How do we teach young women about their own nature?

…like whether they are attracted to cruelty?

Readership: Men
Theme: Identity, Image, and Impressions
Author’s Note: This post was coauthored with Jack.
Length: 1,300 words
Reading Time: 4.5 minutes

Are Women attracted to Cruelty?

It’s pretty well known in these parts that women are strongly attracted to the cocky funny jerk.

I was kind of a cocky jerk in high school. I turned out ok, but I noticed early on in life that I could manipulate girls into doing pretty much anything I wanted with the right combination of boyishness, cruelty, smart-@ssery, and aloof demeanor. It was fun.

Now that I have two daughters, I have a different view of this phenomenon.

Some years back, Sunshine Mary wrote a post about how she observed her 13-year-old daughter clearly starting to “tingle” for a boy at the pool who was kind of a cocky jerk, launching water balloons at the girl, aiming them right at her @ss. She liked it, and SSM could see it.

I remember she wrote about how she discussed this proclivity with her daughter. But I don’t remember much else.

Which reminds me, speaking of “equality” and introspection, has anyone on here ever met a woman who is willing to confront why they are attracted to power, money, and cruelty, and what they are doing to teach their daughters this is not good?

It’s important to inform our daughters how and why they might become unlucky in love.

The money and power are easy to understand when it comes to why a woman is attracted to them. A man with a bit of Game might understand how being a jerk can be endearing to women. But with the cruelty, it’s a little harder to see.

Red Pill Apostle noted that when a man is able to get away with being cruel without consequences it is an indicator of status and power which we know attracts women like flies to honey.

Red Pill Apostle also said that women are attracted to like kind, which is another way to describe Deep Strength’s Law of Reciprocality (not to be confused with reciprocity). In this view, women are attracted to cruelty because it is a way for them to justify being cruel themselves without mentally accepting responsibility for their actions. This reduces the cost the other person pays in their minds so the cruelty doesn’t seem as horrible as it really is.

But the thing is, since this is a site for men, how do we discuss this with our daughters?

Or is it mom’s job?

Leave it to beaver.

Different Sins for Different Wins

My point in bringing up the money, power, cruelty thing is several fold.

My contention is that the curse has implications beyond just men toiling and women trying to usurp.

I believe that the sexes, in the aggregate, have (naturally occurring) greater challenges with different sins and different categories of sins. I have run afoul with a clergy friend over this issue. Basically, individuals are drawn into certain sins that enhance their chances of getting a short term payoff in an area of life that is strongly desired. This has vastly different implications between the sexes, such that they contradict each other and run amok. Rollo describes this standoff in his Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:

“For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

But as Christians, we are called to take a longer view, which means that we need to help young people jump these hurdles so that they can arrive in marriage without too much damage.

I believe that we (the current “civilization” that is) are very good at identifying and explaining to men what their innate challenges to being a good person are. It is a constant droning on in the ambient air of scolding and finger waving at us about aggression, immaturity, irresponsibility, sexual passions, etc.

But we never do this with girls!

What about vanity? What about pettiness?

What about the long list of solipsistic tendencies Deti mentioned that really should be brought under check?

  • Carelessness
  • Emotional dysregulation (The self-arrogation of the “right” to express their emotions however, whenever, wherever, and upon whomever, they want. Commonly known as vomitpuking negative emotions all over someone.)
  • Laziness, sloth
  • Self-absorption
  • Self-centeredness
  • Selfishness
  • Thoughtlessness
  • Wastefulness

These are things that everyone has the potential to struggle with, but I think it’s pretty easy to observe who has trouble fighting these urges the most.

Feedback

Jack has been hammering on feedback lately. Feedback is the point of communication that we all operate in relation to, and in reaction to one another. So a quick primer/reminder on Operant Conditioning is appropriate at this point. This is the usual go to in behavior modification, disciplining, and training.

There is a hierarchy of effectiveness that works for everyone (male or female). It goes like this, from most effective to least:

  1. Positive reinforcement (rewarding for good behavior)
  2. Ignoring (literally ignoring the bad behavior — this is sometimes called “negative punishment” but I consider it a totally different animal)
  3. Negative reinforcement (withdrawing something negative to reinforce good behavior)
  4. Punishment (negative consequences for bad behavior)

We do this for boys all the time. We praise them when they take their aggression and channel into athletic competition, or academic achievement. But do we praise little girls for taking their natural instincts and doing something good with them? I can’t think of an example of this I have seen, ever.

Most behaviorists will use the axiom, “we praise and reinforce the behavior we want to see more of, and we ignore the behavior we want to extinguish”, and that is fine, to a point. But you cannot ignore a toddler running into a busy intersection. Likewise, you cannot very well ignore your teenage daughter running into todays SMP. You get the idea.

Revealing Women’s Nature Obliquely

Results vary from case to case, but probably one of the worst things we could do is give our daughters a long dry sermon about sexual sin. We might think we’re giving them some valuable advice, but they’ll view it as a punishment for having normal desires. It’s hard to address these issues head on when they happen, because women get “offended” and deny everything by default.

Is there another way?

I think one effective way to teach our daughters (and possibly wives too) about their own nature is to bring their attention to interesting or humorous analogies, using memes or anecdotal stories.

For example, Oscar shared this humorous meme.

Along the same vein, Jack shared this video from the Babylon Bee.

As an aside, that meme and the Babylon Bee video depict exactly the kind of response I think some people are hoping for in the case of hard reset. However, depending on how “hard” it is, we may see something like warlords hoarding 99% of the women using nothing but their cruelty and power, and the rest of men out in the cold. The current technologies are the wildcard in that scenario. Who knows? Maybe it will work out, or God will cause the end of the world first.

One last example is how Eternity Matters got his daughters to view tattoos more objectively and for the faddishness that they really are.

“When my daughters were around 10-12, I asked if they remembered how much they liked Barney the Dinosaur. They sheepishly acknowledged it. Then I asked if they would have been glad if they had gotten Barney tattoos when they were younger. They got the point that what seems cool at one age might be unbelievably stupid when you are older. They are 30-ish now and never bought into the tattoo scene.”

Closing

The point here is that from these types of media, our women can get a better appreciation of what men bring to the table, and why traditional roles and values are appropriate and fitting. It may not shake them out of being attracted to jerks nor completely null their interest in worldly trends, but it should at least make them more aware of their own nature, and maybe serve as an ice breaker to open the topic and get them willing to talk about such things.

I’m curious to know if any fathers here have found any other methods or techniques for broaching touchy subjects with their daughters and/or expanding their self-awareness?

Related

This entry was posted in Agency, Boundaries, Child Development, Discernment, Wisdom, Education, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Introspection, Leadership, Male Power, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Media, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Power, Psychology, Purpose, Relationships, Satire, Self-Control, Solipsism, Sphere of Influence, Stewardship, Strategy, Teaching, The Power of God, Trust. Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to How do we teach young women about their own nature?

  1. info says:

    “Red Pill Apostle noted that when a man is able to get away with being cruel without consequences it is an indicator of status and power which we know attracts women like flies to honey.”

    At least in school, the victim should have the right to fight back against the aggressor. And the aggressor gets punished accordingly.

    The power and right of violence is a flex of power in a most basic sense. It’s like the subject of Gun Control. The Criminal shouldn’t have free reign. But the potential victim should have equal right of violence and ability to fight back.

    This prevents Civilized Men from being punked by Bandits/Criminals. And it would allow Civilized Men to look higher status as a result of triumphing over his enemies.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    “Which reminds me, speaking of “equality” and introspection, has anyone on here ever met a woman who is willing to confront why they are attracted to power, money, and cruelty, and what they are doing to teach their daughters this is not good?”

    The answer is no, because women don’t see their attraction as a negative. And these days, they can gorge all they like on the bad boy feast. It’s like an unrepentant alcoholic lecturing teenagers on the dangers of drinking. I would argue that women have been educating their sisters and daughters for a century, and debauchery has been the result. The responsibility is going to fall on men.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      *twists mustache * …indeed indeed. I’m currently working on a piece to expose some of that nonsense. Ladies like this are no better than Christians (male or female) who don’t see sex outside of wedlock as negative.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Thanks for the link!

    We never talked about being attracted to cruelty. It just never came up. By the grace of God, our daughters turned out as unicorns. Not female Jesuses, of course, but they married relatively young (at 22 and 25 — and the youngest thought she was an old maid by not marrying until 25) to great Christian guys, and we are in victory lap mode now where we can just enjoy them all. I think it was the culmination of many small and consistent things that we did and said. They knew that you shouldn’t date non-Christians. Neither dated recreationally. It wasn’t that we forbid it, they just weren’t boy-crazy in high school or after. The youngest recently commented on how she loves serving her husband, and she meant it.

    We never got into the purity culture thing, but when it was a fad my oldest wanted a purity ring. I was glad to buy it but didn’t make a big deal about it. She accidentally lost it and was upset about it. I realize this is totally cringe and trite as I type it, but I matter-of-factly pointed out that I’d gladly replace the ring, but she couldn’t replace her purity if she gave it away. I think that stuck. They were not impressed by girls who slept around.

    The oldest was, by nature, strong in character and virtually immune to peer pressure. The youngest looked up to her and that helped her to stay on the right path. We joke that the youngest had three parents.

    They were very active in ballet, dancing 6 days a week in high school, so being busy and having goals helped. Social media was new at the time – poisonous, as we all found out, but nothing as bad as it is today.

    I think that living out our faith authentically helped. They knew we weren’t “Sunday Christians.” I wasn’t as disciplined about family devotional times as I should have been, but we had long stretches where we’d do something at least weekly. When they were younger I’d read the Bible to them every night before bed. Shame on me for getting out of that habit. Lots of little things may have helped: Stand to Reason used to have some short messages that I’d play for them in the car. They knew my “decision making and the will of God” lessons inside and out. I heard one quoting me word-for-word to a friend once. We had good relationships and knew they were loved, and did not want to disappoint us. One posted something sketchy (but not that bad) on social media once and I emailed her about it. I found out later that she was in tears and took it down immediately. I was active in pregnancy center and prison ministries, so they knew plenty of stories about how bad choices can destroy lives. Mainly they heard the gospel from us and knew they weren’t saved by works. But they also knew that sin has consequences. We were just talking yesterday with the youngest about how men and women both sin – a lot – but in different ways.

    We ensured they knew that they couldn’t live on the fumes of our faith. When our youngest was in high school, she asked to join a friend’s church that she often visited. We knew the friend’s family well, and the church was sound (we eventually moved there ourselves). I was thrilled that she was taking ownership of her faith and grew a lot there. Both daughters wisely chose churches after they left our house.

    I made sure they both knew about apologetics and that they were free to ask tough questions. Interestingly, when they knew a lot of facts about the faith and didn’t feel pressured to “just believe,” it seemed to make their faith stronger.

    For what it is worth, they read my blog, at least in the early days (starting in 2006), when I wrote about apologetics, pro-life, evangelism, whaling on the “Christian” Left, politics, etc. I never quizzed them on it, but sometimes they’d reference things that I knew they could have only known about through my blog.

    There were dozens more things that I think helped, but I’ll stop rambling now. My main point is that it wasn’t anything close to just one or two conversations that made the difference. I’d do and say many things differently, but by the grace of God, these things worked well.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      Dude, that’s cool man. Between you, Els, and others, it’s so inspirational to read about young ladies raised in good families who turn out as decent. With everything going on in the world, as much as God knows I want children, having daughters is a scary notion. Well, not scary, but sounds like it’ll be more difficult to keep them on the right path as opposed to sons…mainly due to herd mentality.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Agreed, thanks. I should add that we prayed for a couple decades that there would be families raising up godly men for them. We joke that God answered that prayer and even brought guys with bonus features, as the girls’ in-laws are great as well. All are committed Christians and the relationships are great all around.

        But yes, scary is the right word. Sounds weird, but even replaying the past can feel scary. I obviously know how things turned out, but when you realize how easily things could have gotten off track it is daunting. Parenting has been great, but it is a dicey proposition.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. thedeti says:

    To start with, we need to stop lying to women. We need to stop pedestalizing them, as Orthosphere blogger “Kristor” does here:

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014065.html

    Excerpts:

    (When Kristor uses the term “gamers” and “Gamers”, he refers to pickup artists and practitioners of Game.)

    one should understand that only depraved women are attracted to men who are nothing more than gamers.

    Women who are helplessly attracted to rogue men, and thus vulnerable to the deceptions of gamers, are messed up.

    If a woman is to go on living, there must remain somewhere in her a bit of moral purity, for depravity and sin are defects of a basic goodness. Destroy that basis altogether, and you destroy altogether the life in which alone depravity and sin can make their dwelling place. Evil parasitically depends upon the good that it destroys. So, a living woman necessarily has in her somewhere a bit of goodness, that yearns for what will support her true flourishing—that will discourage her depravity, and encourage her virtue. So every living woman is attracted at root to men who are good.

    True men, good men, have reckoned their own death, and pledged their life and its ending to the service of the Good. They do not therefore chafe under the inevitable difficulties and sacrifices of life—including long periods of celibacy, such as soldiers, hunters, and explorers must endure—but rather shoulder them manfully. They do not whine at adversity. They laugh. Thus are heroes made, however humble their predicaments, however meager their ultimate victories, and whether or not anyone recognizes them as such. These are the sort of men to whom the goodness in women, the true womanliness of women, is attracted. Women want heroes; everyone does. We are all tuned to recognize heroism, and follow it, because we are all made to seek and follow the Good. True success with women, then, whether or not it ever bears the fruit of sexual pleasure, lies not in pretending to heroism, but in heroism itself.

    Here’s where Kristor, like everyone before him and since him, goes wrong:

    1) Sin is not a defect. It’s a part of human nature. Every human is born with it. If it were a defect, it could be removed and cured. It could be designed out. You can fix defects. You can design and manufacture a defect-free product. Not so with humans and their sin natures. If sin nature could be designed out, removed, and cured, there would be no need for God and no need for Jesus’ atoning death on the Cross. Sin is part of our nature.

    2) All women are attracted to Game hallmarks: confidence, dominance, cocky-funny, competence, displays of power, bullying, and cruelty. ALL women are. ALL women. ALL women like these displays in men. ALL of them. It’s just that some women don’t act on it. Most women do act on that attraction, because there’s currently no real short term temporal downside to doing so.

    3) ALL women are messed up in some form or fashion. Because they have sin natures. ALL women are messed up.

    4) Women are not “attracted” to the “good” or the Good. Women like to use the Good in men. Women like to exploit and take advantage of Good men. Women see the benefits of commitment from Good men. Women want those benefits only when they figure out that the bad, cruel men they really want are not going to stick around. But they are not, ARE NOT, sexually attracted to Good, or to Good men. And, candidly, sexual attraction is the only “attraction” that matters, because it’s the incentive that drives men to have anything to do with women.

    Women are not in any way attracted to good men. Women are not in any way attracted to the Good in men. If they were, they would not need to be taught any of this. IF they were, none of them would need to learn this the hard way.

    5) Trad Cons like Kristor like to call women’s wanting commitment, resources, time, and labor from Good men “attraction”, because it attributes virtue to women’s “choices” and because men’s sexual attraction and men wanting sex from women is base, dirty, and evil. First, Kristor pedestalizes women unnecessarily. Women’s wanting beta bux men is not attraction in any real meaningful sense of the word. It is want and need, use, exploitation, and crass advantage. Second, men’s wanting and expecting sex from women is not evil or base or dirty in any way. It is normal and natural. And we as men do ourselves grave disservices when we accept this from tradcons like Kristor and his ilk.

    6) Women are not attracted to “heroes”. If they were, we would not have a 50% divorce rate nor a rising “never married” rate.

    7) Kristor’s last point is the usual one: “Yeah, some of you are ‘heroes’, but no one will ever recognize it as such.” Well, then, they’re not heroes, Kristor. They might be servants, they might be Godly men, they might be faithful, loyal, and just. But they’re not heroes. And no, not everyone wants heroes. More and more women want gamers. More and more women want cocky-funny, irrational self confidence, and extreme dominance.

    Kristor gets it totally wrong, just as most of his ilk do.

    If we are going to teach young women about their own natures, Kristor’s way is NOT the way to do it. Kristor’s way is pedestalization, wrongly attributing virtue to women, presuming that women don’t have a sin nature, lying to men about what women are really attracted to, completely misunderstanding what attraction is and how it works, and demonizing men and the male sex drive.

    Don’t listen to men like Kristor.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      If women were attracted to Good men, they would pick Good men, EVERY time, and avoid PUAs and game practitioners, EVERY time.

      If women were attracted to Good men, we would not have a 50% divorce rate, professing Christians would not report a divorce rate of “only” 38%, and there would be no need for the manosphere or any of these blogs.

      If women were attracted to Good men, marriage counseling would not be necessary at all.

      Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        You think that there isn’t some truth to God designing women to be attracted to virtues but only bad guys seem to be displaying masculinity more nowadays than purported nice guys?

        God didn’t design attraction to evil. Female sexual desire isn’t inherently evil. Lust is perverted good.

        Evil is always parasitic on good.

        Like

      • info says:

        As Heartiste observed, our Lord and master was a master at holding frame and sucking others into His frame.

        And frame is the most crucial aspect of Game. It seems like an essential masculine quality men need to have in order to be actually attractive. God wouldn’t design said attraction unless there is purpose behind it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        If women were attracted to virtuous men, we wouldn’t have the problems we have. There are millions of virtuous men.

        Women refuse those men, because those men aren’t hot.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        Then there is something missing with “Virtuous Men” isn’t it. That they are actually emasculated in some way?

        Again I point to our Lord’s Jesus example which Heartiste recognizes as a form of masculinity that is missing from “Virtuous Men”:

        Chateau Heartiste: Jesus had Game (2014-4-17)

        It’s the same refrain that women aren’t attracted to “Nice guys”.

        So in your estimation the original desires of women involve attraction to “Virtuous Men?” as God intended it. Or is it a perversion of attraction to Masculinity?

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Let’s get away from nice guys vs gamers and if virtuous men have masculine qualities and state the obvious cause of the problem. Women, as the weaker sex from an emotional stability standpoint, are horrible choosers of men. Always have been and always will be until Christ returns and the new creation is formed. This is one reason why a father had the authority to choose his daughter’s husband for her.

        Women are attracted to masculine qualities and both the unvirtuous and virtuous can have and display them. It can be easier for the unvirtuous man to display those qualities in a way women emotionally connect with. For instance, he may impulsively display strength and/or power in a cruel manner that makes it easy to observe. Where the strength and power of a virtuous man might show up in how he restrains himself in the moment because he’s thinking multiple steps down the road.

        The bottom line is that women are not attracted to virtue, or the lack thereof, they are attracted to masculine qualities. They just aren’t very good at recognizing the authentic article which is why game tactics work at garnering their interest.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        “Women, as the weaker sex from an emotional stability standpoint, are horrible choosers of men.”

        I agree, however, the underlying message behind Scott’s Axiom is that women should do the picking, not the men. There’s obviously some dissonance here that needs sorted out.

        “The bottom line is that women are not attracted to virtue, or the lack thereof, they are attracted to masculine qualities. They just aren’t very good at recognizing the authentic article which is why game tactics work at garnering their interest.”

        Masculinity has a magnetic effect on women, but women will pass over masculine, and especially virtuous masculine men (according to our current understanding of virtuous), if these men are inept at game. So in practice, we see that women are not as attracted to masculinity as much as they are attracted to game, especially the aspects of charisma, confidence, and detachment. In essence, women want game for the sake of game alone. Women don’t really care about the man himself, much less his character or other virtues, but only that he can stay up on his game with her, and Scott’s addendum, “as long as she think’s he’s hot.” Women are especially interested in the feedback, humility, and motivating incentives that come with game. I think as Christians, we should come to understand authentic Headship this way.

        Dalrock hit on this same idea years ago.

        “Ironically, when it comes to the equation of male sexual attractiveness with virtue, Heartiste is directly challenging conventional wisdom. It isn’t pickup artists who are mistaken by thinking that men’s virtue is measured by their ability to generate the tingle; it is everyone else.”

        Dalrock: Don’t blame Heartiste for the equation of Alpha with virtue. (2015-6-13)

        Unfortunately, Dalrock associated this equation with sexual immorality and therefore rejected the whole idea as a progressive notion of a “human derived code”, humorously quipping that “the clitoris is a divining rod for virtue”. He did not identify a man’s ability to assume authentic headship as a virtue.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        RPA

        OK. Let’s get all the way to this.

        What’s really going on here is that increasingly, men with alpha sexy qualities and men with beta comfort qualities are becoming two distinct groups, never the twain shall meet. You’re either all alpha dirtbag; or you’re all beta milquetoast p_ssyboy. Increasingly, it’s to the point with women that there is no such man with any sort of mix of alpha and beta.

        If you have even one drop of beta, if you show any nonalpha characteristics whatsoever, to women, you’re a worthless beta who’s primed for utility and exploitation.

        And, yes, increasingly, there is a dearth of men who show any sort of alpha traits. There is a dearth of virtuous good men who are in shape, confident, dominant, and refuse to put up with sh!t from women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        thedeti,

        “What’s really going on here is that increasingly, men with alpha sexy qualities and men with beta comfort qualities are becoming two distinct groups, never the twain shall meet. You’re either all alpha dirtbag; or you’re all beta milquetoast p_ssyboy. Increasingly, it’s to the point with women that there is no such man with any sort of mix of alpha and beta.”

        Welcome to the result of 50 years of women being in charge and telling men what they like. Couple that with the explosion of single motherhood and there are tens of millions of men who are way behind the 8 ball. Meanwhile, a few men figure out what women are really like and what they really want. Those men are rewarded for their knowledge and willingness to use it, which inspires them to more of the behavior that was successful. The men who buy what women tell them get fewer opportunities to interact with women and see the truth for themselves, and over a few generations the “haves” and “have nots” become more and more distinct as groups. The chasm between the two groups is rarely bridged, and only then after some sort of trauma that wakes the man from his delusions. Scott post about his divorce is an example, as am I after reaching the end of my rope in a sexless marriage.

        I know that some of my neighbors are resistant to RP messaging so their sons face a steeper uphill battle. My boys are in grade school and I have already started the process of red pilling the h3ll out them. They are going to have a distinctly different view of women, dating and marriage than the majority of their peers. This is how the distinction becomes clearer between alpha and beta over the generation.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Jack,

        “In essence, women want game for the sake of game alone. Women don’t really care about the man himself, much less his character or other virtues, but only that he can stay up on his game with her, and Scott’s addendum, “as long as she think’s he’s hot.” Women are especially interested in the feedback, humility, and motivating incentives that come with game.”

        Women think they want game, but then become disillusioned by it because wanting anything on a performance basis is bound to lead to failure and heartbreak. The secret is that they don’t know what they truly want and they can’t articulate what they truly want, but they know it when they come across it. Even then a man must take her affirmation of having what she wants with a grain of salt because of the feelz.

        I’ll chalk this one up to another one of my beliefs my wife tore down. I remember being in my kitchen having left her another note because she wanted to feel appreciated or thought of and I used to leave her cards with notes when we were dating. I’ll paraphrase her comment,

        Mrs. RPA: “The notes are nice, buuuuuuut they just, I don’t know, I mean, I’m grateful you’re thinking of me, but that’s not what I mean.”
        RPA:
        “What do you mean then?”
        Mrs. RPA: “Um, uh, I can’t explain it but I know it when I see it.”

        At this point I cussed at her like a sailor in my head and then told her out loud that if she does not know what she wants she better figure this one out on her own because I’m done trying and we’re doing things my way. In this interaction, another brick was put in the headship foundation, and surprise surprise, that is actually what she really wants. She wants a man to be the boss which puts her under authority in some regards, but so much more free on the whole. This is yet another marital likeness of how Christ frees his children by setting boundaries and rules for them.

        Bottom line, women want biblical headship because it frees them to be fun, flirty and feminine by putting the load men were made to carry where it belongs. Women are clueless that this is what they truly want, in fact they are openly hostile to it, because it involves submission and obedience to a man, which in modern times are harbingers of the apocalypse.

        Contrast this with a man’s response to what he really wants. Men will give details specific to their personal tastes, but at the core men’s desires come down to the following; belly full, balls drained, organized and peaceful home (she bites her tongue and obeys) and most men can articulate this in some form or fashion.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “Women think they want game, but then become disillusioned by it because wanting anything on a performance basis is bound to lead to failure and heartbreak. The secret is that they don’t know what they truly want and they can’t articulate what they truly want, but they know it when they come across it.”

        I think women don’t know they want game, at least not at first. The women who become disillusioned with game have had men game them out to the point of them becoming disappointed with it, and at that point, they become aware that they want(ed) game and they reject it because they’ve seen how they get played by it. IOW, they’ve become jaded.

        “In this interaction, another brick was put in the headship foundation, and surprise surprise, that is actually what she really wants. She wants a man to be the boss which puts her under authority in some regards, but so much more free on the whole.”

        You couldn’t have asserted headship without a bit of game.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “At this point I cussed at her like a sailor in my head and then told her out loud that if she does not know what she wants she better figure this one out on her own because I’m done trying and we’re doing things my way.”

        That’s disagreeable behavior that many would interpret as jerky. There are good reasons why women respond well to that behavior, and we shouldn’t try to change that tendency. We should explain to our daughters, and our sons, the “why”.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Kristor lists out several traits of Good men: Stoicism, perseverance, laughing at adversity, bearing burdens manfully – and claims that women are attracted to men who have such traits.

      No. No they are not. Women are not sexually attracted to such men unless those men are also confident, dominant, cocky funny, and good looking.

      Women want to use men’s stoicism, perseverance, facing adversity, and burden bearing, because men who have those traits are providers, they stick around, and they tend to be kind and patient. Women are not attracted to those men. They are willing to use, exploit, and take advantage of such men. But they are not attracted to those men.

      And we need to make sure men and women know the difference.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedetiforpresident says:

        “Kristor lists out several traits of Good men: Stoicism, perseverance, laughing at adversity, bearing burdens manfully – and claims that women are attracted to men who have such traits.

        No. No they are not. Women are not sexually attracted to such men unless those men are also confident, dominant, cocky funny, and good looking.

        Women want to use men’s stoicism, perseverance, facing adversity, and burden bearing, because men who have those traits are providers, they stick around, and they tend to be kind and patient. Women are not attracted to those men. They are willing to use, exploit, and take advantage of such men. But they are not attracted to those men.”

        thedeti,
        You are telling the cold hard truth, that men like Kristor and Alan Roebuck don’t ever want to hear or admit to. Keep preaching the truth (in and out of season), thedeti, and maybe all of America can become a detination.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        This isn’t complicated. The men they want to f-ck are also generally the men they want to submit to. They’re “attracted” to betas in the sense that they pick betas for marriage but they don’t want to submit to or have sex with them.

        Liked by 2 people

      • johnson j says:

        It could be that women used to be attracted to stocisism, bearing burdens, anti-fragility, etc. but hormonal birth control is mind control and now they are stunted in growth and perpetual children due to the hormones that make them grow up and their brains develop being blocked by the pill so now they want little boys both in maturity level (the bad boys) and in actual age (all the female teachers getting it on with students).

        I see something like this in my cats, if you will pardon the animal analogy. There is a female cat that came up as a feral and was very mature, but after being spayed she has reverted to kitten behavior, rolling around, playing (she would never play before, her play before was killing squirrels but now she plays like a kitten). What happened? Loss of hormones. Those sexual hormones produce maturity. When they are gone, reversion to childhood. This is what the pill is doing to women.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Sharkly says:

      Women are natural defilers. They defile men. They turn men away from following God. By nature women will: defend the guilty, sexually validate the cad, flatter the proud, forgive conquerors of wanton slaughter, incentivize the love of money, Etc. That’s what they do. The Bible explains that. But most folks will never see it because they are too busy worshipping women, and trying to make their Bible support their fertility-goddess-idolatry.

      Proverbs 23:28
      She also lieth in wait as for a prey, and increaseth the transgressors among men.

      Women only temporarily cease being defilers by dying to themselves and learning to live a new life that was once foreign to them. But even repentant women will fall back into doing the deeds of their sinful defiling nature. Don’t wrongly assume that they’re the stronger vessel. Expect women’s defiling nature to require consistent correction. And that consistent correction isn’t likely to come from another woman, who by her unjust nature will want to keep the guilty from the punishment they require, unless they are a rival, and then even undue punishment is approved of. Tertullian described women as “the devil’s gateway”. Our churches have lost sight of Christianity’s original doctrines. From the beginning mankind has been defiled through womankind.

      Liked by 3 people

      • feeriker says:

        “Expect women’s defiling nature to require consistent correction. And that consistent correction isn’t likely to come from another woman, who by her unjust nature will want to keep the guilty from the punishment they require, unless they are a rival, and then even undue punishment is approved of.”

        The idea, popular in some Christian quarters, that women will keep each other in check is one of the purest forms of “comedy gold” that I have ever heard or read. Truly guffaw-inducing.

        Liked by 3 people

      • farmlegend says:

        Good stuff. I’d never heard of Tertullian, but I’ve often thought something similar – women, through their sexuality, commonly reward the worst sort of male behavior while punishing the best. Satan’s earthly agents.

        Tertullian, from Wikipedia…

        “Tertullian in modern days can be criticized as being misogynistic, on the basis of the contents of his De Cultu Feminarum, section I.I, part 2 (trans. C.W. Marx):[citation needed] “Do you not know that you are Eve? The judgment of God upon this sex lives on in this age; therefore, necessarily the guilt should live on also. You are the gateway of the devil; you are the one who unseals the curse of that tree, and you are the first one to turn your back on the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the devil was not capable of corrupting; you easily destroyed the image of God, Adam. Because of what you deserve, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.”

        Of course, Tertullian must be tarred as misogynistic.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The older I get the more the label “misogyny” becomes a stamp of approval in my book.

        Liked by 3 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      Over the years, even the “good women” I’ve known ALL have another side to them. I always thought men were the lustful gender, but women, if you can get them to let their guard down, will surprise you with how lustful they really are. Of course, they don’t readily let their guard down, most of them, but when they do, it’s really insightful. Explains a lot about their attraction to men which most of us men would not classify as “good men.”

      Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Over the years, even the “good women” I’ve known ALL have another side to them.”

        So do all good men. It’s called the sin nature, or the flesh. We need to stop pretending that women are any less affected by it than men.

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “So do all good men. It’s called the sin nature, or the flesh. We need to stop pretending that women are any less affected by it than men.”

        True. I was referring to women I’ve known, beginning with my wife, that have this “other side” to them that most of us wouldn’t expect was there; and yes, it is the flesh, no doubt. Point being, no one suspects it because it is hidden from view and they don’t speak about it, or rarely speak about it.

        I’ll give a personal example. My wife, who is a VERY sincere, committed Christian, and a great wife, will still will find herself lusting for a man every now and then. Not like she’s going to act on it, but thoughts she’s having about a particular guy; IOW he gives her the tingles. I remember one course that she was taking, the instructor was a handsome male. He was lecturing part of the time sitting in a directors chair on stage. She admitted to me later on, she not only found him attractive from a status point of view, a man who knew his stuff talking to a full room of about 150 people, that’s status in women’s eyes (and men’s eyes too), but also she said she “couldn’t take her eyes off of his crotch” and caught herself imagining what kind of “package” he had.

        I think my wife shared it with me because she was embarrassed that her mind went there (her flesh), but she struggled at times paying attention to what he was saying because of her thinking about his manhood. Not that she had any thoughts toward any action, but given the right circumstance, i.e. if she and I were not getting along, she found herself alone with the guy, he showed an interest in her, etc. She might have been tempted to sin.

        Knowing my wife, she would have found a way to get out of there, but she’s human too.

        Here’s the point, no one, I mean NO ONE that we know (that includes me as well) would have ever imagined she could be thinking this way. That’s her “other side.” And even though she’s a strong Christian woman, not a Churchian by any stretch of the imagination, she still has that “other side” to her (the flesh).

        Incidentally, since I was a coach in programs that followed that main program, a few times women participating in the programs let down their guard around me and I had an idea what they were thinking about certain men in the program. You would have never known it by the way they were carrying themselves, but it was there; and some of it was quite titillating. Again, the “other side” to them. Yes, the flesh and sin nature; and yes, the men have it too.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Thierry says:

        “Hidden from view” always rhymes with hidden in plain sight.

        Like

    • Oscar says:

      “ALL women like these displays in men. ALL of them. It’s just that some women don’t act on it.”

      This isn’t complicated, and it helps to think about a male analog.

      Men are attracted to tits and ass. That includes godly men. The difference is that godly men don’t act on their attraction when a harlot puts her tits and ass on display.

      Godly men like virtuous women, but if a virtuous woman is physically ugly, she’ll still have a hard time getting godly men to ask her out.

      Put another way, you may think that Mother Theresa is a heroine of the Faith, but you’re not sexually attracted to her.

      Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        Yet God designed sexual attraction. It’s not arbitrary but ways of keeping the Gene pool healthy:

        Anthony C. Little, Benedict C. Jones, Corri Waitt, Bernard P. Tiddeman, David R. Feinberg, David I. Perrett, Coren L. Apicella, Frank W. Marlowe, “Symmetry Is Related to Sexual Dimorphism in Faces: Data Across Culture and Species,” PLoS ONE 3(5): e2106 (May 2008). [DOI] [Online] [PDF]

        Genetically and Physically Healthy.

        God designed the desire to eat. And Female attraction to attractive Men is also designed by God.

        Only the desire to eat could get distorted into gluttony. So it is with sexual desire.

        But opposing gluttony should not result in opposing the desire to eat altogether.

        Liked by 2 people

    • farmlegend says:

      In my high school catechism class, the senior priest of our parish impressed upon us young men that females are naturally attracted to goodness in men. And that the quality of goodness is what attracts the sexes to each other.

      Great, I thought, if I want a girlfriend, I have to be “good” and project that goodness to those around me.

      You can imagine how well that worked.

      Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        Preaching to the choir. I’ve been there.

        Everyone, EVERYONE, around me said:

        “Girls are sexually attracted to nice guys. Girls love sex with nice guys. Girls hate bad boys and jerks. The only girls who like bad boys and jerks are girls who are slutty, stupid, broken, or damaged. Normal girls, nice girls, the girls you’d like, will like nice guys.”

        “Plus, if you are not nice, we will destroy you. No one will ever like you. Girls will not like you. You will get kicked out of school, you’ll get bad grades, you won’t get into a good college, you’ll never get a good job, you’ll never have sex, you’ll never marry, and no one will ever love you for the rest of your God forsaken pitiful worthless little life.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • farmlegend says:

        Obviously, my high school must have been chock-full of slutty, stupid, broken and damaged girls – even the ones in my college prep classes had a proclivity to go after the guys who appeared to have little “good” about them.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        That was my high school.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Deti, the exact quote I was told: “Stay sweet and the girls will love you to death.”

        The fact that they didn’t already “love me to death” when I was told that should have clued me in.

        Liked by 5 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        Lol, some of the worst propaganda ever, the trope “girls are attracted to GOOD men.” I believed it during my teen years and it delivered NOTHING. I jettisoned it in my early twenties, and even though I had no real idea what a “bad boy” was, I started acting a little bit like one. And voila, women started to pay attention to me; not like I was some Chad or Harley McBadBoy or something, but just enough I guess to get their attention and had a few “panties drop” prior to my Christian conversion.

        After coming to Christ, I went back to being the “Good boy” again because that was what I thought was being Christ-like and expected behavior of me by the church. And of course, it delivered me nothing but a pseudo Christian girlfriend who I had one-itis for, and she eventually dumped me and all my goodness.

        Then at the end of my twenties, in my own Christian version, went back to being a bit of the “bad boy type.” Hit the gym hard, bought a Pontiac Firebird with T-tops, got some contacts to replace the glasses I wore, got a little bit of swagger on (not too cocky, but a confident air about me); and voila, here they came again. This time it was the Christian girls in the large singles group I was attending. With all the beta-like men in the congregation, I guess I was, forgive the pun, like “manna from heaven” to them. Got my future wife out of the deal.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        We were all taught that garbage at church. Most churches still teach it. And, pretty much every decent man has this experience, typically in his late teens, or early 20s. He keeps striking out with girls, but he notices that the biggest jerks have the most, and the prettiest girlfriends.

        At that point, a young man has a decision to make. Do I believe what I’ve been told is true, or do I believe my own lying eyes?

        Liked by 4 people

      • info says:

        “After coming to Christ, I went back to being the “Good boy” again because that was what I thought was being Christ-like and expected behavior of me by the church.”

        The dissonance between Christ’s actual behavior and the supposed Christ-like behavior taught by the Church shows us even the conception of Christian Masculinity has been perverted along the way.

        God’s concept of Masculinity including “Game” as intrinsic to his design of which God designed women to be attracted to. Is in sharp contrast to the “Gudboy” conception of Masculinity.

        Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      “Don’t listen to men like Kristor.”

      Like most men in the western world today who call themselves Christians, he fears women more than he fears God. In so doing, he, like all such men, is saying. “God, I don’t really believe you are the omnipotent deity that I preach and pretend that you are.”

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Or he’s just wrong on some things. I’ve been reading Kristor since View From the Right and he’s a sincere Christian.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. johnson j says:

    Of the pericope adulterae the NIV saith:

    “The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38, or Luke 24:53”

    Yet even NIV-using-pastors will still preach it in church BECAUSE it is the very FOUNDATION of modern churchianity.

    Here we learn that women cannot be punished or criticized in the slightest for their sins, EVER. As a woman said on twitter a month or two ago to someone who was saying women should be prosecuted for abortions, “You do know the guys trying to punish the womena in John 8 were the bad guys, right?”

    This is the foundation of Satan’s religion. Go ahead and defend it KJVO Harlots. The fact is the passage bounces around between two different gospels, even in the manuscripts that have it. It’s fake and g@y. It’s how Satan snuck feminism into the churches.

    So to answer the question in the OP: As a Christian, you CANNOT teach your daughters about their nature so long as your church and your translation still accepts these Satanic verses that teach them their nature is to be unpunishable no matter what they do.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sharkly says:

      johnson j,

      Excellent comment.

      I don’t know if you’ve saw it, but I posted about the “Pericope Adulterae”.

      Laughing at Feminism: Art Imitates Life — Biblical Forgery Edition (2021-9-1)

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      “Here we learn that women cannot be punished or criticized in the slightest for their sins, EVER.”

      That’s completely false.

      “As a woman said on Twitter a month or two ago to someone who was saying women should be prosecuted for abortions, “You do know the guys trying to punish the womena in John 8 were the bad guys, right?”

      If you’re going to throw out parts of the Bible because self-serving people misinterpret them to justify their sin, you’re going to have to throw out the entire Bible.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Even if it’s a valid verse, everyone misses the hypocrisy of the Pharisees: the law requires the death of both.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes it’s even been speculated that the adulterous male was among them.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        But it’s not explicitly stated, which casts doubt on its authenticity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        But Jesus, being God, would have known exactly where the adulterous man was if He had actually desired to fulfill the law of His Father, like Jesus claimed He had come to do. Jesus had asked the woman at the well to bring her husband when He already knew exactly why she couldn’t. The apocryphal story is clearly intended to prevent any sinner from ever exercising the moral authority to serve God by enforcing any of God’s laws. And it seemingly made unworthy murderers out of all the sinners who had stoned whores in the past, in accordance with the Father’s law. Truly applying that apocryphal passage ushers in a new doctrine of lawlessness, whereby nobody but Jesus Christ is able to “cast a stone” at anyone for any sin. But obviously the earliest church didn’t have that passage in their scriptures to deal with. The son of lawlessness hadn’t interjected it yet.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The fact we have to fill in the gaps and make assumptions proves it’s not a verse that a doctrine should rely on.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Just because people insist on filling in gaps and making assumptions does not mean that “we have to” do any of that crap. Again, if you’re going to throw out sections of scripture because some people insist on filling in gaps, and making assumptions, you’re gong to have to throw out the entire Bible.

        Only a fool judges a thing by its abuse.

        Like

  6. Oscar says:

    “Rollo describes this standoff in his Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:

    “For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.”

    That’s true, when viewing the world through a purely naturalistic lens, as Rollo does, but neither sex’s mating strategy is God’s will for them. When both sexes submit to God’s will, everyone wins.

    “It may not shake them out of being attracted to jerks…”

    That may not even be desirable. Any man who’s disagreeable enough to be successful in life will come off as a jerk occasionally. That’s why chicks dig jerks.

    Maybe the solution is to teach them why they dig jerks.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. locustsplease says:

    One thing about the past and arranged marriage is the husband was automatically a bad boy. She didn’t sleep with 100 Chads and dead bedroom him after the wedding. He just walked up from a village miles away and said, “Hey, I guess I’m gonna marry you and have sex with you? Nice to meet you. What are you gonna cook me?”

    Hard to imagine the tension and peer pressure by family. Then in times of war the conquered died and their daughters married their executioners. Many times they wouldn’t even know the language. None of these girls would dare some Beth Moore chore play. The men didn’t ask their wives, “Hey, honey bun… Do you think we should have some more kids?”

    Rules to guide women today: First, no online dating. It’s just disgusting.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Oscar says:

    I think Info and Jack have the right approach here. Women’s attraction to jerky behavior is just as natural, and God-given as men’s attraction to tits and ass. There’s no point in trying to change it, because it’s not going to change, and we probably wouldn’t want to change it even if we could.

    I would never tell my boys that they shouldn’t be attracted to tits and ass, and I’d likewise never tell my girls that they shouldn’t be attracted to jerks.

    What I’ve told my boys (the two that are old enough to hear it) goes something like this. The reason you’re attracted to tits and ass is that tits feed babies, and a shapely ass is attached to wide hips that are good for squeezing babies out. In other words, it’s all about babies. Which means that from your perspective, it’s all about being a father and husband. So, it’s fine to like her tits and ass, but you’d better make sure she has the character to be a good wife for you, and a good mother to my grandbabies.

    What I’ve told my girls (the three that are old enough to hear it) goes something like this. The reason you’re attracted to jerky behavior is that a man who lacks the balls to stand up to you definitely won’t have the balls to stand up for you or your babies. In other words, it’s all about babies. Which means that from your perspective, it’s all about being a mother and wife. Remember our roosters? One was too aggressive, and injured the hens. Another one was too weak, and couldn’t protect the hens. You want a man who’s kind of like our best rooster. He was strong and aggressive enough to fight off predators, but he was gentle with the hens. That’s the kind of man you want. Minus the polygamy, of course.

    Life is rough. Consequently, being a good provider and protector requires a certain amount of disagreeability. That disagreeability will inevitably get perceived as jerky behavior occasionally. There’s nothing wrong with that. Good providers and protectors rarely come wrapped in cute, cuddly packages. They tend to be a little rough about the edges. There’s nothing wrong with that.

    Liked by 3 people

    • info says:

      I dislike how the faux Romantic view of sexual relations have distorted the reality of God’s design so much.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        You know, I’d even settle for women just admitting that they’re lying, and men just saying, “Women are lying about this.” Women can keep on lying, so long as they admit that; and so long as men just say, “They’re liars.”

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      “I think Info and Jack have the right approach here. Women’s attraction to jerky behavior is just as natural, and God-given as men’s attraction to tits and ass. There’s no point in trying to change it, because it’s not going to change, and we probably wouldn’t want to change it even if we could.”

      OK. I’m fine with not changing this as long as we all stop lying about this.

      Like

      • farmlegend says:

        The Great Lie is how women, the white knights, the churchians, et al are able to sleep at night. All while the truth is right there, hiding in plain sight.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        The lie ends when we teach our sons and daughters that no matter how many times it’s repeated, girls are NOT sugar and spice and everything nice. As soon as you start looking for female sin tendencies they are right there clear as day for everyone to see. In fact, you don’t have to actively look for them, merely ending the belief of female infallibility regarding sex, control and relationships is more than enough because women will hit you upside the head with their shortcomings and have no shame about it.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “The lie ends when we teach our sons and daughters that no matter how many times it’s repeated, girls are NOT sugar and spice and everything nice.”

        The lie ends when women stop claiming they want “Good men”. Women are out and out lying when they say this. They don’t want Good men. They want hot, good looking, jerks who are nice to them but are otherwise @ssh_les to everyone else. That’s not good or Good. That’s LARPing at good. But that’s what women want.

        We need to stop lying about this. We need to call women out on their lies on this. We need to call women and their sycophantic men out on it every time they lie about this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        People used to be a lot more honest about it. For example, the lesson of Pride and Prejudice is “you’re going to like jerks, so pick the right kind of jerk (Mr. Darcy), and avoid the wrong kind of jerk (Mr. Wickham).”

        Maybe that gives us a clue as to how to teach young women about their nature.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “They don’t want Good men. They want hot, good looking, jerks who are nice to them but are otherwise @ssh_les to everyone else. That’s not good or Good. That’s LARPing at good. But that’s what women want.”

        That’s not quite right either.

        First, let’s dismiss what bad women want. We don’t want them, so what they want is irrelevant to us.

        There are good women who want good men, but they want good men who are like the Jesus of the Bible, not the Buddy Christ most churches preach.

        The Jesus of the Bible is both the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, and the vengeful, all-conquering king covered in His enemies’ blood of Isaiah 63.

        A good man knows that there is “a time to kill and a time to heal…. a time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 8). A good man can discern the difference between those times, as Jesus does, and is capable of doing both, as Jesus is.

        The problem is that churches teach men all about healing, love and peace, and completely ignore killing, hate and war, rendering good men unattractive.

        Women like violent men, because they want a man who can protect them. A good man can be just as proficient at violence as a bad man (probably more so, since bad men rarely train). The difference is that the good man only uses violence when it is moral to do so.

        So, if you’re a good man, then please
        1) Get as strong as possible
        2) Learn to fight
        3) Spend lots of time outdoors

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “First, let’s dismiss what bad women want. We don’t want them, so what they want is irrelevant to us.”

        First, let’s define “good women” and “bad women”, and let’s be careful not to fall into the feminine frame.

        Here’s something to begin the discussion.

        Good women = young, fresh, nubile, submissive hotties
        Bad women = post wall and still unmarried, emotionally jaded, body abused with tattoos, hormonal birth control drugs, and abortion, loud, brash, rebellious Karens and cat women.

        Or do we mean…

        Good women = church going, bible quoting church ladies with head coverings
        Bad women = atheists, agnostics, etc.

        What about “all have sinned”? What about AWALT?

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “First, let’s dismiss what bad women want. We don’t want them, so what they want is irrelevant to us.

        There are good women who want good men, but they want good men who are like the Jesus of the Bible, not the Buddy Christ most churches preach.”

        Disagree. ALL women want bad men and thugs. Good women do not want good men at all. Good women don’t want good men like Jesus or Buddy Christ. Good women want BAMFs like SAM (and we all know why good women want men like SAM — it’s NOT because they are “good men”). It’s because they are BAMFs — i.e. men who are nice to the women they’re having sex with, and jerks to everyone else.

        It’s helpful to understand what’s meant by “jerk” here. “Jerk” does NOT mean “malicious, bad-natured, bad tempered man who goes around picking fights, treating waitstaff poorly, stealing candy from babies, shouting and yelling at people for no reason, kicking old ladies’ canes out from under them, and smacking women around”. That is NOT the jerk of “Chicks Dig Jerks.”

        The “jerk” that women really love is the self centered, self interested, selfish man who looks out for himself above all other people. He is all about himself, all the time. His plan, his purpose, his grind, his stuff, his life. He is for whatever advances his interests, and doesn’t care about anything else. He doesn’t much care about what other people think about him. He is dissolute, unreliable, unpredictable, and irrationally self confident almost to the point of arrogance. He might or might not do what he says he’ll do — just depends on how he feels and whether that serves his interests. He is polite to his woman most of the time, but doesn’t much care if she stays or goes, because he knows he can easily replace her, and makes it very clear to her that he can.

        This is the man women love. This is the man women swoon over. That man is neither “Jesus like” nor Buddy Christ. And he is not good, nor is he Good. We need to accept this if we are going to make any headway for men here. Men need to understand this if they’re going to protect themselves.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Jack,

        “First, let’s define “good women” and “bad women”.”

        The Bible does that for us. If she’s young, then she’s on track to becoming a Proverbs 31 / Titus 2 woman. If she’s old enough to have grown children, then she’s already there (understanding that is an ideal).

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “The Bible does that for us. If she’s young, then she’s on track to becoming a Proverbs 31 / Titus 2 woman. If she’s old enough to have grown children, then she’s already there (understanding that is an ideal).”

        I can accept that definition of “good woman”. Guess what? Those women love jerks too. Those women don’t love or want “good men” or “Good men” either. If they did, they wouldn’t have to be told to accept those men, they wouldn’t have to be steered and directed toward those men, they wouldn’t have to rely on family to find and vet those men, and they definitely would not have to be commanded over and over again in Scripture to respect those men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        The Bible also defines bad women for us, mostly in the Proverbs: the foolish woman, the immoral woman, the contentious woman, etc. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “The Bible also defines bad women for us, mostly in the Proverbs: the foolish woman, the immoral woman, the contentious woman, etc. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel.”

        Again, I can accept this definition of “bad woman”. But when it comes to what men they like, these are distinctions without differences. “Good women” love jerks. “Bad women” love jerks. ALL women love and want jerks. ALL women hate good men and Good men.

        Let’s just be honest about this and put it to bed.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ deti,

        Have you noticed that the Book of Proverbs commands good men – over and over again – to avoid immoral women, foolish women, contentious women, etc., and to search for good women?

        By your logic, that means good men only want contentious, foolish, immoral women, otherwise all those warnings and commandments would be unnecessary.

        Let’s face it; there’s an abundance of men who’ve wrecked their lives chasing tits and ass, and there’s an abundance of women who’ve wrecked their lives chasing bad boys, but that doesn’t mean either sex is ONLY attracted to those things. It means both sexes have a sinful vulnerability to those things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “By your logic, that means good men only want contentious, foolish, immoral women, otherwise all those warnings and commandments would be unnecessary.”

        Not exactly. Good men want WOMEN. They’ll accept contentious, foolish, immoral women if that’s all they can get. They’ll take contentious, foolish, and immoral women because they tend to be sexually easier than agreeable, sensible, and moral women.

        Yes, men do have to be commanded to avoid such women. So? I’ve never argued to the contrary. At least men are honest about this.

        And Good men, bad men, all kinds of men, are honest about this. At least they don’t lie about it. Men are exceedingly clear and up front about what they want and what they’re willing to do to get it.

        Men have to be commanded to love their women. Their sin is not in dishonesty or treachery. Their sin is in dealing with their women harshly and logically, and not tenderly or caringly. That’s men’s real shortcoming when it comes to women — is not being “nice” and “loving” and tender to the women in their charge.

        “Let’s face it; there’s an abundance of men who’ve wrecked their lives chasing tits and ass, and there’s an abundance of women who’ve wrecked their lives chasing bad boys, but that doesn’t mean either sex is ONLY attracted to those things. It means both sexes have a sinful vulnerability to those things.”

        Well, we need a definition of “attracted” and “attraction”. I prefer “sexual attraction”. There are particular suites of traits that are “attractive”, and we all know what they are. Men are not attracted to nonsexual traits in women; and women are not attracted to beta comfort traits in men. You could say women would want attractive men with a sprinkling of beta traits, but that doesn’t mean women are attracted to beta traits.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I’m attracted to non sexual traits in women. I’m attracted to sweetness, demure behavior, gentle voices, physical petiteness, etc.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Good men want WOMEN. They’ll accept contentious, foolish, immoral women if that’s all they can get.”

        First, that’s false, and we need to stop lying about that, too. Plenty of good men pass up good women because they were mesmerized by a nice set of tits and ass on a bad woman. That’s why the Bible warns us about it so many times.

        “Yes, men do have to be commanded to avoid such women. So?”

        The “so what” is that men have to be commanded just as much as women have to be commanded. You can’t, therefore, logically conclude that women have to be commanded because they’re not attracted to good men, anymore than you can logically conclude that men have to be commanded because they’re not attracted to good women.

        “Well, we need a definition of “attracted” and “attraction”. I prefer “sexual attraction”.”

        Attraction is a lot more than JUST sexual, unless you’re ONLY thinking with the little head (if you’re a man), or the tingles (if you’re a woman).

        Yes, sexual attraction is hugely important, and it’s wrong to downplay its importance (as many Christians do), but the non-sexual facets of attraction grow in importance the longer you’re married.

        You wouldn’t marry a girl who fell out of the ugly tree face first and hit every branch on the way down, no matter how virtuous she is. But if you marry a beautiful woman who is devoid of virtue (see Amber Heard), then you’re a dick-thinking fool.

        The same principle applies to women, and the traits they find attractive.

        Virtuous people are attracted to virtue. That attraction may not be sexual, but it’s there, and equally important, especially in the long term.

        If you’re a complete human being, then sexual attraction is necessary, but NOT sufficient, and virtue is equally necessary, but NOT sufficient.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        We’re just talking past each other here.

        “Plenty of good men pass up good women because they were mesmerized by a nice set of tits and ass on a bad woman. That’s why the Bible warns us about it so many times.”

        The truth of this statement does not mean this…

        “Good men want WOMEN. They’ll accept contentious, foolish, immoral women if that’s all they can get.”

        …because this is false. Both statements can be, and are, true at the same time. How do we know this? Because plenty of men have accepted, and married, contentious, foolish, and immoral women, because those are the only women they could get, and they were the only women those men could get because they weren’t taught, they were lied to, and thus didn’t know any better.

        The rest of what you’re saying is “Well, but men do it too! Men are sinful too! Men have flaws too!” OK. So what? We know that. We are bashed over the heads every gold digging day with our sins. We don’t need to spend time here educating men on their own sins. We all have Ph.D.s in our own sins. What men need to learn about here are WOMEN’s sins. Why? So they learn about them, learn to spot them, and learn to avoid women displaying them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “The rest of what you’re saying is “well, but men do it too! Men are sinful too! Men have flaws too!”

        That’s not even remotely what I wrote.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar

        Let me bottom line this for you. Women are not attracted to good men. Women don’t want good men. Women don’t want Good men. They want to use good men. They want to exploit and take advantage of good men, because good men provide, they stick around, and they tend to be kind and nice. But women don’t want those men, and they aren’t attracted to good men.

        It does not matter one bit that men think with their little heads or that they have to be warned to avoid contentious women. This is nothing new, and it’s something we have heard since time immemorial. The idea that men are flawed horndogs is something I have heard literally every day of my life since I was like 5 years old, and most other men have too – especially men raised in this crappy excuse for a faith community we now have in the West.

        The notion that women are human and flawed too is relatively novel, it’s not something men are usually taught or instructed on, and it’s something that needs to be hammered home for men so they learn it.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        It really gets me, it really frosts me, that we constantly have to temper “women are sinful” with “but, but, but, MEN ARE SINFUL TOO!” It really bothers me that we cannot ever talk about women’s sins without also having to discuss men’s sins.

        Why can we never, ever focus on a topic under discussion without bashing ourselves? Why does it always have to come back to “but, but, but, MEN DO IT TOO!!” D@mn it, I know men do it too. I am one. I know. Because I have done it too. I don’t need anyone here to remind me of that. What I, and most other men, need, is to learn that women have done it, are doing it, and will do it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “It really gets me, it really frosts me, that we constantly have to temper “women are sinful” with “but, but, but, MEN ARE SINFUL TOO!”

        That’s not what I wrote, so why are you so bent out of shape now?

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      “I would never tell my boys that they shouldn’t be attracted to tits and ass, and I’d likewise never tell my girls that they shouldn’t be attracted to jerks.”

      Here’s the difference: We men don’t lie about our attraction to tits and ass.

      Women lie all the time about their attraction to jerks.

      At least we men are honest about this.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Sharkly says:

      God never forbid polygyny.

      Like

  9. feeriker says:

    “This is the man women love. This is the man women swoon over. That man is neither “Jesus like” nor Buddy Christ. And he is not good, nor is he Good. We need to accept this if we are going to make any headway for men here. Men need to understand this if they’re going to protect themselves.”

    I think this truth needs to be rubbed extra hard in the noses of Christian women who insist that they are “not like that.” They are “like that,” every last emeffin one of them. They’re not fooling “good” men, either, and it’s past time that such “good” men make them aware of that fact in no uncertain terms.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      Yeah. I mean, this guy isn’t the mean guy, or the inveterate thug, or the criminal, or the total f’in @$$hole. He’s the lovable screwup. He’s just a selfish, fun loving, self interested guy who cares only about himself. He’s aloof and undependable. He doesn’t do what he says he’ll do. You can’t rely on him. He doesn’t care about anything but himself.

      But men and women alike love him. He’s Corey Worthington

      Who turns into Donald Trump.

      Everyone loves this kind of guy.

      It’s time we faced facts on this. It’s time we admitted this.

      Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        Our Lord is a bit Jerky with women Himself too, yet is perfectly righteous. For example this:

        Matthew 15:21-28
        21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon.
        22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is miserably possessed by a demon.”
        23 But Jesus did not answer a word. So His disciples came and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
        24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
        25 The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
        26 But Jesus replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
        27 “Yes, Lord,” she said, “even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
        28 “O woman,” Jesus answered, “your faith is great! Let it be done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

        And of course his interactions with the woman at the well and the woman who poured perfume at his feet.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        A female dog is a “bitch”. That’s how Jesus described the Canaanite woman. Jesus didn’t grant the miracle she asked for, until she humbly admitted He was right about that, yet continued to plead for the mercy that He would give to even a ‘bitch”.

        Like

  10. feeriker says:

    “Maybe that gives us a clue as to how to teach young women about their nature.”

    Just as it’s impossible to teach an animal about its own nature, most women cannot be so taught, either.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “Just as it’s impossible to teach an animal about its own nature, most women cannot be so taught, either.”

      I don’t know. I think some women can be taught. I think that women who can be taught fall into two categories:

      1) They learn about their natures and then “overcome” them, which causes them to think they’re “not like that anymore”. What this really means is that they are still “like that”, but they have learned to fight acting “like that” the rest of their lives with brief reversions into acting “like that”. These women still are “like that”; it’s just that they’ve learned how not to act “like that” most of the time; which causes them to think they are not “like that”.

      2) They learn about their natures, but don’t care, so they continue to be and act “like that” knowing they’re “like that”. After learning, they now know they’re like that; it’s just that they don’t care that they’re “like that” mostly because there are no real downsides to being and acting “like that”.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        By the way, this…

        “[Some women] learn about their natures and then “overcome” them…”

        …is the best woman any man is going to get.

        The best any man is going to get is a self aware woman who is “like that”, but who doesn’t act “like that” most of the time. That’s as good as it gets for women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Dear Deti:

        Every time you make a point of using my upstanding, unselfish, blood washed, faithful Christian husband as the ultimate example of the worst possible cad ever born, you are slandering a Christian brother based on your partial understanding of who he was before becoming a Christian.

        Consider that.

        Thank You.

        Liked by 1 person

      • caterpillar345 says:

        deti — You keep saying things about how “that’s the best a man is going to get” as if there’s a possible better version of women or as if men aren’t also flawed.

        Seems to me that you’ve gotten to bedrock with your dichotomy (either (1) learn about their nature and overcome it, or (2) learn about their nature and don’t care). But it seems that this is the best ANY man OR woman is going to do in this life. Men and women have different natures and different typical pulls toward sin but we’re all people that fall short of the glory of God.

        Are you just emphasizing the fact that it’s very uncommon for a woman to really understand her nature and work to overcome it because our culture, churches, and families are quick to point out mens’ flaws/tendencies but reticent to point out womens’? Hell, I’m over 25 and I’m only now starting to really figure out the deeper nature of MY male proclivities toward sin and begin to show up to the fight every day. I honestly don’t think my parents or church culture gave me more than a generic surface-level finger-wagging understanding of that. But I suppose most women don’t even get that generic surface-level understanding from their parents/family/church, much less something deeper.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        caterpillar:

        “…as if men aren’t also flawed.”

        Of course men are also flawed, and I have never ever said otherwise. I acknowledge this here every day. I don’t have much of a choice in that regard — the entire world never ceases to remind me just how flawed and depraved I am.

        (I am constantly, CONSTANTLY reminded that I am personally responsible for everything wrong in the entire world. Why? Because I’m a white middle aged Christian man living in the United States and a top 10% wage earner.)

        I am saying that very, very few people ever point out women’s flaws or even acknowledge that women have flaws, especially within male-female relationships.

        I am surprised you’re having problems recognizing your own sin nature. There is nothing at all special about me; but I know what my sin nature is. How could I not? I have been bashed over the head with it every day of my life since my earliest memories.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. cameron232 says:

    SAM is a BAMF but not a jerk by either definition of jerk.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. thedeti says:

    “Every time you make a point of using my upstanding, unselfish, blood washed, faithful Christian husband as the ultimate example of the worst possible cad ever born, you are slandering a Christian brother based on your partial understanding of who he was before becoming a Christian.”

    1) I’m not describing him as anything other than your description of who he was when you met him and married him. All I am doing here is using your descriptions of him. Not mine. Yours.

    2) I didn’t say anything about who he is now.

    3) I didn’t use the phrase “worst possible cad ever born”. That’s your characterization.

    4) SAM wouldn’t be held up as an attractive specimen of manhood if you didn’t constantly hold him up as such here.

    Like

  13. thedeti says:

    “Virtuous people are attracted to virtue. That attraction may not be sexual, but it’s there, and equally important, especially in the long term.”

    This is not true. This is not “attraction”. This is “want”. This is “need”. This is “I want that in that person because I can use it for my own ends.” This is “I want that in that person because it is beneficial to me and maybe my kids.” This is “I like that quality in that person because it is something I recognize I don’t have in myself and I will need it later for my own benefit.”

    That is not “attraction”. That is use, exploitation, and advantage. It does not bond and knit the two of them together. It does not cause a woman to stay with a man. It does not cause a woman to have affinity or affection for a man, or to care about him, or to treat him well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      It doesn’t cause her to respect him, revere him, or submit to him.

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      You just described a bunch of mechanisms for attraction, then denied that they are attraction.

      By the way, the only thing that is going to keep a woman respectful and submissive through all the trials of life is her godly character. Any man who doesn’t find that attractive is a fool.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        None of those things are mechanisms for attraction. Attraction is not “I want that because I can use it for my own ends” or “I want it because I need it for my kids.” Attraction is purely sexual.

        Admittedly, I’m defining “attraction” more narrowly as sexual attraction only. I don’t find any benefit in describing “want”, “need”, “can use for my own ends”, and “will benefit me or my kids”, as “attraction” because it muddies the waters as to what attraction really is.

        “I want that because I can use it” does not bond or knit. What bonds and knits two people together is the sexual draw they each have for the other. What brings them together and then what keeps them together is how sexually attracted they are to each other. It’s the primary reason marriages are falling apart — as Scott has so wisely told us, the only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing, that is keeping marriages together and healthy is the wife’s sexual attraction for the husband. And that’s evidence based — that’s a trained clinical psychologist telling us this.

        A woman’s godly character is not “attractive”. That is “I want that because it benefits me and I can use it for my own ends.” Men are attracted to women’s physical attributes. Everything else is “want because it benefits me” or “I can use that for my own ends.”

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Attraction is not, “I want that because I can use it for my own ends” or “I want it because I need it for my kids.”

        That is literally one of the definitions of attraction. Straight out of the dictionary.

        “Something that attracts or is intended to attract people by appealing to their desires and tastes.”

        Men and women make themselves attractive to each other by providing that which the other wants, needs, and desires. We’ve been doing that since Genesis.

        “A woman’s godly character is not “attractive”.”

        Again, if a man is not attracted to a woman’s godly character, then he’s a fool. I didn’t say godly character would be sexually attractive, but if it’s not attractive at all to a man, then that man is a fool. That’s how men wreck their lives for a set of tits and ass.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar,

        “Men and women make themselves attractive to each other by providing that which the other wants, needs, and desires. We’ve been doing that since Genesis.”

        Except that unless it’s sexual in nature, it isn’t really “attractive”.

        Men have learned the hard way that being a nice, kind provider with a good job and a Godly character is not “attractive”. Those qualities are useful to women. Women exploit them and take advantage of the men who display them. But it is not “attractive”. These qualities in men also do not cause a woman to bond with him or knit her heart to his. Women use these men, they exploit these men and use their resources. But they are not “attracted” to those men.

        “…if it’s not attractive at all to a man, then that man is a fool.”

        Fair enough, but again — “Want”, “Need”, and “I can use it because it benefits me” is not “attraction” and it will not bond or knit them together.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I’d also add that plenty of women with “Godly character” have cheated on their husbands, tossed them aside, divorced them, disrespected them, refused to submit to them, and mistreated them, all because those men weren’t sexually attractive. Plenty of women with “Godly character” have destroyed their own marriages with their own hands, because those women weren’t sexually attracted to their husbands.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Oscar, thedeti,
        A few choice adjectives would clear up your contention in a jiffy. Try these.

        — Sexual attraction
        — Logistical attraction
        — On the same wavelength
        — Mutual interest based attraction
        — Reciprocal attraction (Deep Strength’s concept)

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “Except that unless it’s sexual in nature, it isn’t really “attractive”.”

        No matter how many times you repeat that, it’s still false. Sexual attraction is necessary, but not sufficient. Other kinds of attraction are necessary (especially as people age, and sexual attraction fade), but not sufficient. None of that makes any of it “not attraction”.

        “Fair enough, but again — “Want”, “Need”, and “I can use it because it benefits me” is not “attraction” and it will not bond or knit them together.”

        That’s still false. It doesn’t even work with sexual attraction. People need, want, and desire sex, just like they need, want, and desire other things. People use sex because it benefits them, just as they use other things because they benefit them.

        Again, all of it is necessary. None of it is sufficient by itself.

        “I’d also add that plenty of women with “Godly character” have cheated on their husbands, tossed them aside, divorced them, disrespected them, refused to submit to them, and mistreated them, all because those men weren’t sexually attractive. Plenty of women with “Godly character” have destroyed their own marriages with their own hands, because those women weren’t sexually attracted to their husbands.”

        Godly character is revealed in a person’s actions. The actions you described are of a person who lacks godly character. That’s not my opinion. Proverbs 31 tells us of the virtuous woman that “The heart of her husband safely trusts her”. Obviously, if she cheats on him, tosses him aside, divorced him, etc., then his heart would not “safely trust her”. Therefore, she does not have godly character.

        You should already know all that, deti. I shouldn’t have to explain it to you. The fact that you don’t know it is, frankly, worrisome.

        You don’t get to define what godly character is. God does that. In the Bible. We follow His definitions. We don’t make up our own.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jack,

        “Oscar, thedeti,
        A few choice adjectives would clear up your contention in a jiffy.”

        Only if deti admits that attraction other than sexual attraction exists, which he doesn’t seem prepared to do.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Hi Oscar, some thoughts.

        Even physical attraction isn’t all sexual. I think many of us have seen a pretty, feminine face on a woman who is bodily “unendowed.” The pretty face is attractive but not sexually.

        I agree that attraction at least for some men is not JUST sexual.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Even physical attraction isn’t all sexual. I think many of us have seen a pretty, feminine face on a woman who is bodily “unendowed.” The pretty face is attractive but not sexually. …attraction at least for some men is not JUST sexual.”

        Attraction varies by ethnicity and culture too. White western men love beautiful T&A. Black men love balloon booty. In Asia, a pretty feminine face and thin, poker straight legs on a woman are the most important elements arousing attraction and interest. Personally, I have found a woman’s eyes, mouth (teeth and gums), body proportions (Golden ratio, WHR), and skin tone to be determinants of genetic quality.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “A few choice adjectives would clear up your contention in a jiffy. Try these.”

        Most of these things sound like “utilitarian tingles”, discussed at Donal Graeme’s old blog. There, a woman tried mightily to explain how sexually attracted she was to really super nice men who had good jobs. It sounded like BS and came off as BS because it was and is BS and I called it out for the ridiculous BS it is.

        Women like to use and exploit super nice men who have good jobs. But they aren’t sexually attracted to such men. It’s a nice thought and all, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “There, a woman tried mightily to explain how sexually attracted she was to really super nice men who had good jobs.”

        Don’t forget the usual disclaimer…

        “…who she thought were hot.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Jack,

        See what I mean?

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar,

        You can’t call things that aren’t attraction, “attraction”. It just doesn’t work.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Cameron,

        If sex is the only attraction a couple has, that relationship is doomed. In fact, that’s a major reason so many marriages fail.

        Proverbs 31 tells us that “charm is deceitful and beauty is fleeting”. That’s why the Bible commands us to seek out virtue. Sexual attraction fades with age. Virtue grows with age. A person who is not attracted to virtue is foolish, and probably lacks virtue. Virtuous people are attracted to virtue.

        We’ve all heard that “no matter how hot she is, there’s some guy out there who’s tired of her crap”, right? That’s the result of a relationship in which sex was the only attraction. It never lasts. Just look at all the sexy Hollywood stars whose marriages don’t last.

        Off-the-charts sexual attraction, zero virtue.

        Sexual attraction is necessary in marriage, but nowhere near sufficient.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Oscar,

        “We’ve all heard that “no matter how hot she is, there’s some guy out there who’s tired of her crap”, right? That’s the result of a relationship in which sex was the only attraction. It never lasts. Just look at all the sexy Hollywood stars whose marriages don’t last.”

        It might be helpful to consider virtue as the foundation upon which attraction can continue to grow. The crazy hot girl with no virtue is beautiful architecture on a crumbling foundation and the structure doesn’t last. There’s curb appeal but nothing a man wants to be stuck owning.

        Then consider a home with beautiful architecture that draws lots of buyers’ attention and is on a solid foundation. The foundation isn’t what draws people’s attention from afar and sparks the desire to own the house, but it is certainly an aspect that can make or break your buying decision.

        This is what virtue is, for people considering a marriage relationship. The lack of virtue is a deal breaker on a stand alone basis, even if she looks like Megan Fox in her prime and she’s the easiest woman to get along with. The mere presence of virtue in a woman does not mean that there is attraction or that she is attractive, but its presence in a woman you find attractive means you have the green light to proceed.

        That being said, all of the back and forth is a mental exercise that can be entertaining. The reality is that a beautiful woman with no virtue is someone to avoid regarding a relationship, as is the virtuous woman who you are not at all attracted to. In both cases you end up miserable as a man.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Oscar,

      “If sex is the only attraction a couple has, that relationship is doomed. In fact, that’s a major reason so many marriages fail.”

      Etc.

      I agree with everything in that comment. It’s just that we can’t call things that aren’t attraction, “attraction”, because they aren’t, for the reasons I’ve already stated ad infinitum.

      They’re lots of things. They’re useful. They’re there for exploitation and for women to take advantage of. But that’s not attraction. Women want and need them. But that’s not attraction.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Virtue is not attractive. If virtue was attractive, there would be no Christomanosphere, because all these virtuous men I know would never have any problems in their marriages. Virtuous women would marry extremely sexually unattractive but extremely virtuous men, and be deliriously happy in their marriages.

        Virtue is not attractive. People want it and need it. But it is not attractive. It does not bond or knit people together. It does not draw people together or keep them together. Scott told us this — the number one factor he finds in successful marriages is the wife’s sexual attraction to the husband. The number one indicator of a marriage’s failure is the wife’s lack of sexual attraction to the husband (stated a different way, her disattraction for or disgust for him).

        Virtue is not attractive. Virtue does not make a woman want a man or want to be with him or want to join her life to his. It just doesn’t. If it did, the problems we talk about here every day would not exist and there would be no need for any of this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar, Jack, Elspeth,

        I’m not going to argue this anymore. We aren’t going to convince each other, but at least I can see where the areas of disagreements are.

        Have a good day.

        Like

      • info says:

        “Virtue is not attractive. If virtue was attractive, there would be no Christomanosphere, because all these virtuous men I know would never have any problems in their marriages.”

        If Heartiste is accurate in his assessment of our Lord, then the problem is our definition of Virtue.

        If our Lord was good at “Frame”, shouldn’t Virtuous Men also likewise be good at “Frame?”

        Virtue is not about being a “Gud Boy”, but also Objective Masculinity properly defined. That is what the Root word “Vir” is about. Heroic Manhood in God’s eyes.

        I hate to repeat myself. But there is a problem with our definition if the definition of Virtue looks too much like a “Gud Boy” getting a gold star from mommy.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “…there is a problem with our definition if the definition of Virtue looks too much like a “Gud Boy” getting a gold star from mommy.”

        Yes, I suspect this is the case. One of the things I’ve gotten out of the discussion since this post went up is that Roissy (and Dalrock) were correct, as I mentioned above. Women and PUAs may very well have a better understanding of virtue than churchian cucks. I’ll be examining this in the future.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “I agree with everything in that comment. It’s just that we can’t call things that aren’t attraction, “attraction”, because they aren’t, for the reasons I’ve already stated ad infinitum.”

        You made up your own definition of the word attraction, then rejected everything that doesn’t fit the definition you made up. It’s like you don’t realize we’re communicating in English, not deti-ese.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “You made up your own definition of the word attraction, then rejected everything that doesn’t fit the definition you made up.”

        I think this approach is OK, except you have to explain your own definition in detail and then compare this to the conventional definition. This allows readers to understand the two concepts and then be able to decide for themselves which is the better frame. Doing something like this really deserves it’s own post.

        Interestingly, Rectification of names, Redefining words, and Ressentimentalism all take this kind of approach. The important thing is not whether we redefine conventional ideas or not, but that we get our own concepts of these things closer to God’s Truth and be able to communicate in words that are understandable to others.

        Like I did with godliness, masculinity, and other concepts, I think this kind of approach is going to be necessary when we start examining virtue, because we need to apprehend a completely new (but actually old) concept of what virtue is all about.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Virtue is not attractive.

        Not to people who lack virtue.

        If virtue was attractive, there would be no Christomanosphere, because all these virtuous men I know would never have any problems in their marriages. Virtuous women would marry extremely sexually unattractive but extremely virtuous men, and be deliriously happy in their marriages.

        If sexiness was attractive, there would be no manosphere, because all these sexy men (like Hollywood actors) would never have any problems in their marriages. Sexy women would marry sexy men and be deliriously happy in their marriages.

        Same “logic”.

        Virtue is not attractive. People want it and need it. But it is not attractive.

        Providing that which people want or need is literally how people attract each other. That’s true of all forms of attraction, including sexual attraction. Men need sex, and want it with a woman with a pretty face, long hair, and an hourglass figure. The fact that men need and want those things is what makes those women sexually attractive to men.

        Your insistence on making up your own definition of the word attraction, and ignoring the actual definition of the word, doesn’t change that fact.

        It does not draw people together or keep them together.

        Virtue is literally what keeps people together when sexual attraction inevitably fades. Virtue is what keeps people together during the “worse… poorer…. sickness” times. It’s pretty tough to be sexy when you’re sick, poor, and life sucks. If your wife isn’t virtuous, she’s going to bolt when that happens.

        Virtue is not attractive. Virtue does not make a woman want a man or want to be with him or want to join her life to his. It just doesn’t. If it did, the problems we talk about here every day would not exist and there would be no need for any of this.

        You got that exactly backwards. If Christian men and women were more virtuous, the problems we talk about here every day would not exist.

        What exactly makes you think that the problems we talk about here are not the result of a lack of virtue on either spouse’s – or both spouses’ – part?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        there is a problem with our definition if the definition of Virtue looks too much like a “Gud Boy” getting a gold star from mommy.

        The word “virtue” derives from the Latin word “virtus”. The root of the word “virtus” is “vir”, which means “man”. In Latin, “virtus” literally means “manliness”.

        Christians in the Middle Ages expanded the meaning of the word “virtue” to include universal morals, i.e., the Seven Heavenly Virtues that are the counterpoints to the Seven Deadly Sins.

        Even so, every healthy culture acknowledges the fact that there are masculine virtues, and feminine virtues.

        The two most universally accepted masculine virtues are strength and courage. That doesn’t mean that women can’t be strong, or courageous (see every female martyr). What it means is that a man can’t be manly without strength, or courage, but a woman can be feminine without strength, or courage.

        Other universally – or nearly universally – accepted manly virtues include loyalty, resourcefulness, wisdom, cunning, tenacity, industriousness, and many more.

        Think about it. Men make up all kinds of competitions (mostly sports) to build and show off their strength, courage, loyalty, resourcefulness, wisdom, cunning, tenacity, industriousness, etc. to women. Men have been making up competitions to show off their virtues to women since time immemorial. Why would men do that, if those virtues did not make them attractive to women?

        Now, let’s look at the Latin word for courage, which is “valor”. The English word “value” derives from the Latin word “valor”. Think about that.

        A man who has no “valor” (courage) has no “value” (worth). Why? Because – in the Roman mind – a man who lacks the courage to defend his family and homeland is worthless.

        Still think that a virtuous man is a “pat-me-on-the-head-I’m-a-good-boy”?

        Finally, a Christian man doesn’t replace universally accepted manly virtues with the Seven Heavenly Virtues. He adds the Seven Heavenly Virtues to the manly virtues. Again, that is where the Church is failing men. The Church’s message has been that Christian men don’t need to cultivate manly virtues. That is absolutely false.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “I think this approach is OK, except you have to explain your own definition in detail and then compare this to the conventional definition.”

        I’m with Abe on this one.

        Like

  14. Sharkly says:

    “I’m attracted to non sexual traits in women. I’m attracted to sweetness, demure behavior, gentle voices, physical petiteness, etc.”

    “Attraction is a lot more than JUST sexual, unless you’re ONLY thinking with the little head (if you’re a man), or the tingles (if you’re a woman).”

    Oh Wow! I must have a special superpower, because I’ve dissected this all and I’m somehow, against all odds, able to mentally separate my visual attraction standards from the invisible qualities of an endearing heart. After diligent application of my mental prowess I believe I can actually look at a picture of a woman’s tits and rate them on a scale of 1 to 10 without even knowing what church missions trips she’s been on. And likewise I can try to determine a woman’s character without even taking a good look at her tits. OMG! I’m so mentally gifted! Here’s a theory … What if our standards for physical attraction and our moral standards for what will make a peaceable wife, are completely separate? Dang! Is that profound, or what?!?

    OMG! If that becomes true of others, such people might even want to look at pornographic images of strangers without ever even demanding to know about their religious backstories. OMG! If others share my superpower, it won’t be long before somebody eventually posts p0rn onto the internet for folks with such a striking ability to compartmentalize the various aspects of their attraction.

    Have any of the rest of y’all ever found anybody a bit attractive before you even knew them? Weird, huh! It’s like the big head and the little head can both think independently. Not sure if there is enough blood in my body to operate them both at the same time though. Experience has taught me that isn’t likely. LOL Newsflash: Women have a little head too.

    What if fathers, who aren’t attracted to other men, and can consequently think clearly about their character, chose their daughter’s husbands? Frickin’ genius idea huh! We could create a brand new society organized by family patriarchs, I’m just not sure what we’d call it. Maybe the Patriocracy or something really close to that. There’s got to be a word for that.

    SERIOUSLY, if iron keeps sharpening iron here we’ll eventually figure out that we should just repent of our waywardness and return to following God’s word. Or am I getting way far ahead of us all? 😉

    Liked by 1 person

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 )

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