Jack’s theory about how the MMP is supposed to be.
Readership: All; Men; Christian Men;
Theme: Agency
Length: 1,900 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes
The man initiates a cascade of increasing intimacy and the woman must respond in kind
The answer to the question of why Women have sex to influence men (2021-11-10) is because It’s all about her Ego (2021-11-12). From this study, we learned that women’s motivation is not purpose driven, like a man’s would be, but instead seeks to establish a cascading chain of increasing ego relevancy.
Feedback –> Trust –> Relevancy –> Humility –> Comfort –> Security
The man initiates this chain by offering his attentions to the woman. Women see themselves as being responsible for either the success or failure of establishing this chain, even though much of the necessary context lies outside of their control. In fact, it is necessary for her to have the impression that she exercises volitional will in the matter of getting Feedback, or else she cannot make the next step to Trust.
If we look at this interplay using the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife parallel, then the idea that her exercise of the will is necessary agrees with what we learned in NovaSeeker’s essay, Juxtaposing the Temporal and the Eternal (2021-04-26). I’ve applied NovaSeeker’s argument to the present case by substituting the relevant pronouns, according to the archetype.
“[The wife’s] acts of volitional will are volitional from [her] perspective regardless of the fact that [the man] has always been aware of what choices [she] would make prior to the time… because the temporal creation includes volitional will within the framework of that temporality…”
“[The man] knows [which women] will accept and who will reject [his attentions], but he lets the individual [women] make that decision using their created temporal wills, because the temporal reality which God created includes human volitional will.”
“[The man] does not provide such grace to everyone, but only to those [women] whom He chooses…”
Granted, this doesn’t hold true for every man, but nevertheless, we can understand the archetypal concept of how the man initiates giving the woman attention, Feedback, and the following course of interaction. This concept is important for Knowing how things are supposed to be (2021-09-13).
So we see that according to God’s covenantal archetype, the man has an important role of initiating Feedback, the first link in the chain. When a man gives a woman attention, it opens the door of interpersonal communication. This is necessary for her to get Feedback, and makes it more likely. Her volitional will is expressed in her response to his attentions.
This explains why women crave male attention so highly, and why they thrive on it. According to the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy, it’s like they are being chosen for “salvation”.
How does the Meet Cute fit in?
Interestingly, the Meet Cute Phenomenon fits right into this paradigm. The Recipe for a Meet Cute requires a man to recognize that a particular woman is responding positively and enthusiastically to his attentions, and he pursues her by giving her more attention. Hence, the cascade is initiated.
Feedback –> Trust –> Relevancy –> Humility –> Comfort –> Security
In a few upcoming posts, we’ll look at how the Meet Cute fits into this in greater detail.
- Σ Frame: The Meet Cute as a Positive Feedback Loop (2021-11-17)
- Σ Frame: The Meet Cute is not about “women chasing men” (2021-11-19)
- Σ Frame: Summary of the Meet Cute Phenomenon (2021-11-22)
The Sequence of Gender Specific Roles in Developing a Relationship
What I have written thus far should make it clear that the man holds responsibility in initiating the exchange, and that women must exercise volitional will to establish trust. However, this should not be misconstrued to mean that all the responsibility is on the man, nor that the woman must utilize her conscious will in choosing a man. Instead, it must be understood by both that there is an overall sequence of gender specific roles that the man and woman must follow in developing a relationship. In practice, these roles are outlined as follows.
The man’s role is…
- Have his life together, and be pursuing his purpose.
- To give attention to various women.
- Monitor how his attentions are received by various women.
- Test the character, qualifications, and overall fitness of particular women of interest, and how well she may perform as a helpmeet.
- Choosing a woman he deems capable of fulfilling her purpose as a wife, and concentrating his attention on her.
- Following through in offering commitment and developing Headship.
- Continue in obedience to God’s created order.
As the cascade of Feedback, Trust, etc. progresses in parallel with these roles, the relationship is built up.
The woman’s role is…
- Remain pure and chaste.
- To receive attention from various men.
- Respond appropriately to men’s attention.
- Review the character of each man, assess the quality of feedback she receives, and determine her ability to fit into his life purpose as a helper.
- Choosing a man she deems worthy of her loyal obedience and affections as a husband.
- Learning to submit to the man, while showing honor, respect, and natural affection to him.
- Continue in obedience to God’s created order.
Likewise, as the cascade progresses, the relationship is built up.
The dynamic mutual interdependence of forming the relationship, as well as the importance of the Meet Cute, may be clearly seen in the following Table.
| Step | Man’s Role | Woman’s Role |
| 1. | Have his life together, and be pursuing his purpose. | Remain pure and chaste. |
| 2. | To give attention to various women. | To receive attention from various men. |
| 3. | Monitor how his attentions are received by various women. | Respond appropriately to men’s attention. |
| 4. | Test the character, qualifications, and overall fitness of particular women of interest, and how well she may perform as a helpmeet. | Review the character of each man, assess the quality of feedback she receives, and determine her ability to fit into his life purpose as a helper. |
| 5. | Choosing a woman he deems capable of fulfilling her purpose as a wife, and concentrating his attention on her. | Choosing a man she deems worthy of her loyal obedience and affections as a husband. (This may occur subconsciously.) |
| 6. | Following through in offering commitment and developing Headship. | Learning to submit to the man, while showing honor, respect, and natural affection to him. |
| 7. | Continue in obedience to God’s created order (i.e. formal marriage, sexual consummation, and begetting children). |
Note: These steps can be categorized into phases.
- Step 1 is the phase of singleness.
- Steps 2-3 are the Meet Cute phase.
- Steps 4-5 are the courtship phase.
- Steps 6-7 are the marital phase.
Failures of the Modern Meet Market
Laying out this sequence of steps makes it very clear where the modern dating scene fails to contribute to the formation of solid marriages. The modern dating scene focuses exclusively on steps 2 and 5, and coopts the sexual element from step 7. Not surprisingly, this is essentially all that is required for hooking up. Steps 1, 3, 4, and 6 are omitted entirely. 7 is a crap shoot roll of the dice.
The man’s and the woman’s roles in step 1 must commence long before any interpersonal interaction begins in step 2. This first step is important because women usually will reject men who have not made progress in step 1, and men will reject women who have not prepared themselves for marriage (see Matthew 25:1-13). Lately, more and more men are neglecting step 1, largely because they can’t envision any larger life purpose for themselves and the thought of marriage seems hopeless. Women have neglected step 1 en masse for the past 60 years or more. For women these days, remaining pure and chaste may be just as difficult as it is for men to find their life purpose and build up their confidence and capabilities.
Men’s Failures
It is common for men to fail at step 3 – monitoring women’s responses to his attentions — because they don’t know how to read women’s Indicators of Interest (IOIs). Learning this skill is of prime importance to men who wish to continue to the next steps.
Step 4 is commonly called vetting in the Manosphere. Men who’ve been following the ‘sphere are becoming more aware of the value of vetting, but are not very good at it. They also fail to realize that this is only one step in the process, so even if a man is skilled in vetting, he may still make a poor decision in choosing a partner because the other steps may not be in place. It is also a useless waste of time to vet women who have been chasing after worldly pursuits, because all such women are automatically disqualified by the simple fact that they haven’t consciously been following steps 1-4.
Men are poorly equipped to do step 5 properly – choosing a suitable woman, because of all of the above steps are not in place. They don’t even know the sequence of steps above, nor do they understand how women’s cascade of interest operates (i.e. Feedback, Trust, Relevancy, and so on), and so they default to thinking with the little head. In reality, few men have any women to choose from at all, let alone one that has been following steps 1-5.
If a man manages to get this far, it is common for men to neglect step 6 — failing to establish commitment and to develop Headship. Men opt out of step 6 because of the huge personal risks involved with the post-modern marriage landscape, and the presence of other opportunities. It is also exceedingly difficult for a man to establish a Headship structure in a relationship these days, and most men don’t even acknowledge this as being crucially important to their long term sanctification.
Women’s Failures
It is common for Westernized women to fail at responding appropriately to men’s attentions (step 3). In general, they find it opprobrious to make their interest too obvious, even though this is what attracts more male attention and makes the Meet Cute cute. If women receive attention from a high SMV man, they will spread their legs at the first opportunity. If they receive attention from a lower SMV man, they will use sexual harassment and “rape” accusations to punish him for showing even a polite interest. Modesty, kindness, and grace are virtually nonexistent in modern women, and are even ridiculed in certain circles.
Women fail at step 4 – vetting men. As mentioned in the previous post, women focus on the chain of Feedback and are blind to the essence of men’s character. Getting Feedback with maximum emotional overtones is their immediate goal, so they prioritize Ego affirmation, sexual arousal, and the Tingles over making a practical choice. Christian women are little different from secular women in this regard. AWALT.
This blindness leads to an epic fail in step 5 — choosing one man out of many, and one who is of suitable quality, worthy of her affections, and sufficiently committed to her. Women are notorious for being poor pickers. So much so, that in times past, a woman’s father took responsibility for steps 4 and 5 of the woman’s roles.
It is also common for women to fail at step 6 as well – submitting to the man they have chosen in honor, and respect. This is primarily one of the ways that Feminism Erodes Marriage.
For both sexes, a lack of self-awareness, poor discernment, as well as emotional and spiritual immaturity reign supreme. Given all these inadequacies and incongruencies in steps 1-6, it is surprising that anyone ever makes it to step 7, and not surprising at all that those who do have a high rate of failure.
Related
- Σ Frame: Redemption and Sexual Healing (2020-12-15)
- Σ Frame: Women Rely on a Man’s Frame for Redemptive Introspection (2021-06-28)
- Σ Frame: Why challenge the character of your wife? (2021-07-07)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Jack, A good study in bringing some of the more obscure concepts together in context for relevance and practical application.
LikeLike
Hasn’t it been said before that in today’s marketplace it would be better for the man if he only chose from among those who paid HIM attention?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would agree that the man should choose from those who have paid him attention. This is not a new concept and is applicable in general and not only in today’s marketplace.
Back around 1916, Bernarr Macfadden in his book, “Manhood and Marriage“, beginning on page 27, discusses that it is the woman and not the man who has made the choice. The average man likes to deceive himself with the idea that he is the pursuing party. He writes that it may be a waste of time to tell a man how to select a wife. It’s more important for the man to know how to avoid women who are not of the proper sort. This would be Step 4 in the Man’s Role. He would explicitly include the woman’s state of health and that of her family in Step 4. Even before getting to Step 4, the man has to assure himself that the woman has normal sexual instincts. Thus, the man should select from those who have shown an interest; this was true in 1916 as well as today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Joe2 has an interesting catch. He wrote [emphasis mine],
The sentence in bold is an interesting nuance of the relative perspective taken. As I discussed in the last couple posts, women also like to carry this same notion. There is apparently a psychological need to exercise volition in order to proceed to trust. Here, I use the word trust in a general sense, meaning to be trusting by nature, to trust one’s self, and to place Heart Trust in the other. I mentioned this about women in the posts, but this may be true for the man as well. This is precisely why I emphasized the importance of the Meet Cute in the interaction by separating them into steps 2-3. In all actuality, I think a successful Meet Cute depends on both sexes doing steps 2-3 in harmonious unison, but they are scantly aware of how it happens.
The man initiates by showing attention to the woman. The woman initiates by responding to that attention. Of course, we might see women doing things to grab a man’s attention, but she is always on the receiving end of attention. Choosing the person as a partner doesn’t come until later in step 5, although this is largely determined by how successful steps 2-3 are, and the desire for choosing that person is likely formed at this earlier stage. As it has been coarsely said around the ‘sphere, “Men know whether they’d F a woman within the first 5 seconds of seeing her. Women know whether they’d F a man within the first 5 minutes of talking with him.” Given these time frames, obviously the man makes the first decision, and needs to invest more than 5 seconds of his time to grab a woman’s interest. Whereas, the woman needs to stick around more than 5 minutes to “get the feel” of the man and develop authentic interest (in contrast to an ephemeral “Wah… He’s so hawt!” reaction). They both make choices to do so, but this all happens quickly and often times subconsciously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Book of Proverbs teaches both. First it teaches young men to avoid the bad ones (the foolish woman, the immoral woman, the contentious woman, etc.), then it teaches them how to choose a good one (the Proverbs 31 woman).
If it really was “a waste of time to tell a man how to select a wife”, the Bible wouldn’t do it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For there to be a good model of “courtship”, we have to be OK with men having standards and boundaries. We as a society have to be OK with men having, and expressing, wants, needs, hopes, and desires for their relationships with women.
The current attitude is,
“Men don’t get to have standards or boundaries. Men are not allowed to have standards or expectations for women. Men need to shut up and take whatever women are willing to offer them. Women are allowed and entitled to do and be whatever they want, and men just have to deal with that. Women are allowed and entitled to take whatever they want from men, and men are required to give it to them. Women are entitled to whatever they want, however they want, from whom they want. Men are not entitled to anything.”
Until we as a society stop lambasting and excoriating men for, you know, (gasp) WANTING things from women and having expectations and standards for them, this doesn’t mean anything.
LikeLiked by 3 people
To put a finer point on it: Men aren’t allowed to do Steps 4 through 7. Men are told that testing women to make sure they meet his standards is mean, cruel, heartless, and sexist. Men aren’t allowed to hold women to any standards. Men aren’t allowed to judge women or reject women for not meeting standards. Men aren’t allowed to evaluate a woman’s overall character. Men aren’t permitted even to decide what standards should be applied.
Men don’t get to do step 5. They’re not allowed to “deem” anything with respect to women. They’re not permitted to determine what her “purpose as a wife” should be.
Step 6 is not allowed either. Men are not allowed to develop Headship. Men are permitted only to “commit”, which is to say, they’re expected to show up with money, time, labor, attention, and resources, to lay them all at a woman’s feet, and to bow his head humbly as she judges him.
There’s no step 7 either. There is only obedience to the woman’s desired order. (“He does what I tell him, how I tell him, when I tell him; he gives me unfettered access to all his resources; I give him what I feel like, how and when I deem it appropriate.”)
LikeLiked by 2 people
True, but it doesn’t have to be the entire nation. You only need your community to be OK with men having standards and boundaries, as the older women of the community enforce Biblical standards on the younger women of the community.
But, that brings us back to the subject of community….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Better yet, don’t tell anyone you are applying standards at all, just apply them to your interactions with people. Be polite in pushing back against people’s behavior that isn’t what you want or expect from them, and become comfortable with telling people that is not what you expect in your dealings with them. Doing this will yield results you probably aren’t getting otherwise and a surprising number of people will comply with reasonable standards that are appropriate for the situation you are in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In his book, Real Time Relationships, Stefan Molyneux provides a pretty simple template for what you’re talking about here.
First, don’t wait to point out the behavior you find unacceptable. As much as possible, point it out as soon as it happens. That’s why the book is called Real Time Relationships.
Second, say something like, “I don’t like the way you just talked to me. That was disrespectful.” Then, depending on how the person responds, you may talk it out, or you may leave.
I know it sounds cheesy, and way too simple to do any good, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how much less conflict my wife and I have had since I started using that template.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oscar – I take a very similar course of action with Mrs. Apostle as you do with your wife. The approach also works well with colleagues at work and as long as you are polite, kind and firm it tends to work out well.
LikeLike
Agreed. The reason it works, I think, is because you’re not telling them what to do. You’re just telling them what you prefer. That puts the ball in their court. If you’re “polite, kind and firm”, and they’re a decent person, they’ll at least try to reach a compromise. If they’re not a decent person…. well… now, you know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But, also learn that certain behaviors have a meaning such that you don’t need to look any further.
For example, on that rare occasion when I match with a woman via one of the online dating avenues, if I ask a question, and she does not reply, then I move on as this is clear evidence that she is not really interested.
I could be wrong and modern women don’t understand how to have a conversation, but if that’s the case, I’m still not interested because I like conversation.
What’s the other oh so obvious example? If a woman gives you her number and you call and she doesn’t answer, or you text and she doesn’t reply, try twice and then move on. She is not interested.
LikeLike
At first glance, I thought this seven step schema was a bit complicated. However, I walked slowly through the seven steps with my Meet Cute, my wife of 32 years; and yes, all seven steps were followed. Interestingly, I’d add ‘not by me,’ at least not by me consciously. I believe God was directing me at the time, because I sure as hә!! didn’t have a clue about any of these steps, but He certainly did.
As I’ve posted before, I had two other women at the time, a 24 year old churchian carouseller, and a 29 year old carouseller in the process of jumping off the CC in an attempt to get herself hitched to my (or someone’s) BetaBucks wagon. My little head was doing most of the thinking for me and I could have selected either carouseller, well, really only the 29 year old because the 24 year old had recently dumped me because I was “too spiritual” for her; not goody two shoes spiritual, but pursuing after God type spirituality.
But here’s what occurred to me in reading this; how in the world would we ever get young men and women to follow this seven step sequence since our culture has just about wiped it out into oblivion as some antiquated thing they did back in the 1950s and earlier, before the post-1960s so-called ‘enlightenment?’ Like I said, I wasn’t necessarily following it 32 years ago. A combination of my Blue Pill mindset and an active, at times over active libido, was clouding my thinking. I was in a fog. I can see God stepped in and played the role of ‘Dad’ in this whole thing and did the vetting for his ‘clueless’ son.
I do remember at that time way back then (seems like ancient history now), a thought something like this crossed my mind, “I think I should go with the 21 year old instead of the 29 year old. The older one gets me really turned on, but she’s also bordering on bat shit crazy half the time.” She didn’t seem worth the trouble. After I paused long enough to stop looking entirely at the situation with my little head, I asked myself, “How would you ever put up with all her craziness in the long run?”
The younger one was almost as attractive and sexy as the older one, and seemed much more MANAGEABLE by me (there’s part of your seven steps). I had no words to explain it, if you’d asked me back then why, she just did. Part of it was that she exhibited no BSC traits, not a one… As an aside, I do remember the older one having ‘words’ with me about it one night. She was pretty darn belligerent as she ‘Karen-ed me’ real good. Shamed me with accusations of chasing after ‘young, little girls’ and ‘robbing the cradle’. (I was 30 at the time.)
Years later with a Red Pill view of relationships, I can see she had way too many red flags and the marriage would never have lasted; and I would have probably lost half my stuff in the divorce court, plus any kids if we ever had any. She’d fit in well with these 2021 women and their ways of being and acting. I was lucky. God’s grace, AKA unmerited favor, for sure.
How in the world would we ever teach this stuff, these seven steps, in today’s world? I think God intervened in my case because he had mercy on my utter ‘Blue Pill stupidity,’ and I guess honored me in that I was really pursuing my relationship with him despite the battles with my flesh over women. However, I know this is not everyone’s case, as many men have suffered greatly, and I truly feel for my brothers. I was uber fortunate back-in-the-day, or I’d have suffered immensely too, for certain.
LikeLiked by 4 people
That’s a major lesson for young men to learn. Just because you can attract her, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can manage her, and the hotter ones tend to feel more entitled to be unmanageable. I think you can start teaching young men by showing them the classic “Hot-Crazy Matrix” video. It’s pretty entertaining, but contains a lot of truth.
That’s called envy.
It’s a lot easier in a community where the parents are involved in the courtship process. Those communities do exist. Aside from that, I think it requires fathers having frank, blunt, sometimes painful conversations with their sons explaining these principles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Oscar,
How true. There have been plenty of women up in my grill at the bar or nightclub that would be an absolute disaster to try and date let alone marry. The odds were small they’d be faithful, but even if they were, it would take far too much effort to enjoy a peaceful life.
It’s like if a woman’s dream is to live like a posh life in NYC, well then, we aren’t a good match. I’d rather see NYC fall off into the deepest part of the ocean.
LikeLike
Oscar,
You don’t even have to live in a community where everyone is on the same page. All that is necessary is that you know, or get to know, the parent’s of your kid’s significant other. It helps if both families have known each other for a while, such as if they have attended the same church for years, but even if that is not the case getting to know them can still be affective given ….
You have been teaching your kids the truth from a young age (Proverbs 22:6). My boys are in 1st and 3rd grades currently. Along with my wife and I doing our best now to model marriage the way God lays it out in the Bible, I take opportunities as they present themselves. I give them RP knowledge. For instance, when there is the all too typical sassy, loud little girl character on a kid’s show, I’ll ask them if that is how girls are supposed to behave or if they think that girls who behave like the one on TV would make a good wife. This is how I am teaching them the expected behavior for any woman they might consider for marriage.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@ RPA
That’s true. For better, or worse, women tend to take after their mothers, and men tend to take after their fathers. If your son has the hots for a girl, and you know that girl’s mother is a contentious shrew, you might be able to steer him away from her by pointing to her mother, and asking him, “Is that really what you want for the rest of your life?”
LikeLike
As a rule of thumb, this is generally true, but in reality it’s not quite so simple and there are always exceptions which prove to be d@mning.
My mother and father were the exception. They did not hold true to this rule of thumb, leading to disappointment on both sides.
My dad’s father was a self-made man, worldly and sophisticated. His mother was UMC and rather liberated for her generation, had her own career, and was a very independent social butterfly. One of the reasons my mom married my dad is because she identified with his mother and she thought that my dad would be like his dad. However, since my grandparents divorced, my dad was rebellious in the sense of intentionally wanting to be fundamentally different from his parents. He had the UMC mindset and values, but none of the worldliness. He wanted a stable home and marriage, not social ascendancy.
My mom’s father came from a very successful MC immigrant family. He was very hard-working and practical. Her mother was a very traditional SAHM who doted on my grandpa. They were happily married for 52 years at the time my grandfather died. One of the reasons my dad married my mother is because he saw that her parents had a very functional traditional home and he was thinking that he was getting a woman like her mother.
I don’t know how my parents ever got married with such a huge blind spot in their discrepancy of values. Their marriage did not work out. They divorced after 28 years of marriage. My mother’s second husband is very worldly and sophisticated, just like my dad’s father, and my dad’s new wife is very practical, hard working, and traditional, just like my mother’s parents, which is what they always wanted in the first place.
So while I agree that women tend to take after their mothers, and men tend to take after their fathers, sometimes people intentionally choose a spouse who is fundamentally different from their own family of upbringing for reasons, and these reasons reveal the deeper nature of the person. This is something that needs to be considered.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, there are exceptions, but the norm remains.
I used to think that the old fashioned obsession with marrying someone from a good family was unfair, because after all, you can’t choose the family you were born into.
Harsh experience has beaten that thinking out of me.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oscar,
Beyond seeing what a person’s parents are like, getting to know them allows you to talk with them strategically about family life and the kids when they were growing up. The typical conversation is a wealth of information. I would not advocate making snap decisions on that info, but I would certainly use it to help guide my sons to the areas that they should investigate further on their own. There is also the potential that I’d get to observe how these girls interact with their fathers which I believe is a better indicator of how they’d be as a wife than merely observing the mother’s behavior.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a good point.
Another point is that if you, and your wife, really like a family, the simple act of spending a lot of time together nearly guarantees that some of your kids will pair off. It’s like my favorite line from It’s a Wonderful Life….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I still say that the best way to test/manage a “hawt” chick who is demonstrating interest is to either be nonchalant/apathetic, or even ignore her. Or, if you want to see how sensitive her “nuclear trigger” is, show interest in one of her plain-Jane friends or relatives. How she reacts to these scenarios will tell you how much “hot crazy b!+ch” there is in her. Most are high on that scale, but there are rare ones who are the polar opposite. You’re filtering for these.
LikeLike
This is an awesome one. Had to book mark because I have a feeling I’ll be coming back to this one time and time again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Since I brought it up, I thought I should post it here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First time seeing this! Clever, clever! I’d begin the young men’s vetting training right here with this as the overview. Of course, there is a deeper level the training has to go too, but this would be a good start.
One thing I’d add to the ‘check out the parents’ conversation in the above posts, even in that angle, one has to be careful. I’m thinking of two quick examples off the top of my head of women from stable, two-parent homes. If you look at it from the surface level, everything appears solid, e.g. mom and dad have been married for decades, still in their first marriage; dad’s the breadwinner, mom is stay at home mom with a nice side job, no immediate ‘tells’ in either parent (parental red flags)… HOWEVER, when you look deeper, that’s when the red flags appear.
In one case, MOM is a feminist, bought into the feminist life script, but maintains it on the down low until her ‘progressive side’ gets triggered; then, out it comes from her mouth, mom morphs into Gloria Steinem. So, dear daughter, acts and dresses conservatively like mom, but really has mom’s values at heart and her tell which she tries to hide very covertly is that she is a CC rider, and has been since her teens (31 now). Her N-count is no doubt double digits.
The other woman, she dresses conservatively, has a lot of good qualities about her, now married, good side jobs to support hubby; BUT she and her father don’t get along at all. I mean like barely tolerate each other. On the flip side, she and mom are thick as thieves as the saying goes, both down on dad, as i ‘dad’s an incorrigible asshole.’ I’ve met dad and talked with him. He seems okay to me, but can be a bit of an old school asshole and he’s from another country, Israel, so he brings that mindset along with him into our gynocentric cultural shit show; a bit of a mismatch for sure. Daughter is also is on prescription meds and sees a therapist regularly because she suffers from anxiety disorder. Don’t think she was a CC rider, or much of one, but her beautiful packaging is marred by her therapeutic disorders. On her meds, nice girl; off her meds, run for the hills gentlemen!
How do I know all this about these two lovelies? I mentor/coached them during the educational programs we were part of, they were assigned to me. I was still blue pill at the time and I remember thinking, what lovely young women I’ve been assigned–Beautiful, dressed conservatively in a feminine way, accomplished academically, into personal growth & development training, etc. Well, yes they were on the surface, especially with what we have running around out there passing for womanhood these days. They’d pass the initial vetting test, or Crazy test the YouTube video was talking about. In other words, they look on the surface as candidates for the wife zone, but when you go deeper, that’s when you see the red flags. They’re not really wife zone girls, but Fun Zone girls; well, Fun Zone for one, the other one is probably a Danger Zone chick.
LikeLike
This is solid, absolute, hard science that needs to be taught to young men.
LikeLike
Pingback: Summary of the Meet Cute Phenomenon | Σ Frame
Pingback: Moral Guidance Based Feedback vs. Sexual Attention | Σ Frame
Pingback: Blue Pill Arrogance of the 80s | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Young Man’s Problem | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Meet Cute Experience as a Selection Model | Σ Frame
Pingback: How to Tell if Your Date might be an Adulteress | Σ Frame
Pingback: Pursuing Flow to develop Confidence and Trust | Σ Frame
Pingback: Laying out Expectations | Σ Frame
Pingback: Do women possess moral agency? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame
Pingback: Vetting Flags | Σ Frame
Pingback: Good Relationships are Chosen and Developed, NOT “Found” by Chance | Σ Frame
Pingback: Summary of Boundaries | Σ Frame
Pingback: Selecting Markets for better Market Selection | Σ Frame
Pingback: Esoteric Masculinity | Σ Frame