On Curating a Christian Culture of Attraction

Can sexual attraction be trained or taught?

Readership: All
Theme: Masculine Authority and Responsibility
Length: 1,800 words
Reading Time: 10 minutes

Can Sexual Attraction be Trained or Taught?

Yesterday’s post, Respect makes all the difference! (2022-8-17) contained one reader’s testimony about how respect for the right kinds of men can impact a community in positive ways that extend to future generations.

In the comments, deti wrote,

“I don’t buy her story or her belief that real actual SEXUAL attraction can be trained or taught.”

A big part of this problem is Western culture’s current obsession with sex and sexual attraction, which is essentially a glorification of the flesh.  Another problem is our thinking that sexual attraction is statically and subjectively dependent on certain indicators of attractiveness dictated by the wider culture.

If sexual attraction cannot be trained or taught, then how do you explain the following?

  • Men caught up in p0rn and masturbation cannot feel attraction towards regular women, no matter how marriage worthy they might be.
  • Men who have sex with many women cannot deeply love and appreciate any one woman (i.e. a wife).
  • Women steeped in romance p0rn (e.g. 50 Shades of Gray, etc.) come to see regular men as common, obtuse, and unattractive.
  • Women who rode the carousel during their budding years of sexuality become alpha widowed and can never be satisfied with submitting to one man (i.e. a husband).

It’s rather obvious that there is some conditioning going on in all these situations — a conditioning that shapes what one is attracted to.

“She — and others, including you, Jack — might want to believe that, but wanting to believe something won’t make it true no matter how hard we want it.”

I believe it is true based on my own experience.  Let me explain.

Case Study – Learning to Love a Different Type of Woman

Everyone in my family is very tall and thin, including the women, so when I was younger, I could never take short women seriously and this included Asian women.  I thought they were cute, but I was not really attracted to them.  This cut down my perceived pool of eligibles significantly.

After I moved to Taiwan, I was forced to face this propensity and reassess what was most important to me, because Asian women are shorter and less buxom on the average compared to white women.   Over time, I found that I was most attracted to those women who displayed respect for me and treated me right, even if they were not very attractive according to the culture’s standards of beauty (which is very different between Eastern and Western cultures) or even to my own concepts of beauty.  It was disconcerting to feel attracted to women because of how well they treated me, especially women whom I deemed incompatible or not very attractive.  I resisted this for a long while.  But over time, I discovered some blessings in this.  It taught me to appreciate my own masculinity and respect myself more.  (Most Western men never experience this from Western women.)

After dating several Asian women and then being married to one for a while, I now find Asian women to be more attractive than white women.  Part of this is because of Western women’s slide into disrespect, depravity, and obesity over the past 20 years, but part of it is because I have had many more positive interactions and good memories with Asian women than I ever had with white women.

These days, I don’t find white women attractive at all any more.  I can recognize that they are beautiful, but I can’t take them seriously because they don’t arouse me or move me.

All these changes required me to depend more on God and myself, and less on feelings of familiarity and inspiration from others.  It wasn’t easy, and it took years to develop, but I learned that the overall interaction I have with a woman has its own dynamics of attraction that can supersede the raw prevaricating desires of the flesh (i.e. male lust, female hypergamy).

You Breed What You Feed

Thedeti goes on to write,

“This sounds to me like negotiating desire, which we have learned cannot be done.  A woman cannot learn how to be sexually attracted to a man.  A woman cannot be trained to desire a man sexually whom she does not naturally sexually desire.  She either desires him or she doesn’t.  She either is attracted to him or she is not.

Most women are not sufficiently sexually attracted to most men to the degree they will be willing to stay with that man for 20, 30, or 40 years or more.  They just aren’t.  Nothing anyone can do will change that.”

Deti is accurately describing female desire in the context of approaching a mature woman who has already sampled the smorgasbord of the pen!s platter and has developed peculiar and deeply ingrained affinities for certain men who are well-endowed by various interpretations of the term.  Sorry, but it’s too late by then.  A woman like this has already been defiled (or sanctified, depending on the context, who you are, and how you look at it).  Coram Deo, she belongs to another man (or men).  As far as marriage minded Christian men are concerned, a woman like this is spiritually lost and gone to Hellenism, and should be vetted out of the list of mating potentials.  The unworkable problem is that most all Western women are this way, and this is because this is what family, church, and society has been feeding them since their Disney days.

Virginity before marriage is important for precisely this reason — because a woman’s first taste of d!ck is the one that sticks in her subconscious libidinous memories until the day she dies, and this influences her subsequent and consequent assessments of all other men – whether she admits to it or not, and whether she likes it or not.

If you find this woman more attractive than the two previous images, then you may have a conditioned attraction to 304s. If so, then you will have to remove the sex-colored glasses from your spiritual eyes before you go hunting for a wife.

This applies to men too.  Men might hold certain notions about a particular woman, but as soon as he sinks his magic wand into her genetic puddle, he’ll be singing a different tune.  This is why men often change their opinion about a woman after truly “knowing her” through coital congress.  Most men are aware of this, and this is partly why men have much lower standards for sex than for marriage.  It would serve men well to recognize that sex is undeniably spiritual in nature, and to prioritize standards for marriage first and foremost.

We must Replace our Biologically and Culturally Inspired Hope for Satisfying the Flesh with a new Hope for Holiness and Sanctification

“Please, stop giving men and women false hope.  It’s wrong.  It’s cruel.  Better to be honest with men and women, and tell them there is no hope for most of them.”

“Hope is not a strategy.”

It depends on what we hope for.

If a man is completely given over to the hope of having a pouty faced, raven haired, s1ut-eyed c0cksucker with beautiful bountiful bouncing b00belicious mammary glands and a heart-shaped @ss hopping up and down on his erect salami in an explosion of unbridled passion, then I’ll advise him to give up his notions of being a Christian (at least for the time being), and direct him over to the secular Manosphere.

As it is written,

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you…
And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you.

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (NKJV)

This is not to say that a Christian man can’t have the same, but he won’t find it as long as he’s floundering in the turmoil of obsessive lust.

You breed what you feed.

Where do wars and fights come from among you?  Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?  You lust and do not have.  You murder and covet and cannot obtain.  You fight and war.  Yet you do not have because you do not ask.  You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.  Adulterers and adulteresses!  Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?  Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

James 4:1-4 (NKJV)

If, on the other hand, a man is protecting his eyes, placing some boundaries on his relationships, and is working on developing his inner man and pursuing his purpose in life, then he stands a much better chance of attracting a woman who will be doing her best to distract him from all this with the fruits of her flesh and loins – and he’ll have better opportunities to marry well and cash in his chips.

Conclusions

The Red Pill has given us a full understanding of the evo-psychological factors and dynamics of sexual attraction.  The RP lore is well-developed, highly commoditized, and quickly gaining mainstream status in its advancement across society at this time.  This information allows us to fully and clinically recognize all these inclinations and behaviors as part of the fleshly nature, and reconsider how it is to be dealt with from a Biblical perspective.

The overall message behind Juliana’s testimony poses the challenge for us to do the following.

  1. Reframe what the Red Pill teaches us about sexual attraction and behavior as being the Biblical equivalent of “the fleshly nature”.
  2. Reassess what culture teaches us about attraction and how to regard it and respond to it.
  3. Look beyond the acutely enthralling but utterly fugacious initial feeelings of attraction.
  4. Return our attention to the mechanics of interaction and the fruits thereof as the ultimate indicators of the value of a relationship.
  5. Create a “culture of attraction” (for lack of a better name) which focuses on (1) how to assess and properly deal with the feral urgencies of evolutionary psychology, and (2) how to properly satisfy the eternal longings of the human soul according to wisdom.

To begin with (and to repeat this from the previous post), we need to do what we can to foster a respectful church / community / family / social environment having hallmarks similar to what Juliana has described — one that is characterized by a mutual respect for men, a respect for the right kinds of men, and teaching women by example to do the same.

We also need to focus our attention on, and give positive feedback to those women who should rightfully have it, and not to those who go attention wh0ring for the same.

We should also discourage honor and respect from being shown to those types of men and women who are prone to only garner respect or attention respectively according to those worldly standards which are contradictory and stand in stark contrast to God’s ordained order. We also need to explain to others that this is an inclination of the flesh and how it is detrimental to our spiritual and social lives.

Update

Sharkly, Kevin, et al. have added to the list of actionable steps.

  1. Individuals should increase sexual polarity to embellish Biblical gender roles, thereby glorifying God and increasing natural attraction.
  2. Work to restore the male honoring biblical doctrine of men alone being the likeness and glory of our Father and Son Godhead, while wives image Christ’s church.
  3. Teach “that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (that which becometh women professing godliness) with good works… to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (1 Timothy 2:9-14; Titus 2:3-5)
  4. Work to restore men’s rights, especially to discipline their wives and children.
  5. Work to take men’s rights back and establish masculine authority and masculine domains of influence.
  6. Deny and remove women from positions where they can effectively teach and usurp power over men, especially within the church.
  7. Honor virginity and shame the sexually immoral.
  8. Work to correct “White Knight” and “Simp” men for their foolishness.
  9. Resist letting Satan, apostate churches, or women, reframe your view or set your priorities.

DeepStrength wrote a response, Objective and subjective attraction measures and what the Church can do about it (2022-8-18), which offers some further observations about the nature of attraction.

DeepStrength’s post, Why do most societies have 90-95% marriage rates (at some points) (2021-7-29), offers a description of how male dominated socioeconomic conditions help foster female attraction to males within a patriarchal styled hierarchy.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Asia, Attraction, Authenticity, Boundaries, Calculated Risk Taking, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Collective Strength, Conserving Power, Courtship and Marriage, Cultural Differences, Decision Making, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline and Molding, Education, Enduring Suffering, Female Evo-Psych, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Glory, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Identity, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Leadership, Love, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Overcoming Addictions, Personal Presentation, Power, Psychological Disorders, Purpose, Relationships, Respect, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Self-Control, Sex, Sphere of Influence, Taiwan, Teaching, The Power of God, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to On Curating a Christian Culture of Attraction

  1. thedeti says:

    1) None of this supports the idea that women can learn to be sexually attracted to men they’re not sexually attracted to. You’re talking about how men learn to be attracted to women; not vice versa. Women are different from men. Women operate differently, think differently, and have different sexual responses and triggers.

    Your example of your own experience fails to take this into account. Your experience is a description of how YOU changed YOUR sexual triggers. At best, it could be a description of how SOME men could possibly change their sexual triggers, in the very best of circumstances. It is in no way, shape or form a description of anything women do or even can do.

    In men the sexual response is a constant low hum and gets easily aroused. In women the sexual response is mostly dormant and requires a hard trigger to arouse it. Women’s sexual attraction works very differently. It is not at all the same as men’s. To trigger a woman’s sexual attraction he either has to look a certain way, act in certain ways, and/or both.

    A man has to actually do things to get on a woman’s sexual radar. Once he does things, even one little screwup will destroy everything. And she is looking for excuses to reject him. This is all natural — it’s built into women’s hypergamy. Women are built like this for the specific purpose of weeding out unsuitable men.

    What women find physically attractive in men is extremely limited and is uniform across almost all women. Whenever you look at what women respond to physically, it’s limited to the following:

    — V-shaped taper from shoulder to waist
    — Fit and trim physical appearance
    — Muscle definition
    — Full thick hair
    — Low set forehead
    — Narrow, deep set, squinty eyes with positive canthal tilt
    — Lantern jaw with sharp mandible definition

    That’s IT. There IS nothing else. ALL women like those physical qualities and ALL women are looking for those. They will be extremely dissatisfied if they can’t get them or at least some of them. By contrast, men are sexually attracted to all different kinds of women. You name it, there’s a cohort of men attracted to it. All hair colors, all body types, all breast sizes, all shapes. Every woman can find men who want to have sex with her. But every man cannot find a woman who wants to have sex with him.

    And that’s what we are talking about. We are talking about marriage. Marriage is a sexual relationship. That means sex. That means a woman who wants to have sex with him. Not a woman who is willing to have sex. Or a woman willing to have sex with him. Or a woman who will have sex with him as long as she can grit her teeth and squint her eyes and just “get through it”. No. A woman who actually (read carefully) wants to have sex with him. All of those things are important.

    — wants (not willing, not “Eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess…”)
    — to have sex (not live with him, not be with him, not accept his money)
    — with him (not some other man or men, not what she thinks he is, not what he does for her).

    2) We are talking here about SEXUAL attraction. A woman’s desire to have sex with the man she’s with. Not that she likes him. Not that she thinks he’s good marriage material. Not that she thinks he will stay with her. Not that she thinks he will be a good father to her kids. Not even that she “loves” him (according to women’s definition of “love” which changes depending on how they feel and what they want their interlocutor to think of them). No. We are talking about one thing and one thing only, and that is her desire to have sex with him; her desire to accept his penis into her vagina and ejaculate into her. That’s it. Nothing else.

    And those things aren’t trained. They just are. She either wants to have sex with him, or she doesn’t. She either is sexually attracted to him, or she is not.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      The best that most men can get here are women who are willing to accept them as husbands. Most men are not going to get women who want them sexually. And there’s a wide difference between a woman who’s willing to accept you as a husband and a woman who wants you as a lover.

      This has always been the case. Most men are just not all that sexually attractive. Throughout history, most men just have not been all that sexually appealing to women. They’re just not. They might be kind men. They might be competent men, even proficient men. God loves them and their families love them; but that does not mean women will want to have sex with them. Nor does it even mean that the women who married them want to have sex with them.

      Oh, the women who marry them care about them, and care about what those men do for them. Those women might even love those men, or “love” them as best as they can, usually like really good friends or like siblings. But most of those women don’t really want to have sex with those men; not even the men they marry. Most women want to have sex with a narrow swath of men they cannot get commitment from. Most women want to have sex with a few men who will not marry them.

      This is not anyone’s fault. It’s not the men’s fault; it’s not women’s fault, it’s not society’s fault. It’s just how men and women are. It’s just how men and women are built. It’s human nature.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      deti,

      You’re talking about how men learn to be attracted to women; not vice versa. Women are different from men. Women operate differently, think differently, and have different sexual responses and triggers.

      Your example of your own experience fails to take this into account. Your experience is a description of how YOU changed YOUR sexual triggers. At best, it could be a description of how SOME men could possibly change their sexual triggers, in the very best of circumstances. It is in no way, shape or form a description of anything women do or even can do.”

      Congratulations! You’ve identified two of the three logical errors in applying my case study (indicated in bold) to women! Can you find the third?

      What are your thoughts about Rowena’s comment? Namely this.

      But a 5-7 woman can be satisfied with a 5-7 man if she is a virgin. Both Deep Strength and Julianna are referring to this category. A virgin when sexually imprinted by her husband and ONLY her husband can be trained to please him. This is Biblical concept of ONE FLESH. This is how most marriages lasted across ages and cultures.

      Bottom line – IF she is NOT a virgin you will need raw visceral sexual desire that Scott refers to. Which most men who are NOT 8-10 will be able to generate. If she is a virgin, she can be trained and have an entirely satisfying sex life even if BOTH she and her husband are 5-7. She knows no better just like most men do not know what it is like to sleep with a supermodel even if he is viscerally attracted to one.

      I am inclined to believe this, based on Teachman’s data. As Rowena said, female virginity is the lynchpin of any patriarchal society, and this is an underlying assumption in this OP.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “You’ve identified two of the three logical errors in applying my case study (indicated in bold) to women!”

        Exactly. We can’t use your example of how you got attracted to Asian women (to whom you weren’t naturally attracted) to show how virgin women might get attracted to men they really don’t want. It’s because women are different. Men’s attraction and how it works don’t inform women’s attraction and how that works.

        “What are your thoughts about Rowena’s comment?”

        “Satisfied” is not good enough. She needs to be hard viscerally attracted, even if she is a virgin. Virgins leave their marriages all the time due to FOMO and YOLO.

        Sure, a woman can be trained to please him; but that is not the same as training herself to be pleased with him.

        It is also easier for a woman to attract other men, than it is for a man to attract other women. A man in a marriage tends to be very satisfied as long as he’s getting sex. A woman in a marriage… not so much. This applies to virgins too — especially in today’s society.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        There’s also a difference between “satisfied” and “sexually attracted”

        There’s a wide difference between “satisfied” and “happy”.

        “Satisfied” is “adequate” and “meets bare minimum requirements”. “Happy” is “sexually attracted, desires him, wants to be with him”.

        Note she is NOT saying these women are “happy”. Only “satisfied”. Well, hell. I’m “satisfied” that I don’t pay a 50% income tax rate. I’m “satisfied” that gasoline is under $4 a gallon for right now. I’m “satisfied” that I’m not in any physical pain.

        “Satisfied” is a C average. “Happy” is a B+ and above.

        “Satisfied” is average, OK, getting by. “Happy” is doing well, succeeding, improving.

        Like

      • naturallyaspirated says:

        I think Rowena makes a good point regarding making the best of things given Deti’s scathing (yet accurate) description of biological truth. I would argue, however, that the culture in which western women currently live is undermining what she describes.

        If the virgin 5-7 woman (married to a 5-7 man who is doing his best to lead and provide masculine frame) is watching modern shows/movies/media with all the men 8-10 examples of attraction, instagram accounts of hot athletic men, “eat pray love” and similar regular diet of fiction, facebook links and friends all talking about these things as well and telling her she is good enough and a modern woman and deserving of the best, her satisfaction is going to erode over time with Mr. 5-7.

        When you grew up in a relatively isolated village or community, there weren’t 8-10 men all over the place, so it wasn’t much of a distraction or realistic hope. Now women are consuming images and descriptions and fantasies of these men everywhere, which keeps feeding the hypergamic appetite that would starve and remain mostly dormant in the past. This leads us back to Deti’s pessimism on modern marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “We are talking here about SEXUAL attraction. A woman’s desire to have sex with the man she’s with… We are talking about one thing and one thing only, and that is her desire to have sex with him; her desire to accept his penis into her vagina and ejaculate into her. That’s it. Nothing else.”

      This was something that I noticed as a young guy, my late teens into my early twenties, but had no understanding of it at the time. It just occurred to me as something strange about females. Why one was seemingly impossibly slow to get anything going with, and yet with another it was very easy to get things revved up.

      I’d like girl X and try to get something going with her, and it didn’t go very far. It seemed like all “work” if you will: working to get her interested, working to ask her out, working to get her to make out, etc. Then I’d be with girl Y who I also liked (and had a similar SMV and morals to girl X), and it was like no work whatsoever. It was like EVERYTHING was on “fast forward.”

      Looking back, now I get it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        There was also this very, very dumb idea we Christian men were raised with, and that was the notion that Christian women are attracted to “different things” than nonChristian women. This stupid notion that Christian women are not attracted to good looking, athletic, in shape, confident, dominant, competent, preeminent men. That Christian women are attracted to nice, kind, good, moral men who go to church.

        No.

        Even virgins aren’t attracted to nice, kind, good, moral men who go to church, UNLESS those nice, kind, good, moral, churchgoing men ALSO are good looking, athletic, in shape, confident, dominant, competent, and preeminent.

        In fact, their niceness, kindness, goodness, morality, and church status have nothing to do with their sexual attractiveness.

        ALL women are attracted to good looking, athletic, in shape, confident, dominant, competent, preeminent men. Including Christian women. Including virgins.

        And a virgin is not going to train herself to be attracted to a nice, kind, good, moral, churchgoing man unless that man also has other conventionally attractive qualities.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “That Christian women are attracted to nice, kind, good, moral men who go to church.”

        I’m not making this argument here, and it’s a little off topic.

        “And a virgin is not going to train herself to be attracted to a nice, kind, good, moral, churchgoing man unless that man also has other conventionally attractive qualities.”

        No, of course not. Women are not going to train themselves and it would be a mistake to assume so. They need to be trained by fathers, husbands, faithful older women, and the larger community. This is what Western culture and the church are missing.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “I’m not making this argument here, and it’s a little off topic.”

        I know that, and I didn’t say you were. It’s on topic because the issue is training women to be sexually attracted to certain men or types of men. But I won’t belabor the point because I’ve already made it.

        “They need to be trained by fathers, husbands, faithful older women, and the larger community. This is what Western culture and the church are missing.”

        I suppose so. But the bottom line is that women are going to have to submit, voluntarily, to that training. Before you get to men training women; you have to get to women’s voluntary submission to that. And right now, we are light years away from that.

        Women can be trained to please a man. I am not at all convinced they can be trained by ANYONE to be attracted to men they’re not attracted to. I am not at all convinced they can be trained to “be pleased with” men they’re not sexually attracted to. Even fathers, husbands, older women, and the community, can’t do that. The best they can do is train these women to obey and submit and do what they’re told and take what they can get. That is NOT the same thing as “sexually attracted to men they’re not sexually attracted to”.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Jack, I am sure you think I’m being overly contrarian and contentious. If that’s the case, I won’t comment on these posts further. I simply am bringing up the fact that what is suggested in these posts cannot be accomplished. Again: This is a woman’s being specifically trained by her family to be sexually attracted to a certain man. No. I do not think that can be done. I think she can be trained to obey, submit, and please a man. But she cannot be trained to be pleased with a man, unless that man is already pleasing to her in a sexual way.

        This is a very, very specific issue we’re talking about here. It’s about a woman being trained by others to become sexually attracted to a man she’s not sexually attracted to. No. I do not believe that can be done.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      deti, thanks for your valuable thoughts.

      The main point of this post is that sexual attraction can be molded to some extent, for both men and women, at least enough to allow sanctification in marriage. My case study applies to (some) men. The third logical error in applying this case study to women is that it cuts across culture and race, and not across SMV tiers. I did not offer a case study for women, but Juliana and Rowena’s testimonies fit the bill. They’re saying it can be done. Yes, it’s difficult. Yes, it must be started early in life. Yes, it requires female virginity. Yes, it might take years. Yes, it’s more difficult for women than for men. Yes, it must be reinforced by the larger community. DeepStrength goes into other conditions here. But it can be done and has been done by cultures in the past.

      All that said, are you saying that a woman’s sexual desire for her husband can never be achieved unless Scott’s Axiom is (continually) satisfied as a result of the physical indicators of high T masculinity you listed above, and therefore rejecting the main point of this post, even as it would apply in the special case described above (e.g. early virgin marriage, etc.)? (I know this is how it is, but this post is exploring the possibilities.)

      “We are talking about one thing and one thing only, and that is her desire to have sex with him…”

      In the OP, I stated that there is too much emphasis on sex and not enough emphasis on faith and the relationship dynamics. Isn’t this what you are doing by placing an overriding emphasis on the woman’s feeelings as THE determining factor in the success of a marriage? (Again, I know this is how it is, but I want to explore the possibilities.)

      “This is not anyone’s fault. It’s not the men’s fault; it’s not women’s fault, it’s not society’s fault. It’s just how men and women are. It’s just how men and women are built. It’s human nature.”

      I get the impression that you might agree with the Muslim practice of female circumcision. Or at least, you have made me see why they think that is a good thing. Personally, I believe it is bad, not only because of the obvious misogyny, but also because it has been shown that women who can’t orgasm are more likely to be promiscuous. But that’s another tangent.

      “Satisfied” is not good enough. She needs to be hard viscerally attracted, even if she is a virgin.”

      “Satisfied is not good enough” for what, exactly? For her to be willingly submissive? For Headship to happen? For marital sanctification?

      “Virgins leave their marriages all the time due to FOMO and YOLO.”

      I’m sure it happens (c.f. SFC Ton’s testimony), but we really need some data to consider the probabilities. Teachman’s study is about the closest we’ll get to this, and his study shows that around 88% of virgins stick it out, which is better than any other N counts.

      “Sure, a woman can be trained to please him; but that is not the same as training herself to be pleased with him.”

      Since when did female sexual satisfaction become a Christian requirement for marriage? (This is exactly why feminists hate the patriarchy and prefer sexual promiscuity, BTW, so by pursuing this argument, you are essentially siding with the interests of Feminism.) To be generous, it seems like you are saying that only those top 20% men who marry virgin women who are toe curling hot for them from the get-go can ever have the chance of achieving a sanctified marriage. I’m sure this is not your point though, so then what is your idea of how that would work for all the other Christian couples who are not in the upper SMV tiers? (Again, I am exploring the possibilities, not so much the present SMP.)

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “All that said, are you saying that a woman’s sexual desire for her husband can never be achieved unless Scott’s Axiom is (continually) satisfied as a result of the physical indicators of high T masculinity you listed above, and therefore rejecting the main point of this post, even as it would apply in the special case described above (e.g. early virgin marriage, etc.)? (I know this is how it is, but this post is exploring the possibilities.)”

        Yes. That is what I’m saying. The real world real life evidence bears it out. Look no further than SAM/Elspeth; Scott/Mychael; and Mike/Liz. We can of course look further, and the evidence still bears it out. It can be influenced somewhat, to a degree; but in general, unless she is sexually attracted from the very beginning, her sexual desire just will never be there. That includes virgins.

        “In the OP, I stated that there is too much emphasis on sex and not enough emphasis on faith and the relationship dynamics. Isn’t this what you are doing by placing an overriding emphasis on the woman’s feeelings as THE determining factor in the success of a marriage?”

        Marriage is a sexual relationship. No sex, no marriage. No sexual attraction, no sex.

        “I get the impression that you might agree with the Muslim practice of female circumcision.”

        Now hold on. No I absolutely DO NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM agree with female circumcision. (For reference, that’s clitoridectomy, or amputation of the clitoris. NO I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT BARBARIC PRACTICE. NO I DO NOT.

        Women can do anything they want. They can have sex with anyone they want. They certainly do not have to have sex with men they’re not sexually attracted to. That does not, however, mean that those men they won’t have sex with are required to date them, invest in them, marry them, or waste their lives on them.

        “Satisfied is not good enough” for what, exactly? For her to be willingly submissive? For Headship to happen? For marital sanctification?”

        For anything. If she’s not hard viscerally attracted, she will ruin the marriage.

        “Since when did female sexual satisfaction become a Christian requirement for marriage?”

        It isn’t; but it’s required for women to even consider men for dating or marriage or sex. Without it, these marriages will not improve. The best you’ll get from women is somewhat willing obedience and submission.

        “…by pursuing this argument, you are essentially siding with the interests of Feminism.”

        No; I’m describing boots-on-the-ground reality. This is how life is for men now.

        “To be generous, it seems like you are saying that only those top 20% men who marry virgin women who are toe curling hot for them from the get-go can ever have the chance of achieving a sanctified marriage.”

        Yeah, pretty much, including where men can have the sexual satisfaction they need. And that sexual satisfaction and conduct are necessary for a sanctified marriage. Again: Marriage = sex. No sex, no marriage.

        “…what is your idea of how that would work for all the other Christian couples who are not in the upper SMV tiers? (Again, I am exploring the possibilities, not so much the present SMP.)”

        Well, it looks pretty much like it did pre-sex rev. Men trudge off to jobs they hate and take care of their wives and families. Women dutifully have OK sex with men they like, even love (sort of), but who they aren’t really all that hot for. Men marry the second or third woman they had sex with. Most women marry the guy they lost their virginity to; or the second guy they had sex with. It is OK sex, but it’s not really great sex, and they’re not really all that attracted to those men.

        Most women throughout history have married men who are “yeah, sure, OK, I guess so” men. That’s because that’s who they could get for marriage. Most women do not marry men they’re stupendously can’t-see-straight sexually attracted to. Most women are not Elspeth, Mychael, or Liz. Those marriages are, and always have been, extreme outliers. They are NOT the norm and never have been.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        The fact of the matter is that this won’t be an issue for increasing numbers of men, because they just won’t ever get married. They won’t ever get married because the women who would otherwise marry them, don’t want them now. The women who would be their SMV/RMV counterparts do not want them. They would rather remain unmarried, have Chadrone’s babies, and work jobs they hate.

        That includes Christian women. Even Christian women are doing this — staying unmarried, having premarital sex, and bearing the children of men who won’t commit to them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “That includes Christian women. Even Christian women are doing this — staying unmarried, having premarital sex, and bearing the children of men who won’t commit to them.”

        Nominally Christian women, yes. But if they’re obeying the demands of the flesh, then this is not true Christianity. What does authentic Christianity look like?

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        This is the last point I’m going to make, or at least, the last time I will make the point.

        I agree that women can be trained by family to submit to the man she marries.

        I agree she can be trained to accept, somewhat happily and with grace and gratitude, a man who will marry her.

        I agree she can have a happy, sanctified marriage with such a man.

        I agree she can get herself to willingly have more or less satisfying sex with that man. She might even get to “want to” have sex with him. Sometimes.

        You might be able to move that attraction needle from “eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess” to “yes, I like this”.

        You are never, ever going to move that needle from “no, not attracted” to “yes, I am attracted”. That needle is never, ever going to move from “eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess” to Elspeth level “I am so attracted to him I cannot see straight”. That needle is only rarely going to move from “willing” to “want”.

        Where Juliana and Rowena and you are losing me is the claim that we can train a woman’s SEXUAL attraction away from more masculine men and toward less masculine men. Where you’re losing me is with the claim that you can train a woman to be SEXUALLY attracted to men she’s not naturally sexually attracted to. You can train a man to be sexually attracted to women he’s not naturally sexually attracted to; but you cannot do that with women.

        What you’re seeing with women is that they’re being trained to accept what they can get and then rationalizing that as sexual attraction. Women have to do this because they cannot accept the cognitive dissonance resulting from accepting men they’re not sexually attracted to.

        Remember the topic under discussion is women’s sexual attraction. That’s very specific, Jack. That’s “wants to have sex with him”. Not “willing”. Not “eh, yeah, sure, OK”. It’s WANTS to have sex. Wants. Desires. A woman is NOT sexually attracted to a man unless she desires him sexually, and he arouses her. Makes her wet. Gets her tingly. Anything less is not sexual attraction.

        The best we are ever going to get is moving the needle a little in the direction you want. You are never going to get women to be en masse attracted to bottom 80% men. Never. What we are getting is what we have always gotten: women marrying men they aren’t really sexually attracted to, but marrying for reasons other than that. This has always been the case. Always. And it always will be.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        deti,

        “Where Juliana and Rowena and you are losing me is the claim that we can train a woman’s SEXUAL attraction away from more masculine men and toward less masculine men.”

        Huh?!? I am not making this claim, and I never got the impression that this was the point that Juliana and Rowena were making either. I went back to read what they wrote just to be sure.

        Juliana wrote,

        “Zippy’s view on female attraction being socially mediated rang true to me because of my experience in resisting my attraction to bad boys. I was definitely attracted to them, but purposely chose a man who was not rebellious and then my dad affirmed my choice. My sister did the same. I don’t believe I would have done this if the men in my social group did not demonstrate respect for good men and disrespect for bad and if my mother had not specifically brought this to my attention.”

        Juliana is saying that women need to be warned about their natural visceral attraction to high SMV men and to choose wisely.

        Rowena wrote,

        “A man or woman can BOTH increase sexual attractiveness and move from a 5 to a 7 which is where most men and women fall. They cannot get the visceral attraction that a 8-10 generates but can increase their sexual attractiveness in their bandwidth.

        It hinges however on virginity of woman. If she is NOT a virgin, nothing short of raw, visceral sexual attraction will satisfy. She may be a 5-7 but she will not be sexually satisfied with a 5-7 IF she has slept with a 8-10 before.”

        “But a 5-7 woman can be satisfied with a 5-7 man if she is a virgin. […] A virgin when sexually imprinted by her husband and ONLY her husband can be trained to please him. This is Biblical concept of ONE FLESH. This is how most marriages lasted across ages and cultures.

        Bottom line — IF she is NOT a virgin you will need raw visceral sexual desire that Scott refers to. Which most men who are NOT 8-10 will be able to generate. If she is a virgin, she can be trained and have an entirely satisfying sex life even if BOTH she and her husband are 5-7. She knows no better…”

        Rowena is saying that men and women can make themselves more appealing to the opposite sex, and that virginity before marriage and fidelity after prevents one from being spoiled by sexual experiences with higher SMV individuals. Together, this is enough for them to achieve contentment / sanctification.

        Returning to the main idea in the OP, we need to focus on these things to achieve a “Christian Culture of Attraction” — one which is not so much focused on gratifying lust and hypergamy, but is instead marked by (1) a Biblical/RP awareness of the fleshly nature, (2) protecting women from becoming slores, and (3) a conscious decision to make wise choices in order to achieve sexual fulfillment and marital sanctification.

        I still think you are focusing on the much too common situation in which the woman is already a slore, or is on the precipice of becoming one. This is not to say that women do not have that propensity, because they do. As Sharkly quoted Origen, “Women are worse than animals because they are continuously full of lust.” The RP agrees with this, but as you and RPB pointed out, in our culture it is extremely selective and rather well hidden. A “Christian Culture of Attraction” would be focused on channeling that feral concupiscence (of both males and females) into honorable, productive, and satisfying marriages, and not so much on exploring it to it’s fullest extent, which is the subtle secular goal of FOMO and YOLO, as this destroys souls, marriages, families, and the society at large, as we are well aware.

        The message I’m getting from you is that this would all be a vain effort, because gynocentrism, the Feminine imperative, and hypergamy (viz. the “flesh”) will win out in the end, destroying marriages and families along the way. But the message we get from the Bible is that we should fight valiantly against this anyway, even if it is a losing battle. Hence, the reason for this post.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Nominally Christian women, yes. But if they’re obeying the demands of the flesh, then this is not true Christianity. What does authentic Christianity look like?”

        Ah… the “No True Scotsman” fallacy….

        Christian, nominally Christian… whatever. It doesn’t matter in the final analysis. Even faithful Christian women aren’t attracted to most men and won’t accept most men. Even faithful Christian women are avoiding and eschewing marriage and don’t want the neomaxizoomdweebies who would marry them. Even faithful Christian women don’t want to get married.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        deti,
        So your conclusion is that Christian marriage is unrealistic, untenable, and unachievable for all but a precious few of the most beautiful people on the planet. Hence, as the disciples once said, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (Matthew 19:10) And yet, in 1 Corinthians 7:2-7, Paul states that it is better to marry than to commit immoralities. So at this point, were talking about sin and sanctification, not sexual attraction in marriage. In other words, sanctification is a result of staying clear from illicit sex just as much as it is from being so attracted to one’s spouse that one can’t see straight. So now this circles back to the OP, but with even less emphasis on the aspect of attraction.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “So at this point, were talking about sin and sanctification, not sexual attraction in marriage. In other words, sanctification is a result of staying clear from illicit sex just as much as it is from being so attracted to one’s spouse that one can’t see straight.”

        Pretty much. Unless you’re a top 20% man, you’re pretty much screwed. You’re not going to have a satisfying marriage. Whatever you do have will require constant maintenance and vigilance, and half of those men will wind up divorce graped.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Huh?!? I am not making this claim, and I never got the impression that this was the point that Juliana and Rowena were making either.”

        Juliana and Rowena (and you, by extension) are making the claim that women can be trained (either by themselves or by their families or others) to become sexually attracted to their SMV counterparts. I disagree with that. It doesn’t matter if they’re virgins or slores. They’re either attracted, or they’re not.

        The absolute best you can ever, ever get is to move the needle a little away from “not attracted” and toward “attracted”. The best you can ever get is “a little attracted” to “a little more attracted”. But you are never, ever going to move it from “not attracted at all” to “OK, well, maybe a little attracted”. That is never, ever going to happen. Never has, never will. If that needle is on “not attracted”, that needle is not moving.

        And let’s say, let’s just assume, that you can move the needle a little. Is that worth a man’s time, effort, money, commitment, fidelity, and resources? Is that worth the risk that she’ll blow it all up anyway? Because she can, and 38% of Christian women eventually do. She’s got all the Protestant family ministries egging her on to do it. Sure, it’s worth it to women. Is it worth it to men? I submit it is not. Not in today’s day and age.

        The men are doing ALL the work and taking on ALL the risk. You’ve seen it right here — I suggested that women could do some things to reduce that risk. I was lambasted and excoriated from here to Timbuktu. I was told, “No, can’t do that, because that would be women ‘fixing’ everything”, and “No, can’t do that because then you’re telling women to be with men they’re not attracted to”, and “No, can’t do that because that’s women leading and women aren’t supposed to lead”.

        Well, hell’s bells. All this stuff, and women are still demanding that men do everything, risk everything, and ultimately get screwed over. No. I can’t in good conscience sign on for that.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I am going to keep harping on this and coming back to it.

        We are talking here about sexual attraction. SEXUAL attraction. That means she wants to have sex with him. Read that again:

        SHE WANTS TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM!

        Every one of those words is important. Every single one. She must want to have sex with him. That means she wants him. Desires for him. Tingles for him. Longs for him to have sex with her.

        That means sex. Not cuddling. Not relationship. Not companionship. Not “partner”. Not sterile “reproduction” sex. Not him masturbating into her vagina. Not her using him as a sperm donor/ATM. It means SEX. It means her giving herself freely and voluntarily to him, her whole self, holding absolutely nothing back. It means sexual congress. It means complete and total flesh union.

        That means she wants HIM. Not what she thinks he is. Not what she has built up in her mind that he is. Not what he does. Not what he doesn’t do. Not what he isn’t. Not her expectations or preconceived notions. Not him as substitute for someone else. Not him as the “anti-Chad”. Not him as substitute for “prior boyfriend who was mean to me and who would not commit, and I luuurrrrves him cuz he’d never do that to meeeee”. HIM. No one else. HIM.

        Let’s take a look at what this is not.

        This is not:

        — Wants to be in a relationship with him
        — Wants to marry him
        — Wants a commitment from him
        — Wants ANYTHING from him OTHER than sex
        — Likes him
        — Thinks he will be a good husband
        — Thinks he will be a good father to her (not his, not their, HER) children
        — Thinks he is nice

        — Knows he is a good provider

        — Is willing to have sex with him
        — Is willing to have sex with him if he meets certain conditions (usually that he commits immediately and commits first)
        — Is willing to have starfish “reproduction only” sex
        — Is willing to have no-foreplay, no oral sex, sex

        No. None of that.

        And that is what you cannot train most women to do or be.

        Liked by 1 person

    • locustsplease says:

      These picky women who only want the top men are 5’4″ 170lbs. They are lunaticts and unreasonable. The reality is they desperately want to die alone and a man will interfere with life long strength independence and whoredom.

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        I have to agree. They eventually all wake up to the reality that they’re never going to get their good-looking, ripped, billionaire handyman and it galls them to no end. The entitlement attitude has become that deeply entrenched, the inevitable fruit of never having boundaries, expectations, or reality checks imposed upon them. They would literally rather die as lonely, alcoholic, drug-dependent cat ladies than settle for anything less than perfection. It’s almost a kind of hardwired mental illness.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Oscar says:

    Remember when millions of women found this sexy?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. elspeth says:

    “I agree that women can be trained by family to submit to the man she marries.

    I agree she can be trained to accept, somewhat happily and with grace and gratitude, a man who will marry her.

    I agree she can have a happy, sanctified marriage with such a man.

    I agree she can get herself to willingly have more or less satisfying sex with that man. She might even get to “want to” have sex with him. Sometimes.

    You might be able to move that attraction needle from “eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess” to “yes, I like this”.

    This sounds — in conjunction with actions which demonstrate a true, godly understanding of what marriage is — like a good thing. A very good thing, in fact.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      The problem is that it’s not good enough for marriages today and it’s not sufficient to keep women in marriages.

      The problem is that it’s not good enough for women to form marriages.

      The problem is that women won’t accept these as “good enough”.

      The problem is that the SAM/Elspeth model is the only thing that will suffice for marriage formation and sustenance today. And as I have said many times, most women cannot have that. Because they cannot have that, they won’t form marriages and they detonate marriages that don’t hew to that model.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The problem, E, is that “that needle is only rarely going to move from “willing” to “want”.”

        You’ll almost never, ever get a woman from “eh, yeah, sure, OK” to “yes, I like this”. You won’t get it there enough times to make it worth a man’s risking everything he is and everything he has.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but there it is. The facts are what they are.

        Don’t blame me just because I told everyone the truth.

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “The problem is that it’s not good enough for marriages today and it’s not sufficient to keep women in marriages… The problem is that it’s not good enough for women to form marriages… The problem is that women won’t accept these as “good enough”.”

        And these results are the fruits of all the social engineering our society has engaged in with regards to relationships the last 50+ years.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “Because [women] cannot have [the ideal relationship], they won’t form marriages and they detonate marriages that don’t hew to that model.”

        I think this is getting to the root of the real problem, which has actually been discussed before ad infinitum. Women, and men too, are spoiled on easy peasy sexual idolatries (in the form of abortion, generalized fantasy, p0rnography, promiscuity, the 6 sirens of the sexual apocalypse, etc.), that are free from negative immediate consequences. The breakdown of the nuclear family structure (~50% divorce rate, no fault divorce, single parent homes, etc.) evicts the awareness of God out of the public consciousness and creates a kind of suffering that pushes individuals to abandon that structure and pursue the immediate anesthesia of sexual idolatry to fill their needs. This forms a self-perpetuating cycle — a societal-wide stronghold of sin. There’s literally no incentive to pursue any biblical relationship structure, other than for the inherent spiritual benefits, which most are not aware of, or will never find as long as they are preoccupied with said idolatries.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Sharkly says:

    “Please, stop giving men and women false hope. It’s wrong. It’s cruel. […] Hope is not a strategy. […] For most family minded men, it’s utterly hopeless. They will either (1) have to accept women who have been imprinted with premarital sex; or (2) avoid marriage entirely.”

    LOL! Despair much?

    While there is some truth in some things you point out, you seem to lack the vision to see all of the exceptions or engage your mind towards envisioning solutions to some of the aspects of marital problems in our society. Furthermore, you even try to drag history along into your black-hole vortex of hopelessness.

    Based on all the facts in aggregate, statistically speaking, my marriage should have been one to go the distance. But statistics are no guarantee. An undisclosed bondage to sin can ruin a marriage with even very good chances.

    Firstly, we’re not trying to give advice to statistics (or “most men”) we are our offering advice to individual men who will hear it, and may still be able to act on it either themselves or by training their children or others.

    The Patristic age church fathers unanimously taught that women were not the image of God and were thus categorically inferior to all men. They also highly esteemed virginity, while resoundingly harping on women’s inferiority to men. In this Patriarchal environment, when taught that patriarchal truth, within Christian marriages, women were described as being the sexual aggressors or sex-pests of their husbands. Origen wrote, “Women are worse than animals because they are continuously full of lust.”

    Thedeti, you seem willfully ignorant that sexual attraction functions well, to the glory of God, when we live according to God’s design. You seem willfully ignorant of the solidly patriarchal doctrine of the church prior to around 400AD and the outworking of people’s natural inclinations when properly founded on the divinely imparted superiority and right of husbands to rule supremely over their wives. Not only was virginity highly respected in that culture, but wives were also taught to fear their husbands (Ephesians 5:33) and husbands were able to publicly and privately beat their wives into submission, with the public largely taking the husband’s side in such matters. Men were able, at a moment’s notice, to use the physical superiority our loving God gave them to enforce godliness within their families, in public or in private, with appropriate support from the community. Wives and children were expected to know better than to anger their God-appointed head. There will be abuses in any human hierarchy, but full patriarchy is clearly the God-ordained best possible family and societal order.

    Any order you choose has to be enforced or it will descend into lawlessness. Satanic Feminists have restrained men’s ability to discipline their families back into order under their headship, so now we just watch as families everywhere come apart. Nor will any churches discipline wives for disregarding their husband’s headship. Turning to the whoring and apostate woman-worshipping daughters of the Mother of Harlots for help in subjecting your wife underneath you, is what is truly hopeless. Women, however, aren’t a hopeless cause, although I haven’t read it, the popularity of “50 Shades of Grey” would indicate that many women secretly desire to be disciplined by a man, and that a man’s firm discipline of a woman often creates in her a heightened sexual desire for the man who has mastered her.

    This mortal life is a test for us, an entrance test for our place in our immortal life. Women are a test for men. We are to rule over them well. Even those who choose not to personally marry, or have been divorced, still can’t abdicate their responsibility to support other men in their rule over their wives and children. Those who are ashamed of God’s patriarchal word will go to hell, along with the cowardly and the faithless.

    When the churches and society thought and said the most humbling things about women, that is when women consistently brought the most glory to God, through her serving God by serving the image of Christ, her husband, as she images the Christ’s church.

    Our Godhead is a holy patriarchy, a Father turning over all power to be channeled through His Son, and then through His servants. When we pray, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”, we are asking that God’s holy patriarchal will would be carried out through God’s holy patriarchal order here on earth, like it already is in heaven. We are unknowingly praying for the restoration of patriarchy. So how do we, as servants of God, perform well at our task which is intended to test us? We help God to bring many to righteousness by restoring loving God’s holy patriarchy to earth.

    Here are some preliminary actionable steps:

    1– Work to restore the male honoring biblical doctrine of men alone being the likeness and glory of our Father and Son Godhead, while wives image Christ’s church.
    2– Teach “that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (that which becometh women professing godliness) with good works… to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
    3– Work to restore men’s rights, especially to discipline their wives and children.
    4– Work to take men’s rights back away from women, and deny and remove women from positions where they can effectively usurp power over men.
    5– Honor virginity and shame the sexual immoral (since we can’t execute them yet).
    6– Work to correct “White Knight” and “Simp” men for their foolishness.
    7– Resist letting Satan, churches, or women, reframe your view or set your priorities.

    I’m sure some of you could add even more actionable steps.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “…husbands were able to publicly and privately beat their wives into submission, with the public largely taking the husband’s side in such matters.”

      I’ve been to places where that’s still the case. All $h!tholes. No, thanks.

      Like

      • info says:

        @Oscar,

        “I’ve been to places where that’s still the case. All $h!tholes. No, thanks!”

        God is a God of Justice and Wisdom. That kind of treatment is neither wise nor Just.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        And also when that is the case. The mothers beat the children into submission. Learning from the poor example of her Head. Thereby being wicked herself and unloading the violence into the children.

        Is that what we want for our children?

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: Objective and subjective attraction measures and what the Church can do about it | Christianity and masculinity

  6. Sharkly says:

    “A man in a marriage tends to be very satisfied as long as he’s getting sex.”

    Genesis 2:18 (TLB)
    And the Lord God said, “It isn’t good for man to be alone; I will make a companion for him, a helper suited to his needs.”

    1 Corinthians 11:9 (Wycliffe)
    And the man is not made for the woman, but the woman for the man.

    A wife can easily satisfy a properly functioning man, because that is what she was made to do. We are never told that the man was designed for or intended to satisfy the woman. Ideally he is to love her just like he loves himself, and to wash her with the word of God to present her to himself, for his use, cleansed of any failings. But while her focus should be on fulfilling her role of meeting her husband’s wishes, his role is not directly to satisfy her but to teach her that godliness with contentment is great gain (1 Timothy 6:6). Obviously if he does things that do satisfy her, that can be helpful, but some folks refuse to be satisfied, and for the man, her satisfaction, while desired, is not his purpose.

    We as a society just need to quit the woman-worshipping thinking that a husband is supposed to satisfy his wife. She needs to be taught to choose contentment whenever she can. Her primary flaw is envy and discontentment. Eve likely envied that the man was her superior, and the likeness of God, and she wanted to be like God also. Freud found that women’s most besetting dysfunction was unresolved penis envy (manhood envy). Social media is seemingly designed to solicit envy. Social media is extremely poisonous to most women who can’t control their envious nature. Churches should try to teach women contentment, not to be discontent with their husband. Nor should they have social media sites which might encourage women to use social media, or be used to help justify their use of it.

    Anyhow, it’s not what Disney says, but life isn’t equal, and women aren’t to take up men’s focus, yet women are to focus on serving their husband as unto the Lord.

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Kevin says:

    Sexual polarity is what creates sexual attraction. Even in homosexual relationships you see the drift to masculine and feminine. And when they both look the same you know there’s no sex happening (usually two butch lesbians, they are androgenous).

    It’s just like magnetism. Why? Don’t know. The stronger the opposites, the stronger the pull. The weaker the opposites, eventually they don’t even stick together. There is a reason why women that look like women are attractive to men, and men that look like men are attractive to women. It’s signalling that hopefully the rest of them is the same. What are the chances that some she-whale with a sour face has a feminine cooperative personality? Looks will get you in the door, but character is destiny.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. thedeti says:

    “If sexual attraction cannot be trained or taught, then how do you explain the following?”

    Glad you asked.

    “Men caught up in p0rn and masturbation cannot feel attraction towards regular women, no matter how marriage worthy they might be.”

    Yes they can feel attraction. In fact, those men would much, much rather have “regular women”, but it’s that those “regular women” don’t want them. It has not one thing to do with how “marriage worthy” the women are. Men’s sexual attraction is about sex, not marriage.

    “Men who have sex with many women cannot deeply love and appreciate any one woman (i.e. a wife).”

    Absolutely 100% wrong. Players go on to marry all the time. Of course those men can deeply love and appreciate one woman. “Player burnout” is precisely about the male desire to find one woman he can deeply love and appreciate.

    “Women steeped in romance p0rn (e.g. 50 Shades of Gray, etc.) come to see regular men as common, obtuse, and unattractive.”

    That’s because most men are common and unattractive. Perhaps not so much obtuse. Women have ALWAYS viewed most men as common and unattractive because most men ARE common and unattractive. All 50SoG did was amplify that fact. Women have thought most men are common and unattractive long, long before 50SoG and romance pron came on the scene.

    “Women who rode the carousel during their budding years of sexuality become alpha widowed and can never be satisfied with submitting to one man (i.e. a husband).”

    See above. That’s because most men are in fact common and unattractive. Most men are boring. Marriage, submission, and getting about the business of life is boring, tedious, and repetitive (unless of course you’re SAM or Mike).

    Liked by 1 person

  9. elspeth says:

    “Not what she thinks he is. Not what she has built up in her mind that he is. Not what he does. Not what he doesn’t do. Not what he isn’t. Not her expectations or preconceived notions.”

    This woman? This woman who sleeps with a man with none of this going through her head? No consideration of any of these things?

    She does not exist. And if she does, you truly want to steer clear of her as far as any kind of relationship lasting longer than one night.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      E

      This post was about one thing, and one thing only: sexual attraction. I am talking here about what sexual attraction is. I am isolating it for the purpose of helping men identify it so they know it when they see it; and telling women that their claim of “training” women to be sexually attracted to men they’re not sexually attracted to is ridiculous.

      This post was for the express and explicit purpose of examining the claim: “Can women’s sexual attraction be trained or taught?” I submit that it cannot. I submit that the best you will ever, ever get is to move the needle from “a little attracted” to “slightly more attracted”. You will never, ever move that needle off “not attracted”.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      And by the way:

      Any woman who sleeps with a man based on what she thinks he is or what she has built up in her mind that he is, is less than worthless and will destroy everything around her. That is because she’s basing her assessment of the man not on what he ACTUALLY is, but on what she BELIEVES or IMAGINES he is, or is not.

      Like

      • elspeth says:

        “Any woman who sleeps with a man based on what she thinks he is or what she has built up in her mind that he is, is less than worthless and will destroy everything around her. That is because she’s basing her assessment of the man not on what he ACTUALLY is, but on what she BELIEVES or IMAGINES he is, or is not.”

        False. Everyone does this in the beginning. Everyone; male or female. I submit that the first full decade of marriage (even in a very GOOD marriage) is basically an unpacking of all the stuff each of them brought with them from their families of origin.

        And there isn’t a spouse alive who hasn’t had some ideas of who they thought their beloved was shattered against the rocks of reality.

        Deti, come on now. You are a very intelligent man. You know most everyone comes into marriage with preconceived romantic notions.

        That’s when the real opportunity to love kicks in. When you decide that things you imagined about your spouse were just that, your romantic imaginations. And you love them anyway, sometimes you love them even more.

        But everyone brings misconceptions about who their spouse is into marriage. Both sexes.

        And it doesn’t make a woman who does it worthless. It’s what we do with those things that determine our worth as a spouse.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “False. Everyone does this in the beginning. Everyone; male or female. I submit that the first full decade of marriage (even in a very GOOD marriage) is basically an unpacking of all the stuff each of them brought with from their families of origin.”

        BS. No, everyone does NOT do this in the beginning. The women of the Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary knew EXACTLY who their men were when they laid with them and then when they married them. To the extent there were “issues”, those women didn’t care.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      Final thing

      Moving that needle from “a little attracted” to “a little more attracted” is not worth men’s time, money, effort, fidelity, or resources. It is not worth the risk. Especially since men are the ones who bear almost all of that risk and stand to lose way, way more if things go south (as they usually do).

      I have suggested ways women can reduce that risk, but was told, “No, can’t do that, because that would be women leading and fixing this”, and “No, can’t do that, because that means women have to accept men they aren’t sexually attracted to”.

      It’s not worth it, and women don’t want to do anything to help. F**k it.

      Like

  10. Jack says:

    deti,

    Long comment incoming…

    “Any woman who sleeps with a man based on what she thinks he is or what she has built up in her mind that he is, is less than worthless and will destroy everything around her. That is because she’s basing her assessment of the man not on what he ACTUALLY is, but on what she BELIEVES or IMAGINES he is, or is not.”

    I strongly disagree, and the reason is somewhat profound. Attraction is not limited to “natural” evo-psyche indicators of masculinity (such as those you listed in another comment here). Women won’t get the Tingles for / fall in love / sleep with /marry a man (at least not for very long) unless there is something about him that appeals to her sense of fantasy / mythos. In every case I have seen, men are clueless about what this is — why this woman loves him so much — and how he fits into this mythos, and women are not very well aware of it either.

    For example…

    — 50SoG is insanely popular precisely because it taps into women’s sense of mythos.
    — Men who have charisma and Game know how to tap into the feminine sense of mythos and create attraction, even when he is lacking outward indicators of LAMPS, etc.
    — We know that women have the hots for bad boys, criminals, etc., and that this is a feature, not a bug (as Kristor makes it out to be).

    If these women saw those men for what they truly are — narcissistic, sociopathic, wicked men — they wouldn’t be chasing after them, having sex with them, marrying them, and having their kids.

    The reason women fall for all this stuff is not only because the male characters have exaggerated traits of masculinity, but also because something about him appeals to her mythical sense of purpose. (One such purpose that has previously been examined in the Manosphere is the female desire to tame the bad boy and reconstruct him into a faithful loving man. DeepStrength outlines two more purposes in this post.)

    This is why…

    — Women will read 50SoG and believe that it is reality (or that it should be).
    — Women will have a ONS with the PUA, just because he stroked her ego, made her laugh, and charmed his way into her pants.
    — Women will intentionally ignore who the bad boy really is, marry him, bang him with unbridled passion, have his children, get abused by him every day, and yet continue to stay with him while living in a fantasy world of love.
    — Girlfriends do not stay with any one boyfriend for very long, and wives blow up their marriages, simply because they weren’t “in love” anymore, or were “bored”. Translation: He did not continue to inspire her emotions and stimulate her desires with a sense of mythos.

    I think part of the breakdown of attraction in modern society is because (1) women have been trained to focus solely on those traits of masculinity that have already been identified in the Manosphere (e.g. LAMPS, courage, confidence, etc.), and because (2) sexual promiscuity and open hypergamy makes women into gluttons for the finest male specimens. As a consequence, women are focused on the flesh and have lost touch with some of the metaphysical realities of mythos.

    I think what you are describing is the much too common situation where a woman has settled for a man whom she despises — partly because he’s “common” and doesn’t appeal to her hypergamic instincts, and partly because he doesn’t inspire her with a sense of mythos. In lieu of genuine attraction, she is pressuring him into becoming something less embarrassing to her sense of shame over settling. In this case, her notions of what she thinks he ought to be don’t match who he truly is, and so the relationship becomes fraught with mismatched expectations and contemptuous quarrels.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      If a woman is picking a man “based on what she thinks he is or what she has built up in her mind that he is”, then she’s not picking HIM. She’s picking a fake version of him. She’s not picking him. She’s picking “not him”. She’s picking a fantasy.

      And that is destructive and ruinous.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “If a woman is picking a man “based on what she thinks he is or what she has built up in her mind that he is”, then she’s not picking HIM. She’s picking a fake version of him. She’s not picking him. She’s picking “not him”. She’s picking a fantasy.

        And that is destructive and ruinous.”

        A woman’s fantasy could be destructive if it stands in contrast to reality. Or, if it has certain points of intersection that line up sufficiently well with who he truly is, then it could be the “magic” that draws her stay with a man for years, in spite of his problems and sins. Again, why else would women stay with men who are obviously bad?

        Ame is a great example of this phenomenon. She continued to stay with her first husband with an undying love and devotion, in spite of all the abuse, affairs, and other crap he was dishing out every day. This kept their marriage together, which was probably beneficial to their children, as opposed to the horrors imposed on children through divorce. We admire Ame for her faith and tenacity, and this is a good thing. However, I would even say she enabled him to some degree, and in this respect, you are right that it was destructive.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      “Women won’t get the Tingles for / fall in love / sleep with /marry a man (at least not for very long) unless there is something about him that appeals to her sense of fantasy / mythos.”

      Dude, women marry men for utility and resources all the time. It’s not about “fantasy/mythos”. It’s about raw utility — it’s about her using him for his money and exploiting him for her purposes. Her only “fantasy” is scoring points with the sisterhood and saying, “See? See, rival women? I got this man to commit to me! Now give me my status points! Getting married is supposed to up my status with you women! Well, I got a man to marry me, so that makes me higher status.”

      Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        A woman’s girlfriends ooh and ahh over her ring and hope they are next to be picked. For men, I’d liken it to picking teams on the playground. The order of choosing had status associated with it and no one wanted to be picked last.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Dude, women marry men for utility and resources all the time. It’s not about “fantasy/mythos”. It’s about raw utility — it’s about her using him for his money and exploiting him for her purposes.”

        Dude, “her using him for his money and exploiting him for her purposes” is the raw practicality of the arrangement that is left after we remove any sense of mythos about “love and commitment”, etc. The latter is revealed to be pure mythos (and not reality) after the marriage ends. The mythos surrounding love and commitment is a central motivator for marriages that continue.

        Also…
        — Chivalry is based on fantasy/mythos.
        — Female solipsism is all about fantasy/mythos.
        — Fantasy/mythos is why women say they want to get married “eventually”, but still postpone doing so for 10 years while they spend all their marriage potential on the carousel.
        — Women blow up relationships when the fantasy wears thin and the mythos implodes.
        — Fantasy/mythos is what makes p0rn the biggest internet industry.
        — Fantasy/mythos earned E. L. James $95M on 50SoG.
        — Fantasy/mythos made Walt Disney a $200B company!

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        “Dude, “her using him for his money and exploiting him for her purposes” is the raw practicality of the arrangement that is left after we remove any sense of mythos about “love and commitment”, etc. The latter is revealed to be pure mythos (and not reality) after the marriage ends. The mythos surrounding love and commitment is a central motivator for marriages that continue.”

        This is an excellent encapsulation of what I have been inarticulately trying to say. Nothing has revealed to me the utter foreignness of how men and women communicate like trying to express in this format that women’s attraction and behavior is overlapping in myriad ways. It’s not and has never been a straight line.

        Women sometimes marry men in a way that can be characterized as raw practicality. Even in those instances though, there is a mythos (great word, Jack!) involved. She doesn’t see it usually as “clock’s ticking, need a husband, so he will do”. There is some level of romanticism at play, or she wouldn’t do it. The inauthenticity of it would be too much.

        And this mythos is not false. It may be paradoxical, but how many paradoxes do we live with as Christians? It doesn’t make our faith any less real, and the fact that women tend be more inclined to apply idealized perceptions in love doesn’t make it false. Both SAM and I have a deep desire to live up to the idealized humanity each of us see in the other.

        All people in love — male and female — are on some level moved like this. The one thing Rollo Tomassi has ever said that I think has some grain of truth in it is that men’s love is ideal while women’s love is practical.

        Of course, it doesn’t start that way. I think women start with an idealized version which gives way to practicality while men start with a biological imperative which gives way to a more romantic turn once the commitment has been made.

        And yes, the men’s trajectory is the more true and honorable one, but it also has a fair amount of mythos involved in it. Very few of us are as lovable as our beloveds believe we are.

        Of course, I’m referring to this in the context of a very good relationship. When there is strife, people see their spouses’ faults with crystal clarity (often magnified and exaggerated to an absurd degree).

        That’s kind of what I have been trying to say, however badly. Thanks Jack for adding clarity to the murky waters of my commentary.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Women have “fantasy/mythos” only for the men they enjoy having sex with. Only the carousel men get fantasy/mythos.

        The entire point of it being fantasy/mythos is that it’s not real. That’s why they call it fantasy/mythos. That’s how men’s lives get ruined — because it’s not real.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “There is some level of romanticism at play, or she wouldn’t do it.”

        BS. There is no romanticism. There is only “He’s nice, I guess he’d be a decent father, eh, yeah, sure, I guess he’ll do”. It doesn’t get much more practical than that.

        “And this mythos is not false. It may be paradoxical, but how many paradoxes do we live with as Christians? It doesn’t make our faith any less real, and the fact that women tend be more inclined to apply idealized perceptions in love doesn’t make it false. Both SAM and I have a deep desire to live up to the idealized humanity each of us see in the other.”

        it is false. It’s not real. Faith is real. The fantasy / mythos women have about men is not real. That’s why it’s called fantasy / mythos — because it is not real. It’s false. It’s fake. It’s made up.

        This is how women ruin their own lives; and how they ruin men’s lives as well.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “She doesn’t see it usually as “clock’s ticking, need a husband, so he will do”.”

        Oh yes, she absolutely does see it this way. This is precisely how she sees it. It doesn’t get much more real than this. There’s no fantasy there, no mythos. Just “I need this, so I’ll take him”. And that is precisely her thought process. Nothing but raw utility. Nothing but raw self interest. She’s already had her “fantasy” men and her “mythos” men. They were her carousel men, the men she can’t have. She already had all the fantasy and mythos banged out of her.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “She’s already had her “fantasy” men and her “mythos” men. They were her carousel men, the men she can’t have. She already had all the fantasy and mythos banged out of her.”

        This confirms my earlier presumption — that you’re describing women who’ve already made the rounds. Now that you mention it, I do think sexcessive sexperience destroys a lot of the mythos surrounding love and marriage in women’s minds, such that reality loses its luster, and this is part of the reason why post wall hoes can’t be happy later in life.

        “It is false. It’s not real. Faith is real. The fantasy / mythos women have about men is not real. That’s why it’s called fantasy / mythos – because it is not real. It’s false. It’s fake. It’s made up.”

        I think we have contrasting concepts of mythos. Mythos is abstract and in that sense it is not real. But the power of mythos lies in it’s ability to inspire, motivate, and create a metaphysical sense of completion. This appeals strongly to the human soul and it has real effects for those who believe it. I do think faith and mythos are closely intertwined. Truth can be described as mythos properly applied to the appropriate context, whereas lies are mythos that are distorted or misapplied.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “This confirms my earlier presumption — that you’re describing women who’ve already made the rounds.”

        That’s 95%+ of all women, including Christian women. Even most Christian women a man meets today have had some sexual experience, including with men more attractive than that man is.

        Every man today can safely assume that any woman he’s dealing with has had prior sex with a man who’s more attractive than he is.

        That this might destroy “mythos” (i.e. fantasy, that which isn’t real) isn’t men’s fault.

        Like

  11. thedeti says:

    I’ve said everything I have to say on this issue. Suffice it to say I disagree with Jack and Elspeth. I’m done. You can have the last word.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. locustsplease says:

    Judging from my experiences, these Chad F boys are faux alphas. Real alphas work and age well into their role.

    Everyone on earth knows these F boys are losers — except young women. When I was younger, girls in their 20s were passing up regular guys and fawning over these F boys who were weak effeminate scrubs, good at negging game and that’s it. All the Chads these girls had sex with in high school and college never even had a full time job! And they got laid like a highway simply by showing up with their six pack abs and BS 1 night stand game. They could definitely lure the naive young women as these guys laid hundreds of women each. But that’s about it.

    Similar to the fabled carousel rider, they are done with their chosen lifestyle by the time they hit 30 to 40 years of age, and they’re washed up and have nothing to show for it. At 40, these guys can’t lure any decent looking women at all. So the test of time shows these men were not alphas, they were scrubs.

    TV, films and media lie to us all the time by depicting these people as intelligent, upper class, and having money. Younger people see this on TV and think that’s what life is all about.

    In my 20s, I refused to use their tactics. I have surpassed the ones I grew up with on the social hierarchy by far. Yet, I still have to pick from their leftovers.

    In the past, women would be stuck with their decisions, but now they get to compete for men who made it after they are done banging losers.

    What I’m getting at is that, generally as a man, you have to settle for women who got played by these losers. Then you have to deal with all the damage. It’s not right. F boy Chads are a net negative on society.

    [Jack: Comment edited for clarity.]

    Liked by 1 person

  13. feeriker says:

    “F boy Chads are a net negative on society.”

    You have to lump their female “victims” in with them in that category. Chads wouldn’t have any effect on society at all without massive numbers of feral women paying attention to them.

    Like

  14. redpillboomer says:

    “You have to lump their female “victims” in with them in that category. Chads wouldn’t have any effect on society at all without massive numbers of feral women paying attention to them.”

    And this is because in the last 50-60+ years our society has pulled down every single barrier earlier generations erected to protect young women (and by extension young men as well). Not that those generations did it perfectly, they certainly did not; however many of those barriers “worked” in a larger sense for society because they kept a lot of girls/young women from going feral in their youth, marrying young (many with their virginity intact or a low body count) and starting families that they stuck with and raised the children to adulthood.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. naturallyaspirated says:

    Why are women not talking more about their own attraction and how it impacts the modern marriage marketplace like we are here? If women’s attraction mechanisms are so fundamental to why marriage has broken down, what’s going on with men being the only ones really talking about it?

    — Is it giving too much to biology that they don’t want to admit?
    — Is it placing too much emphasis on male and female as separate categories which upsets feminism?
    — Are the conclusions that come from admitting these biological truths too painful?
    — Is this denial a way to prevent any chipping away at the feminist life script?

    I wonder what Elspeth or other women have to say about this blind spot.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Great questions. I’ll throw out some hypotheses.

      Could be that we’re not a point where enough women have experienced a level of pain that causes them to care. (It took me quite a lot of suffering to reconsider my beliefs about women and marriage.)

      Another possibility is that when a person has their beliefs reinforced by the culture and the vast majority of people around them, it becomes very hard to change their mind no matter the amount of information to the contrary they are presented with.

      Add to the first couple ideas the concepts that women tend to be naturally less introspective than men and have a harder time with personal responsibility and the potential that women don’t see their approach to relationships, attraction and sex as a contributing issue to the disintegrating state of marriage is high.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      “Why are women not talking more about their own attraction and how it impacts the modern marriage marketplace like we are here?”

      Because…

      — Women really don’t think they’ve done anything wrong.
      — Some women don’t understand their own attraction.
      — Most women do understand their own attraction eventually, but won’t talk about it because they don’t want to be judged as shallow or superficial, and they need those beta bux guys to be there when they’re done on the carousel.
      — Most women do understand their own attraction but won’t talk about it because they cannot publicly admit that they cannot get attractive men for commitment.

      This last one is absolutely huge for women. It’s the female dilemma: can have sex with men they’re attracted to; can’t get them to commit. Talking about their own attraction would mean women would have to admit the AF/BB strategy and that they follow it.

      The first one is huge too. Most women really don’t think they’re doing anything wrong or injurious by carouseling it.

      When you think about it, women are talking about their own attraction but will not admit that their actions have any role in societal problems. When women talk about their own attraction they couch it in terms of blaming men.

      “Where have all the good men gone?”
      “Someone’s gotta pay for all this!”
      “He just wouldn’t stick around!”
      “He was abusive!”
      “He was an incel/misogynist!”
      “I just want a guy to take me on a real date. I just want a guy to approach me, ask me out, meet me in a public place, and be a gentleman.”
      “I was just looking for love in all the wrong places.”
      “I just want a nice guy who treats me right.”
      “I just want to be a wife and mommy.”
      “Eww! No, get away from me! Did you really think I’d go out with someone like YOU??!!”

      To women, the modern dating/marriage scene is all men’s fault. It’s men’s fault for not keeping up, for being unattractive, for not knowing, being, or doing, this or that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Did you notice what was absent from all this stuff that women say?

        — What are women bringing to the table?
        — What will men get in exchange for all these expectations?
        — Do women believe they have any responsibility at all to the men they “deal with”, date, have sex with, procreate with, and/or marry?

        A woman has an obligation to men to deal with them in basic, rudimentary good faith. Ladies, that means be honest, forthright, and polite. If you accept a date, do what you say you’ll do, be where you say you’ll be, when you say you’ll be, and engage fully. Be clear and direct about what you will do and what you will not do. If you decline a date, do so clearly, firmly, and discreetly. Don’t lead men on. Don’t drag a man when you won’t date him or are done with him.

        If you ask us for help, do what we say and show gratitude. You don’t get to ask me for help and then question the manner in which I provide it. You don’t get to play “damsel in distress” and then complain about being one.

        You women need to start dealing with us in basic good faith. That would be a good start.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “– Most women do understand their own attraction but won’t talk about it because they cannot publicly admit that they cannot get attractive men for commitment.”

        Which brings us to the importance of fathers in a patriarchal system. They protect their daughter’s virginity and in doing so the girls are forced to see their marriage value in the marketplace. The delusions that come from having the hawt guy for one night don’t exist when dad tells the hawtty that he has to commit his life to her before he can sleep with her. He’ll pass if he thinks he’s got better options and she’ll know that as an average looking women she’s not going to end up with a guy who looks like a hunky actor.

        Thinking about this from the standpoint of investing in markets, the sexual revolution created an arbitrage opportunity between dating and marriage markets that more attractive men can take advantage of. Attractive enough men can date down a point or two with little commitment invested. Before the sexual revolution the commitment cost of sex was quite high and as such there was more market equilibrium between the dating and marriage markets.

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “What will men get in exchange for all these expectations?”

        This in my mind is the question that really needs answering. I’d re-frame it a bit:

        “After this man has committed to you and you’ve had your bridal shower, big wedding day and the honeymoon/honeymoon period is over, what does he get from you on a day-in and day-out basis? Would you please describe what the typical, day, week, month, looks like living with you?”

        Her answers should include not only tasks she’d accomplish during the day, week, month for him/for both of them as a couple, but also the emotional returns he’d get from having married her and now living with her day-in and day-out, week-in and week-out.

        “He’s seen your list of expectations of him, what does he get in return for meeting them?”

        You can start listing the returns here, Missy: 1)…. 2)…. 3)…. 10….) Take your time. If you need to sleep on it, by all means, but he/we want to see the completed list.

        I’d be curious to see this list. Bet they’d have a hard time with this one, especially if he/we could as follow up questions.

        “So you said you’d cook for him, what kind of meals and how often? Do you even know how to cook? Has anyone ever taught you how to cook?”

        Follow-up questions like that.

        Liked by 2 people

    • elspeth says:

      Women don’t tend to talk about these things mainly because until very recently, there hasn’t been a real need to address it. Our dysfunctional tendencies were either constrained by societal norms or buffered by some of the inherent benefits that came with being female in the mating “market”.
      However, I believe that the conversation is increasing now that all of the structural guardrails have been destroyed.

      That said, women are much more honest as we grow older and the more conservative the woman, the more honest she tends to be. The problem is that even when we are honest, and as clear as possible in that honesty, someone will inevitably say, “Lies!” Nevertheless, I’m gonna spell it out as succinctly as I can.

      Firstly, women are not like men. Physicality is important, and a woman can be mightily moved by a man’s physical presence. That happened to me when I met my husband. But if a woman is looking for a husband, and she has any level of devoutness in her, that’s not the beginning, middle, and end. Also, a man who can capture a woman’s imagination with the right words and make her feel a particular way can melt her in ways that will last a lot longer and induce a lot more devotion from her than a man who is only good looking. Men are (from what I have been able to ascertain) far more likely to put up with a lot from a woman who’s hot. Women will put up with a lot from a man who makes her feel a certain way.

      There’s a lot of imagination involved in women’s attraction cues. A lot. I cannot even begin to explain to men who are skewed analytical how much of a role imagination plays in a woman’s sexuality. That’s why I remain convinced that there is a large bit of truth in what Julianna offered to Jack, and which Jack rightly understood as having truth woven in it.

      The issue is not that most men are boring and unattractive. The issue is that women have been placed on a higher social status than men in aggregate.
      That has been an unmitigated disaster. When all women are made to believe that they are purer, better, and more valuable than all men (in aggregate), that thing in women that is naturally moved by a man of higher status is broken.

      Secondly, women are being fed a steady diet of unreality as a possibility for them. The hunky handyman who loves the plain girl who adds the intellect that he lacks. The hunky upper class rich guy who doesn’t mind the less polished girl with a heart of gold.

      The tropes are numerous, but you get the point. A woman who has not been thoroughly baptized in that stuff and who has been taught the truth can overcome it. There just aren’t enough of those women. Sharkly hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that in a culture where men are inherently higher status than women, this would not be as much of a problem. It wouldn’t be a nonexistent problem, but it wouldn’t be this pronounced.

      Biologically speaking, a woman’s husband doesn’t have to be top 20% in looks for her to find him sexually alluring. She just needs to not have spent her whole life being told she’s better than he is.

      Unfortunately, almost all Western women have been taught that.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        “There’s a lot of imagination involved in women’s attraction cues. A lot. I cannot even begin to explain to men who are skewed analytical how much of a role imagination plays in a woman’s sexuality. That’s why I remain convinced that there is a large bit of truth in what Julianna offered to Jack, and which Jack rightly understood as having truth woven in it.”

        If it’s imaginary, then it’s not real. If it’s not real, it’s false. If it’s false, it can’t have any truth woven into it.

        And then none of this has anything to do with allegedly training women to be attracted to men they’re not attracted to; or to be “unattracted” to men they are attracted to.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Your error is in thinking that most women throughout history have been sexually attracted to their husbands. They have not. They have been, at best, willing to have sex with their, “eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess” husbands. They have been, at the very most, willing to submit to what they considered to be substandard men, and certainly not men they would have picked if they had had their druthers about it.

        Women throughout history have knuckled under and married men they were willing to accept, but who they were never really all that excited about. They did so because they had to. Women did so because they had no other choice. If they wanted marriage and kids (and 90+ of women did, and do), then they had to pick men they weren’t sexually attracted to. They had to pick men they really didn’t want.

        They have done this for tens of thousands of years. They are still doing this, except that for the last 50 to 75 years, they’ve done so after getting to sample the hot men who won’t marry them. And this makes them really, REALLY hate the men who they do have to settle for.

        And, yes, most men ARE common, boring, and unattractive. Of COURSE we are — that’s how we get things done and keep you and your kids from starving to death or getting eaten by wild animals. Life is common, boring, routine, repetitive tedium. It’s SUPPOSED to be. All that icky boring tedium is what brings stability, predictability, safety, and security — all those things women claim to want after their rounds on the carousel.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        We must remember that all of the societal changes over the last 50 to 75 years have been for the explicit purpose of making it so women didn’t “have” to marry Boring Beta. Our societal upheaval occurred precisely because women did not want to be in the position of having to depend on, and have sex with, men they aren’t sexually attracted to. Or, at least, not until they got to shoot their shot at getting an Alpha Bux.

        E, you’re a rarity and an outlier. Most women aren’t like you. They don’t get to marry their Alpha Bux. All they get is a few nights with him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • naturallyaspirated says:

        I think it’s telling you didn’t really answer the question.

        Why are we not starting to hear more of this from women:

        “It’s severely damaging your prospects for a long and healthy marriage when you ‘play marriage’ with serial boyfriends in your twenties, enjoy the party scene, have fun being sexual with the hottest guys you can. There are long term consequences to your ability to appreciate and bond with your future husband if he’s just the next in line. This is how we’re wired. I’m sorry, but it’s the truth. It’s hard to be attracted to a “normal guy” for the rest of your life when you’ve trained your brain to expect excitement from the daring guys (who won’t commit to you). It’s not worth it, and it’s hurting you in the long run. I know you tell yourself, “I can snag one of them, I know it!”, but chances are you won’t. Sorry.

        If you give your sexual prime to men who aren’t your husband, your husband won’t have that imprinted memory of those intense years and passion with you, and it will affect his bond with you as you age. When you’re menopausal and losing your attraction and sexual marketplace value rapidly (and his is now relatively higher) he won’t be nearly as tempted by younger women because of the investment you gave him years ago. It’s really an unspoken agreement:

        Man: If you commit to me and give me the best of your sexual youth and fertility, then I will be loyal and excited to still be with you when you lose your sexual youth before me.

        Don’t screw up that tradeoff by pissing away your end when you’re young. There are consequences to how you act before you get married, despite our culture pretending that’s nobody else’s business but yours.

        Marrying young, finding a man to spend the tumultuous years of youth, building a career and home, raising a family, and experiencing the big decisions of life together lays the foundation for a lifelong commitment that can withstand the ups and downs of a marriage. Spend those years with other men and you’re building a marriage house without the foundation it really needs.

        Where are women saying this?

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        Sorry if I didn’t answer the question. That wasn’t my intention.

        For the record, there are some of us telling young women that screwing around before marriage ruins your ability to enjoy the marriage relationship. I am very intentional about that. I realize that as a lone voice I can only have limited impact. I was also not dragging along a lot of sexual baggage when I met and married my husband, which is probably why it is easier for me to acknowledge and say it than it might be for a lot of other women, despite their good intentions.

        I just don’t happen to think this truism alone is enough to overcome the realities of how women’s psychology (coupled with social and cultural sabotage) can ruin a marriage, even when she is a virgin bride.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        “Life is common, boring, routine, repetitive tedium. It’s SUPPOSED to be. All that icky boring tedium is what brings stability, predictability, safety, and security…”

        Yes, large parts of life are just getting up, doing the work, raising the kids, paying the bills, repeat.

        But joy is also a part of life. As is beauty, nature, respite, and yes… romance. Not perpetually (just as suffering and grief aren’t perpetual), but relationships should have elements of beauty in them which infuse us with the hope that gives meaning to the drudgery.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “But joy is also a part of life. As is beauty, nature, respite, and yes… romance. Not perpetually (just as suffering and grief aren’t perpetual), but relationships should have elements of beauty in them which infuse us with the hope that gives meaning to the drudgery.”

        Women are the ones who are divorcing these good decent men; and detonating their marriages. Women are the ones rejecting these “good men” they claim to want. It’s not men’s fault these things are happening. It’s not men driving this. It’s not men doing this.

        Men’s biggest “fault” in all this is not being SAM-like.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        E, it’s telling you didn’t respond to this:

        “Women throughout history have knuckled under and married men they were willing to accept, but who they were never really all that excited about. They did so because they had to. Women did so because they had no other choice. If they wanted marriage and kids (and 90+ of women did, and do), then they had to pick men they weren’t sexually attracted to. They had to pick men they really didn’t want.”

        “They have done this for tens of thousands of years. They are still doing this, except that for the last 50 to 75 years, they’ve done so after getting to sample the hot men who won’t marry them. And this makes them really, REALLY hate the men who they do have to settle for.”

        IMO, you didn’t respond, because you have no response… because you know I’m right. And there’s nothing that can be done about this. It’s the unsolvable problem of the MMP — today, women would rather be alone than accept one of these men.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        “Marrying young, finding a man to spend the tumultuous years of youth, building a career and home, raising a family, experiencing the big decisions of life together lays the foundation for a lifelong commitment that can withstand the ups and downs of a marriage. Spend those years with other men and you’re building a marriage house without the foundation it really needs.

        Where are women saying this?”

        Online you mean? I don’t know. Suzanne Venker, Lori Alexander, Laura Schlessinger, maybe?

        It’s not a common message. I readily acknowledge that. It should be, but in our culture, it needs to be accompanied with ideas and information that combat cultural messaging.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      I tried to address some of this here.

      To summarize: Women think all of today’s problems are because men aren’t keeping up with women socially, emotionally, and economically. All men need to do is catch up to women, and all will be well. All men need to do is get more physically, “emotionally”, and “economically” “attractive”, and things will be fine. Women really do not think they are being at all unreasonable in essentially demanding virtual perfection from their men. They want, and are “entitled” to, good looking, wealthy, socially astute, confident, dominant, large penised, male pronstars. Women really do believe this.

      Women also don’t worry about getting sex, because they can always get it when they want/need it. They truly believe men operate the same way.

      Women see no reason why they should compromise on anything, with anyone. They’ve never had to do so before and see no reason why they should now. Essentially, women’s attitude is “Do what I want, give me what I want, or I won’t have sex with you.”

      That, in a nutshell, is all women’s current attitudes — and that includes Christian women.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. feeriker says:

    Regarding what RedPillBoomer said about the “finalist contestant wife inquisition”:

    I think you would be very hard-pressed to find women who would answer such questions, honestly or otherwise. It certainly would be a “multiple popcorn bucket event” if you could.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Feeriker,

      “I think you would be very hard-pressed to find women who would answer such questions, honestly or otherwise.”

      The low probability of getting any answers, no less true answers, is why a man should take all the “princess for a day” trappings off the table as a test to see what his potential bride does. If she’s upset but ultimately decides she wants to be his wife more than she cares about the party, that’s a really good “watch was she does” indicator of making her dreams subservient to his direction.

      To me, her submitting her wedding day dreams, the day many women consider the biggest day of their lives, to him before they are ever married is the truth about how she thinks of him and what she’s willing to do for him. After he knows the answer to how she’ll position herself relative to him on the big things, it’s up to the husband to teach her how to be the wife he wants and needs, and there’s a high likelihood that he’ll get those behaviors from her.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        “The low probability of getting any answers, no less true answers, is why a man should take all the “princess for a day” trappings off the table as a test (emphasis added) to see what his potential bride does.”

        I’m not sure how this test works in practice. Assuming she is upset, but decides she wants to be your wife rather than “princess for a day,” then what are the next steps?

        1) Do you hold fast and proceed with the wedding sans “princess for a day?” Simple church service, no bridal gown, no rice, few if any guests, no reception at the bride’s residence or elsewhere.

        2) Do you set a date and elope?

        It seems any action (other than the above) can create a “mini” princess for a day situation which can lead her to believe that she can change your mind by expressing disappointment or by being upset. These behaviors then can be used in an attempt to undermine your authority after you are married.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        A lot of the “princess for a day” stuff is driven as much by the bride’s family as by the bride herself. I’ve seen (at least twice) mothers and sisters of brides dragging the bride kicking and screaming into a big fancy wedding party when the gal could have happily lived without that.

        I could have gone to the courthouse or at least have something with just our dads and siblings and would have been perfectly happy with that. My husband insisted a wedding. There were various reasons for that, not the least of which was that his family was grieving and he determined that they needed a party. As is often the case, he was right.

        Also, weddings serve a binding purpose as it relates to joining two families and ushering a couple into a church community. I’ve come full circle from my “Can we just sign the paperwork and move on?” to a greater appreciation for what a wedding ceremony -yes, a beautiful if simple one- adds to a couple’s embarking on a new life.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Joe2 – If she’s a typical woman she’s been thinking about what she wants her wedding day to look like for years. She’s pondered from a seemingly infinite angles how she’ll feel and how to look her best and she’s done this for years.

        Now, a man, the prince charming from her wedding miniseries drama that’s been playing in her head, takes that dream and tells her his dream is a simple ceremony with the minister, family and close friends in attendance. The money saved on the big service and party will be put towards their life together. If she passes the test the man marries her in the ceremony of his practical dreams along the lines of option 1 that you presented.

        For anyone thinking that this is extreme on the groom’s part, ask an attorney or any of the divorced men that read this blog about family court. There is too much at risk for men to not have ample evidence that she could be worth the risk.

        Side, for those single men who might get married one day or fathers raising sons, do not get down on one knee to propose or teach your sons to do that. She’s not the prize nor will she be the family head, so don’t act like that is the case.

        Like

  17. anonymous_ng says:

    Can attraction be trained or taught? IDK about that. Is female attraction malleable according to environment? I would say yes.

    I believe there exists sufficient evidence to support that across cultures, SES, etc, women’s attraction differs similar to Jack’s story about moving to Taiwan.

    Does that help if someone finds themself in an environment where most women don’t find them attractive? Probably not.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      No. attraction cannot be trained or taught. You cannot teach or train a woman to be attracted to men she’s not attracted to. That’s an impossibility and I wish people would stop saying it’s possible. It is not.

      Like

    • Joe2 says:

      “I believe there exists sufficient evidence to support that across cultures, SES, etc, women’s attraction differs similar to Jack’s story about moving to Taiwan.”

      Cross culture or cross ethnic attraction is tricky to interpret which can lead to false hope and misunderstandings.

      I found that, in general, women not of my cultural / ethnic background may appear to be “friendlier” such that they may laugh at jokes, have good eye contact, and make me feel appreciated.

      But such behavior is related to making me feel comfortable and welcome. Thus, they can “let their guard down” knowing that nothing will happen. But appearances can be deceiving. To the men of their cultural / ethnic background observing their behavior it might seem they’re flirting. And I’ve been the recipient of snide remarks from such men because they are envious.

      OTOH, women of my cultural / ethnic background cut to the chase and I’m the invisible man.

      In both situations, the women are not attracted to me and there is nothing I or anyone can do to change to change that fact.

      Like

  18. Pingback: On Clarifying a Christian Culture of Attraction | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Only Hunky Monks can find a Sanctified Marriage | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Rowena Breaks down Female Attraction | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: Roundup on Attraction and Marital Sanctification | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: On Choosing the Flesh over Christ | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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