurate picture of true godliness. Maybe this is the delusion that churchianity has pulled over our eyes.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      “…the blind, bumbling, idealistic Mr. Magoo is not an accurate picture of true godliness.”

      That’s not what’s being sold as “true Godliness”.

      “I’m redefining what it means to be Godly.”

      All due respect, but your post doesn’t redefine godliness or give us different definitions of godliness than “going to church, reading the Bible, being “nice”, forgiving, forbearing, and so on, living a clean straight life, and never offending the Mrs.“.

      “ATTRACTIVE” = WANTS TO HAVE SEX WITH.

      Virtue is not sexually attractive. Boundaries are not sexually attractive. Saying “no” is not sexually attractive. Worshiping God does NOT make a woman want to have sex with that man. None of those things make a woman want to have sex with a man who is not otherwise conventionally sexually attractive.

      The MOST that can be said is that these things will make an otherwise sexually attractive man more suitable for a long term relationship and make it more likely a woman will hitch her wagon to his and select him to father her kids. That is IT. And hell, even then most women will readily pick Thuggy McDoucherson and Harley Carjackerson to impregnate them over Victor Virtue and Captain America.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        In response to Deti,

        “…the blind, bumbling, idealistic Mr. Magoo is not an accurate picture of true godliness.”

        That’s not what’s being sold as “true Godliness”.”

        No, but that’s the general impression that most people have of godly men. Scroll through the comments and see for yourself. We’ve got close to a hundred comments now. Here’s a few for starters…

        Deti said,

        “Exhibit 1: Elspeth (ESPECIALLY). Exhibit 2: Liz. Exhibit 3: Mychael. NONE of these women got with their men because they’re such nice, stand up guys who love the Lord. These women got with their men because they were physically good looking men who refused to put up with one ounce of sh!t from their women. Their men did not comport themselves primarily as Christian men. They comported themselves as masculine men with boundaries who made it clear things would be done their way…”

        So godly means, nice, stand up, loving God, and comporting a public image of being a Christian.

        Lexet wrote,

        “In my observations of the churches/young adult groups I spent time in during my 20s, the only people who got into relationships and married were people who wouldn’t be considered godly, or really that involved in the church or even Bible study.

        In fact, it was exactly the opposite. There were young men who were Bible book worms working on godliness and church involvement. Some were low SMV, some were high on paper, but had personalities that made interpersonal communication miserable. Not one of them were in relationships. They are still single.”

        So godly means, being involved in church and bible studies, and being a Bible book worm… and being really lousy about relationships.

        Scott wrote,

        “They come in, Bible under their arm, sit in Bible studies and talk about Bible verses. The say things like “I prayed on it” or whatever. They seem so hopelessly unaware of what nerds they are.”

        So godliness means carrying a bible, sitting in Bible studies, talking about Bible verses and what they pray about, and being hopelessly lacking in any self-awareness.

        Lexet responded,

        “Note: it’s ironic that the males in the church singles group think it’s productive to start such conversations, expecting women to interact when scripture tells women to be silent on such matters.

        Also part of my observations: these nerds who grew up in church and study theology all the time are entirely ignorant on some Bible basics, especially when it comes to what scripture says about men, women, and marriage.”

        So godliness means opening up conversations about scripture with women, growing up in church, studying theology… and being ignorant.

        Scott rejoined,

        “They do show up for Bible studies though, and talk and talk and talk about their subjective interpretations and feelings. Bible studies are like group therapy so men really don’t need to be there. Unless you are picking up church chicks.”

        So godliness means talking about subjective interpretations and feelings.

        There are many more comments like these.

        Overall, the picture we have of a godly man seems reminiscent of a wimpy, Blue Pilled, academic nerd who is out of touch with everything around him. But really, think about it… Is nerdiness truly godly? Are the descriptions of those men listed in Hebrews 11 more nerdy than not? The Pharisees and Sadducees are the academic nerds of the Bible.

        “I’m redefining what it means to be Godly.”

        All due respect, but your post doesn’t redefine godliness or give us different definitions of godliness than “going to church, reading the Bible, being “nice”, forgiving, forbearing, and so on, living a clean straight life, and never offending the Mrs.“.

        To be honest, I don’t really know if Godliness/spiritual maturity is attractive, or if some elements are attractive but others are unattractive, or if there is something else deeper going on. But for this series, I’m going to run with the position that it is, and see where the discussion goes. Right now, I suspect that we have a wrong concept of what godliness truly is.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “To be honest, I don’t really know if Godliness/spiritual maturity is attractive, or if some elements are attractive but others are unattractive, or if there is something else deeper going on. But for this series, I’m going to run with the position that it is, and see where the discussion goes. Right now, I suspect that we have a wrong concept of what godliness truly is.”

        Let me see if I can help direct this for the benefit of men who read this in the months and years to come.

        Attractive means “f_ckable”. It means “wants to have sex”. Godliness is NOT “attractive”. Godliness traits do NOT make women want to have sex. Godliness traits are appealing to women who want relationships. Godliness is men who are “servant leaders”, workhorses, show ponies/trophies, and placeholder husbands. By “placeholder husbands” I mean the men women select merely to fill a role. He’s the man she trots out to her friends and family and says (in so many words): “See! SEE!! I GOT ONE!! I got a man! Now gibs me my status points!”

        Attractive: Wants to have sex with.
        Appealing: Wants to use.

        Attractive: For sex.
        Appealing: For relationships. Or, more accurately, “relationships” (in which the woman uses and exploits the man, takes advantage of him, maltreats him relentlessly, eventually destroys him, and leaves a hollowed out desiccated husk where the man used to be).

        If we’re going to talk about “attractive”, let’s talk about it in terms men can understand. Women do not find godliness attractive. Women do find godliness appealing.

        “Godliness” of course has to be defined too, and I think you’ve done that. We can go with today’s modern definition of “Godliness” as to men, which is…

        — effeminate, wimpy men who cry during church services and speak in vocal fury about loving Jesus.

        — men who say things like “Gotta check with the boss”, and “Happy wife, happy life”, and “I live to serve women”, and “servant leader”, and “gotta go to PromiseKeepers.”

        –men whose entire social lives revolve around church, attendance, and service.

        –men who carry their Bibles under their arms and talk earnestly and fervently about Biblical and scriptural interpretation in coed “bible studies”

        –men who decry porn and talk fervently about “avoiding lust” and “avoiding committing adultery in my heart.”

        –men who neglect their physical appearances because “It’s more important to be Godly and to love the Lord than it is to look good, because the Lord looks at the inner man and upon our hearts.”

        –men who accuse each other of “not being true Christians” because they don’t want to date fat women, weird women, mentally ill women, or sluts.

        –men with no sense of personal boundaries. These men’s entire lives are a series of covert contracts that they are constantly upholding and everyone else is constantly breaking. These men couldn’t stand up for themselves if their lives depended on it. These men couldn’t assert their way out of wet paper sacks.

        These men ignore their own wants, needs and desires for everyone else’s. They will happily set themselves on fire to keep Poopsie warm, even while Poopsie sh!ttalks them to beat the band to literally everyone who will listen.

        These men really, truly believe that they are sexually attractive men. That what they do causes women to want to have sex with them. They believe this because of a systematic set of lies perpetrated on them by church women.

        Never mind that it hasn’t worked yet — “You just haven’t met the right girl yet.”

        Never mind that other men bully them — “Those men are going to hell! Satan’s minions! Women don’t really like men like that! Women love Godly men. Don’t you, Sally and Jane!” (Sally and Jane nod dutifully and then giggle, point and snicker as they whisper about the size of Chad’s c_ck and about what a dumb@ss p_ssy you are) “See! Girls love Godly men!”

        Never mind that you’re woefully frustrated, and unhappy, and cannot figure out why — “Don’t you worry, young Deti. You just keep being nice nice nice and someday someone will love you just for who you are!” Never mind that you tell them it’s not working — “Well if it’s not working, you’re just not being nice enough. You need to be nicer.”

        On to part II and “Spiritual Maturity”. But I don’t think spiritual maturity is “attractive” either. It is appealing for relationships in which a man actually gets what he wants. Women will deny to their dying days that real spiritual maturity is appealing for relationships, but it is. Women will scream from the rooftops that they are “attracted to” (i.e. want to have sex with) spiritually mature men, but they do not. They very much want relationships with those men — SO LONG AS THOSE MEN ARE ALSO ‘attractive’.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Let’s explain why these men have no sense of boundaries, can’t put down boundaries, and can’t enforce boundaries.

        It’s because (1) no one ever taught them how to put down boundaries; (2) their parents and others never respected their boundaries; and (3) they’ve been told that having boundaries and standards for how others treat you, especially how girls and women treat you, is cruel and mean and nasty and sexist and misogynist.

        They have been carefully taught that their sole roles on this planet are to give women anything and everything they want, anytime they want, and to defend women even against themselves. They have been taught they are not to want or need or expect anything from anyone else — God requires them to give and give and give and give and give until they have nothing left.

        God requires them to allow others to nail them to various crosses every day, in exchange for absolutely nothing. God requires them to give themselves up for women and put up with their abuse. God requires them to “turn the other cheek” and never, ever ever fight back, even when you’re getting the ever loving sh!t kicked out of you for doing nothing other than saying “No you can’t have my lunch money.”

        This is why these men don’t have any sense of personal boundaries.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Godliness or virtuousness is following Christ. It is obeying Christ. Obeying Christ even when you suffer. Obeying Christ especially when you suffer for it.

        It has its own rewards (including the ultimate reward ) but being attractive to women isn’t one of them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        What is “Spiritual Maturity”? I’ll take a run at this. Broadly and culturally expressed, it would be “frame” and “balance”.

        –a man whose knowledge and application of all of Scripture is broad, deep, and fully integrated into his life

        –his relationship with God is fully formed and expressed inwardly and outwardly

        –he is fully in charge of his home and whomever lives in it

        –he has good personal boundaries with everyone

        –he brings a woman into his life and requires that she conform her life to his; he will not enter a woman’s life and conform his life to hers.

        –his life is a good workable balance of work, friends, physical activity, and leisure. Works toward physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health. If any area is suffering, he gives it the needed attention with focus and determination.

        –he, not others, determines what his life will look like from day to day, week to week, year to year. Mission and vision are clearly outlined and identified.

        None of these things are sexually attractive. None of these things make a woman tingle. None of these things make a woman want to have sex with a man. No, what makes a woman want to have sex with a man are the same things that make every woman want to have sex with men: Physical appearance, conventionally masculine appearance. Confidence and dominance. Extremely low tolerance for BS, especially from girls and women. They’re good at what they do.

        These last few things are why SAM, Scott, and Mike are sexually successful: Physical good looks, conventionally masculine appearance, fit, in shape. Confident. Dominant, Do not put up with BS from others. Extremely competent and proficient at their professions/avocations.

        You can have very little spiritual maturity and have all of these physical attributes and mental states of mind.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Godliness or virtuousness is following Christ. It is obeying Christ. Obeying Christ even when you suffer. Obeying Christ especially when you suffer for it.”

        “It has its own rewards (including the ultimate reward ) but being attractive to women isn’t one of them.”

        OK, but Godliness/virtue do NOT require a man to…

        –have no boundaries.

        –tolerate maltreatment from others while still being required to give incessantly.

        –stay in a relationship where you’re giving 98% and getting nothing back.

        –allow a church and its members to use, exploit, and maltreat you.

        Like

      • info says:

        As Podles proved:

        Bridal mysticism led to the individual Christian soul rather than the Church to be the woman to the Man that is Christ.

        This lead to the ideal of Godliness for everyone to be an ideal woman.

        This elaboration of the error lead to the notion of women being inherently more Godly then Men since they were more feminine. And also made Godliness masochistic.

        Masculinity must be turned into Femininity in order to achieve true Godliness is the result.

        Like

      • info says:

        Given that such fruits of said theology inevitably results in sex inversion in violation to the commandment against Cross-dressing. It is definitely a wicked heresy IMO.

        Like

  12. Elspeth says:

    Overall, my man is pretty low maintenance. He has a few key areas that he cares a lot about and that I am expected to stay on top of. So long as I do that, there is heaping grace in other areas. Laying down the law is not something he needs to do on a regular basis. That’s something that rarely has to be done. It happens, but it’s rare.

    As it turns out, one of those areas is that he likes good, nutritious food. Lots of veggies and fruits with lean proteins and everything HAS to taste good. Baked stuff has to be home baked. No store bought stuff, so it’s lucky for me that his indulgence in those sorts of things is pretty cyclical. Today is his birthday, so we’re in a cycle. He requested a very specific cake, not a tried and true recipe or something I could just look up online. Nope. He wants his girl to flex her culinary muscles today. It just came out of the oven.

    For a split second, I thought, almost every other husband I know would have been like, “I’m sure I’ll like whatever you make honey.” But mine? “I think I want you to come up with an apple spiced marble cake (marble it with vanilla). Put shredded apples in the batter, apple pie filling between the layers and a top it with a browned butter buttercream frosting.”

    Then I thought, “It’s kind of boss that he had absolutely no qualms about saying to his wife, ‘I know it’s gonna cost you extra time, but this is what I want. Make it.’ Not sure if that’s attraction or just our dynamic.

    Gotta go get stuff done before he gets off work, so catch y’all later…

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Lastmod says:

    You smart men / ladies men / married men need to know when teaching the pathetic, beta lower SMV men now is:

    It isn’t 2009, 2012, 2015, or even 2018 anymore. Roosh is supposedly a devout Orthodox now. (I still don’t believe it.) ……. PUA is dead, and the big advocates of “Game” are now old(er), married, moved into “life coaching” and now publish “new” books repacking everything they said before, but now under “bold and breakthrough” new methods and ways.

    The online v-blogs still waste most of their time telling the unwashed masses of men how “Blue Pill” they are, and how “useless” they are, and doing the “humblebrag” thing, making themselves look more like women clawing for attention if truth be told…..

    It will take a special person to help, to teach, and to grow this bunch of men……. Frankly and honestly, the best way for these men to do this is to no longer read much of this stuff.

    All the information that needs to be said has been said, and is out there.

    What most of these men need are actual friends that can be wingmen, challenge, help, empathize and grow with………….

    And online, and from blogs, and from information, and books, and podcasts… and from just telling men to “go to the gym” won’t help that.

    These helpless men sadly are for the most part are going to have to do this on their own. I know, I know….. GenZ and the younger Millennial guys have to form a committee and get a thousand opinions before they decide to go to the bathroom. They will just have to put their phones down, and do something…. because all the help must originate from themselves.

    All the Good and MOSTLY bad is making things worse for them. Saying, “Women suck! Go MGTOW!” is only a temporary relief and posturing.

    The best one can do is encourage, but really…. stop telling them foolproof advice from 10, 12, 15 years ago that isn’t relevant anymore.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. cameron232 says:

    Sounds delicious! I’ll be over in an hour. Save me a piece.

    Seriously it’s my daughter and grandmothers birthday too. Both Marys. The most beautiful name of all.

    Daughter wanted a chocolate ganauche supreme cake from Publix.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. feeriker says:

    “How “transactional” the relationship is, is inversely related to how attractive the man is. It’s more transactional if the man is less attractive.”

    BINGO.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Lastmod says:

    “looks don’t matter to women” (lol!)

    Liked by 3 people

  17. thedeti says:

    I’m coming around to Scott’s way of thinking on this, kind of.

    In terms of sex, marriage, and family: It’s just utterly hopeless for a growing segment of the male population. A growing number of men will never, ever get these things.

    Same for a lot of women: They won’t marry. Or if they do they will settle themselves into grinding unhappiness with men they do not want to have sex with. Everyone knows this, so they just won’t marry. They’ll still have children, but will raise those kids on their own with a little help from the Chad or chadlite or chadwannabe who knocked them up.

    Because women will not compromise.

    It’s hopeless. Utterly and completely hopeless. And it will be like this for the foreseeable future. In fact it’s going to get worse – a LOT worse.

    Hopeless.

    Like

    • feeriker says:

      “It’s hopeless. Utterly and completely hopeless. And it will be like this for the foreseeable future. In fact it’s going to get worse – a LOT worse.

      Hopeless.”

      It’s also going to get horrifically violent and ugly, which is what inevitably happens when incel males become a majority demographic in any society. TPTB know this, too, which is why “incels” have been starting to appear on their radar screens as potential sources of terrorism and unrest (along with everyone else who isn’t them).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Deti,

      “It’s hopeless. Utterly and completely hopeless. And it will be like this for the foreseeable future. In fact it’s going to get worse – a LOT worse.”

      So you “got it”. I came to this conclusion about a month after Scott first introduced us to the Meet Cute idea in his post, Probabilities (2020-2-24). I wrote a post, Hopelessness (2020-04-06) to describe the situation.

      Deep Strength vehemently objected in a response post, saying that “It’s really not that hard to get married.” I feel like DS missed Scott’s underlying point that marriage without a Meet Cute is unlikely to result in a God glorifying Headship structure. It will happen for a few men, sure. But for the vast majority of men… not a chance.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I feel like I am about to give a “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?” speech, because the comment thread feels a little like Dean Wormer dropped the big one on the MMP. God is sovereign and marriage is His earthly institution that serves as the earthly model for Christ’s relationship with the church, so He cares. Are we as His creations privy to the mind and plans of God? Of course not, but to think that He does not care about His children and His institution is not true.

        For those that have read my posts, and Deti can attest through our lengthy email exchange, my marriage has not been the easiest nor most pleasing relationship for me over the years. When I consider the decade plus years of struggle and hurt it is very, very tempting to say that should I have the ability to go back and change things I would not marry Mrs. Apostle again. Yet that sentiment denies that as one of God’s children He is working all things to good, even the emotional and physical stress in the past of being in a sexless marriage with a contentious wife, and that what He had and has for me as His creation is what is best, both for me from an eternal perspective and for the Kingdom as it moves forward.

        So is the current set of societal circumstances stacked against marriage the way God intended it? Of course this is true. Is the situation hopeless? No it is not, because God is sovereign. In my personal situation, this idea forces me to consider that maybe God put me with my wife for her sanctification as well my own. Over the past year I can see how God has worked and changed both of us. While there is still a good bit of growth and change to go in some areas, things are improving even if it does not always seem like they are in the moment.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        RedPillApostle,

        “…but to think that He does not care about His children and His institution is not true.’

        I had struggled with this thought in the past, and when Lastmod made this statement, I addressed it in a post, God doesn’t care if you find a wife! (2020-04-13). I came to the conclusion that we don’t care about the same things that God does. In that post, I wrote,

        “God doesn’t care as much as I do about the idolatrous things that I have mistakenly deemed to be more important than what God warrants. There must be something else that is more important to God.”

        You’re taking this one step further by saying God has a purpose in this.

        “…He is working all things to good […] and that what He had and has for me as His creation is what is best, both for me from an eternal perspective and for the Kingdom as it moves forward.”

        “…God is sovereign. […] God put me with my wife for her sanctification as well my own. Over the past year I can see how God has worked and changed both of us.”

        Liked by 1 person

  18. anonymous_ng says:

    Do looks matter? It depends, right?

    First, what all is encompassed by looks? Fashion sense? Facial symmetry? Height? Weight? How a man carries himself?

    Would Scott’s dating life have been substantially different if he was 5’10” instead of 6’2″? Maybe yes. Maybe no. We can’t rewind time and try again to see.

    What about if he went bald in high school? IDK. Maybe he internalized cool guy personality by the time he was ten or twelve years old, and it wouldn’t have mattered.

    One pickup instructor put it like this (paraphrased), “Most guys are attractive enough that if they were seen with an attractive woman, no one would wonder why she was with him.”

    I like to think that this is pretty true along the lines of Scott’s advice to look plus or minus one point from where you are on the SMV/MMV scale.

    At the same time, my story is proof that looks can cover a multitude of defects. When I met my ex-wife, I had the social acumen of a puddle of mud, but I made no secret of wanting to get her into bed, and I was 6’2″ 205# and at least average facial looks.

    ===========================================================================

    I believe that most men who are good with women are at least moderately attractive. I believe there are plenty of men who are equally attractive who can’t buy a date. Therefore, there is something besides looks that differentiates the two groups.

    I believe one of the things that separates men who are good with women from men who can’t buy a date is that they are unapologetic about their sexuality, and Scott’s tale from high school illustrates the point well.

    Secondly, I think that men who are good with women don’t worship attractive women and their bodies. As a result, when they do interact with attractive women, they aren’t weird and they don’t care as much about the outcome.

    I know that the time I spent in the pickup world helped me develop my personality in a manner that allowed me to be more successful with women. So, I think that men can learn to be better with women, but it’s a difficult journey and everyone is going to have to decide for themselves if it’s worth the effort.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Lastmod says:

    If Scott was indeed 5’10” and balding in his twenties…… his dating life and / or sexual prowess would not have been at the level he achieved while younger.

    What is “internalized cool guy personality”? (confidence?) What kid at 9 or 10 has this and can connect and internalize these adult complex concepts? Yes…… Maybe a few can…. Most can’t.

    What of puberty? Part of my problem….. looking back….. was that I hit the first round of puberty maybe around or just past 15. Later than most boys. I was a freshman in college and I was still growing… probably that last inch came between 1988 and the end of 1989.

    Upbringing…. Deti has touched on this. Now, I wasn’t socially stunted from a mostly protestant church upbringing…. and I saw the Salvation Army activities for BOYS into their teen years. That would socially stunt any boy. Singing “baby songs” at 12. Sunday school was enough to socially retard any boy…… The activities were… just….. ewwwwwww. I am sure The Salvation Army didn’t differ from most protestant Sunday school youth / boy stuff. I understand now why so many parents wanted their boys in my Scout Troop and not the Salvation Army “Adventure With Jesus” program.

    I just could not go out much. First, there was NO WHERE to go. The nearest neighbor was four miles down the road…… and the town / village was a good ten miles away…. and that had a general store, a post office and a small burger joint. Plattsburgh was that twice a month trek to go to the big supermarket and mall. That was the “big city” in my region, and it hardly was a real city.

    I had a very sick brother. I had to take care of him a lot, and help. How many times from dad did I hear in that Polish accent: “When you get out on your own, you can do what you damn well please….. While you live here, you have duties and responsibilities to this family and house.”

    Mom always said, when I wanted a friend to spend the night, “Not this weekend Scout…. Greg is sick, he’s better in summers…. I’ll make sure you and dad get a week out in the woods together. Promise.” Yes, the promise was kept. But Friday nights going roller skating were very rare in Plattsburgh. The movies. Having teen / age appropriate friends didn’t happen.

    I know now this stunted me permanently. Now I did get to go to West Germany. Yes, I got to go away to college. Yes, when I did want something as a boy / teen…… Yes, I did, always in the end, end up getting it. As a teen it became clothing.

    So this where, when Scott said in his original “meet cute” thing, it struck me. “If this doesn’t happen by a certain age, its probably not going to….”

    It wasn’t done in a superior manner. It wasn’t that revolutionary. It was just plainly said and stated. No gimmicks. “You should just go up and still talk to women ten years younger than you at age 45.”

    Nothing. He also said it “broke his heart to say this.”

    The first time I ever heard an ounce of humility come from a man successful with women to someone who wasn’t. Hit me hard…. not in a bad way….. but it was just plain truth. Who knows right? I still have a dire, seething hate of “Game” so to speak for the time it made me waste. The arrogance of these self-made leaders…. and just the smugness of them. A pox on their house.

    Just about all of them have renounced it when they met THEIR wife. Talk about being a “chump”!

    Liked by 2 people

    • anonymous_ng says:

      “What is “internalized cool guy personality”? (Confidence?) What kid at 9 or 10 has this and can connect and internalize these adult complex concepts? Yes…… Maybe a few can…. Most can’t.”

      What I meant here was my interpretation of Scott writing, “. . . the most important thing to know about all this is your psycho-sexual developmental trajectory starting at about age 10 I reckon is king.”

      Perhaps I misunderstood what he was saying, but I interpreted it like this: Young men who internalize being comfortable around attractive young women, and who learn it’s OK to be themselves around attractive young women at an early age, are going to do better with women when they’re older.

      Like

      • Anonymous says:

        Fair enough. But being comfortable around attractive young women and learn its “okay” to be themselves at age 10 is a bit off putting, even for today

        Like

  20. info says:

    It’s because their version of Godliness has nothing to do with Manliness.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. feeriker says:

    “Women hem and haw over this because at the end of the day, they do not want to admit that most of them are marrying men they do not want and aren’t sexually attracted to. They don’t want to admit that because that means admitting they aren’t good enough, nice enough, hot enough, or whatever enough, to qualify for the men they want.”

    More than the hit to their own status markers, women don’t want to admit this truth because they know that it will open men’s eyes to the truth, at which point NONE of them will ever volunteer to be some self-absorbed tw*t’s wallet/workhorse/b!tch. They’ll realize that this is ALL they would be to these women, and very few men have so little self-respect as to willingly and knowingly be used by women who admit that they don’t love or respect them. No way will women risk drying up the beta bux pool more than it’s already drying up on it’s own without help.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. feeriker says:

    “And women have sexual needs too!”

    Needs which most of them don’t seem at all interested in having satisfied by their own husbands.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. locustsplease says:

    Sure godliness is attractive. Its just not in our society’s back drop. Working hard, not being a drunk, caring about but not worshiping your finances… Not being a ruthless master for your wife and kids… These are all attractive things to women. Our gov’t provides all for women when us failures just can’t get it done.

    Godliness is not that attractive to women anymore and neither is God. Beating your wife? We know your not-gov’t will send you somewhere to be raped. Hard worker? They think your an idiot. Why didn’t you just read some books at a University like us good feminists? Saving money? Who cares! Child support is based off of income not thriftiness — that only matters for the man who is now gonna have to figure out how to eat food and pay bills. And it doesn’t matter if he starves to death. They’ll just withdrawal payments against his life insurance.

    So today godliness is just reading a book and being a patriarch as long as your wife and gov’t let you. Godliness will have extremely high value when the power is shut off permanently, like it was from the beginning of time up to 1900.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Pingback: Elements of Spiritual Maturity | 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