The Delusion of the Good

It’s easier to have the faux faith of a pharisee when you believe the pretty lies.

Readership: Men
Theme:
 Masculine Authority and Responsibility
Author’s Note:
 Coauthored with Jack.  This post collates a few of my earlier comments.  Original comments are embedded in the initial words. Images added by Jack.
Length:
 2,800 words
Reading Time: 15 minutes

Lies Built Around Desire and Hope Can Instill a Faux Conformance to the Image of Spiritual Obedience

The most curious and phenomenal characteristic of a lie is that it somehow sets everything straight, at least in one’s head.  Especially when it produces behavior that is aligned with true obedience to the Spirit, although it is not.

Here’s what I’m talking about.

Perhaps the “Pretty Lie” most relevant to the Christian Manosphere is Chivalry.  Men who believe in Chivalry are thus motivated to become gallant White Knights in shining silver armor, which on its face, appears to be dignified, ennobled, and the right way to treat women.  It is accompanied by a sense of purpose, honor, and the reward of undying libidinous love – all appealing to a man’s natural desire to be the well-laid hero of the dainty damsel in distress.  The White Knight thereby becomes altruistic, kind-hearted, good-willed, patient, faithful, gentle, self-controlled (c.f. Galatians 5:22-23).  His mind is filled with notions of sacrificial “love” as he is eschewing envy, forbearing, pacified, polite, self-abasing, selfless, utterly “appalled” by the appearance of iniquity and evil, and willing to suffer long in the hope of m’lady’s tender affections as he bears all things and believes all things (c.f. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7).  IOW, he is inspired to instantly achieve all the Fruits of the Spirit and the God-like capability of pure Agape Love – or at least it appears that way to the solipsistic self-conceptualization of the White Knight.

It’s all good, right?  Well… it appears so, until a man takes the Red Pill and realizes that it’s all an amalgamation of a complex waft of lies.  Women are not helpless princesses in need of rescuing, nor are they loyal ladies in waiting.  In reality, the Chivalrous White Knight is only making himself a minion of Feminine Imperatives, tossed to and fro on the waves of his idealistic passions and the deceitful trickery of parasitic women (Ephesians 4:14).

I give you two more examples of our Christian brothers’ desperate adherence to the lies.

  1. The View from the Right (feat. Kristor): Game versus the Good (2009-8-27)
  2. The Orthosphere (guest post from Dalrock; comment from Alan Roebuck): Must a Traditional Man Accept Modern Marriage? (2013-5-20)

Our Christian brothers, well-meaning as they may be, are stuck in pedestalization and supplication.  In this post, I’ll review the error of these two approaches, and how it seems to be right, although it is not.

Blue Pill Pedestalization

The first is Kristor, writing in 2009 about Game.

Note: When Kristor uses the term “gamers” and “Gamers”, he is referring to Pick Up Artists (PUAs) and Practitioners of Game (POGs), the latter of which could include husbands wrangling with a rebellious wife.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Sin is not a defect.  It’s a part of human nature.  Every human is born with it.  If it were a defect, it could be removed and cured.  It could be designed out.  You can fix defects.  You can design and manufacture a defect-free product.  Not so with humans and their sin natures.  If sin nature could be designed out, removed, and cured, there would be no need for God and no need for Jesus’ atoning death on the Cross.  Sin is part of our nature.
  2. All women are attracted to Game hallmarks: confidence, dominance, cocky-funny, competence, displays of power, bullying, and cruelty.  ALL women are.  All women like these displays in men.  It’s just that some women don’t act on it.  Most women do act on that attraction, because there’s currently no real short term temporal downside to doing so.
  3. ALL women are messed up in some form or fashion.  Because they have sin natures.  ALL women are messed up.
  4. Women are not “attracted” to the “good” or the Good.  Women like to use the Good in men.  Women like to exploit and take advantage of Good men.  Women see the benefits of commitment from Good men.  Women want those benefits only when they figure out that the bad, cruel men they really want are not going to stick around.  But they are not sexually attracted to Good, or to Good men.  And, candidly, sexual attraction is the only “attraction” that matters, because it’s the incentive that drives men to have anything to do with women.
  5. Women are not in any way attracted to good men.  Women are not in any way attracted to the Good in men.  If they were, they would not need to be taught any of this.  IF they were, none of them would need to learn this the hard way.
  6. Trad Cons like Kristor like to call women’s wanting commitment, resources, time, and labor from Good men “attraction”, because it attributes virtue to women’s “choices” and because men’s sexual attraction and men wanting sex from women is base, dirty, and evil.  First, Kristor pedestalizes women unnecessarily.  Women’s wanting beta bux men is not attraction in any real meaningful sense of the word.  It is want and need, use, exploitation, and crass advantage.  Second, men’s wanting and expecting sex from women is not evil or base or dirty in any way.  It is normal and natural.  And we as men do ourselves grave disservices when we accept this from tradcons like Kristor and his ilk.
  7. Women are not attracted to “heroes”.  If they were, we would not have a 50% divorce rate nor a rising “never married” rate.
  8. Kristor’s last point is the usual one: “Yeah, some of you are ‘heroes’, but no one will ever recognize it as such.”  Well, then, they’re not heroes, Kristor.  They might be servants, they might be Godly men, they might be faithful, loyal, and just.  But they’re not heroes.  And no, not everyone wants heroes.  More and more women want gamers.  More and more women want cocky-funny, irrational self-confidence, and extreme dominance.

Kristor’s post is indicative of modern Christian thought — his naïve argument commingles truth with the starry-eyed idolatry of pedestalization, thereby making this whitewashed deception more alluring to uninitiated believers and more politically correct to the heathen masses.

His main error is that he still believes that women are, at their cores, attracted to “good men”, at their root, they are attracted to Godly men who go to church, work at decent jobs, and lead basically good, upright lives; men who do what they’re told, do what their pastors tell them, men who read their bibles, men who lift up holy hands and speak in vocal fry about “Jesus the lover of my soul.”

Kristor gets it totally wrong, just as most of his ilk do.  He still pedestalizes women; he still refuses to see the utter depravity and sin nature of all humans, which includes women, because women are humans.

He apparently rejects a central Christian doctrine that is repeated a gazillion times in scripture (Job 14:1-6; Psalm 14:1-3; Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 59:7-15; Isaiah 64:6-7; Romans 3:10-20; Romans 3:23; et al.):

“There is none righteous, no, not one… All have sinned and gone astray.”

Kristor, that’s either true or it’s not.  You either believe that or you don’t.  If you really don’t believe that women are depraved, then you reject a basic tenet of Christian doctrine, you’re pedestalizing women, and I won’t go there with you.  “All” means ALL, and that includes women.

Blue Pill Supplication

The second is Alan Roebuck, writing in response to Dalrock’s guest post at The Orthosphere: Must a Traditional Man Accept Modern Marriage? (2013-5-20).

Roebuck wrote,

“Dalrock quoted me saying,

“We must also point out an uncomfortable truth: You may bear some of legitimate responsibility for your wife’s unhappiness.  Not all female complaints are frivolous.  Although it is wrong for the woman to allow these complaints to drive her to divorce, the man should not goad her into doing evil.  If you can change those of your behaviors that ought to be changed, to prevent the great evil of divorce, more the better.  Do whatever it takes, short of sin or dishonor, to prevent divorce.”

This was the statement of mine that drew the most flack.  But my general point was that if a man can save his marriage by making some concessions, then he ought to do so, provided that they are not immoral or humiliating.  I do not advocate a general attitude of appeasement, for that is deadly to one’s self and to one’s marriage.  And I acknowledge the profound corruption of proper marriage that is entailed by arming the wife with the right to divorce frivolously.  (Whether divorce ought to be granted at all is a matter for another discussion.) But given the evil constraints imposed by the Masters of Society, and the importance for all involved of avoiding divorce, occasional concession for a greater good can be a noble act.”

Essentially, Roebuck is saying that whenever men are faced with marital difficulties, they are to “make concessions” to their spouses and “do what it takes” to keep their marriages together.  In other words, men are required to supplicate to women to preserve their relationships.

No! This is a recipe for disaster!

Epilogue

This is what our churches are telling men: That women are basically good, they’re better than men are, women are not depraved, and women are “attracted” to “Good Men”.  Since women are so good, then when a man is faced with problems in a relationship with a woman, then it must be entirely the man’s fault.  He has to “make concessions” and “do what it takes” to keep her.

Then they tell you, “Well, if it doesn’t work, you might get divorced.  This is war.  Some men die in battle.  Oh well, guys, if your marriages fail, too bad so sad, you’re just unlucky, you’ll just have to suffer and die.  We’ll carefully and assiduously ignore that any children you had will suffer too, but they’re just collateral damage.  It was probably your fault anyway.”

No.

Guys, I’ve already done this.  I’ve done everything men like Kristor and Roebuck told me to do.  I was good, kind, nice.  I got the education.  I got the career.  I made the money.  I did the work.  I went to church.  I treated everyone well.  I was virtuous, good, and kind.  I asked permission.  I stayed inside the lines.

I was a stellar man, by the world’s standards, and also by God’s.  But it was all an effort in the flesh.  I thought that if I fit the image of an ideal man, then I should have the concomitant rewards.  But it just doesn’t work that way.

What did I get for all that effort?

I ended up in a very unhappy marriage to a headstrong and rebellious woman.  Now, I’m just trying to save my own life and that of my children’s.

Conclusions

Since Kristor and Roebuck and other Pedestalizers and Supplicators who think the same (maybe even including your pastor) have it wrong, then what is the right approach?

To start with, we need to stop lying to ourselves and other men about the nature of women.  We need to stop pedestalizing them, as Orthosphere blogger “Kristor” does in the first post at The View from the Right: Game versus the Good (2009-8-27).  We need to stop lying to men about what women are really attracted to, completely misunderstanding what attraction is and how it works, and demonizing men and the male sex drive.

We also need to stop lying to women, i.e. our wives and daughters, about their own nature.  If we are going to teach young women about their own natures, Kristor’s way is NOT the way to do it.  Kristor’s way is pedestalization, wrongly attributing virtue to women, presuming that women don’t have a sin nature, and then placing all the blame on men who then have to work harder to “save” their relationship, as Roebuck told us.  All this work just to keep a rebellious woman who has gas lighted everyone who denies the scriptures into thinking she’s good.

Don’t listen to men who say things like what Kristor or Roebuck have said above.

Women are more choosy and more discerning in selecting mates than men are.  If women were attracted to Good men, they would pick Good men, EVERY time, and avoid PUAs and game practitioners, EVERY time.  But what we often see in reality is the opposite.  Women won’t decide they want a good man until the stream of Chads trickles to a standstill because they don’t want their post-Wall chasm anymore, the college loan repayment bills come due, and their biological clock is ticking at a deafening volume.

Furthermore, this apparent hatred for good men doesn’t change after marriage.  If women were attracted to Good men, marriage counseling would not be necessary at all.  If women were attracted to Good men, we would not have a 50% divorce rate, professing Christians would not report a divorce rate of “only” 38%, and there would be no need for the Manosphere or any of these blogs.

Stop listening to the men of our churches, Pedestalizers and Supplicators.

  • They view men as depraved and disgusting merely for wanting a domain of authority, the blessings of Shalom for our lives, and for pursuing sanctification in marriage.
  • They view women as somehow above men and better than us.
  • They outright lie to us that women are “attracted” to “good men”.
  • They play the blame and shame game to weaken men’s moral fiber.
  • They try to inflict false guilt to make men lose heart and become more obeisant.
  • They lay all the responsibility on men — a burden which is too heavy to bear.

As it is written…

For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.  But all their works they do to be seen by men…
They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men…

Excerpts from Matthew 23 (NKJV)

Such is the Delusion of the Good.

Related

This entry was posted in Adultery and Fornication, Attraction, Authenticity, Calculated Risk Taking, Chivalry, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Confidence, Counterfeit/False Paradigms, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Enduring Suffering, Faux-Masculinity, Female Evo-Psych, Female Power, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Game, Handling Rejection, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Identity, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Legalism, Male Power, Models of Failure, Personal Domain, Personal Presentation, Power, Relationships, Respect, Self-Concept, Sphere of Influence, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to The Delusion of the Good

  1. info says:

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

    What is considered Good has departed from what God actually considers Good.

    For example, the conception that Jesus didn’t have “Game” as part of the repertoire of Righteousness. The son of God was sinless and the Perfect Man:

    The Sociological Eye: Jesus in Interaction: The Micro-Sociology of Charisma (2014-4-12)

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

    As has been said before, our conception of Righteous Masculinity must have gone wrong somewhere.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. @ Info,

    “What is considered Good has departed from what God actually considers Good.

    For example, the conception that Jesus didn’t have “Game” as part of the repertoire of Righteousness. The son of God was sinless and the Perfect Man:

    Agreed.

    Jesus, despite how “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.”, per Isaiah 53, exuded masculine traits (e.g. confidence, assertiveness, independence, leadership, etc.) and charisma such that dozens of men and women wanted to follow him for life (e.g. the disciples and women) and thousands of people gathered to hear him regularly.

    When talking with and advising men, the thing I find that most differs with “modern western Christianity” and “Biblical Christianity” is the misinterpretation of Ephesians 5 that I’ve continually harped about on my blog.

    Ephesians 5:25-27
    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [q]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

    ~ Biblical Christianity is headship for the purpose of sanctification. Being the anti-Adam (who listened to his wife to eat the fruit instead of sanctifying her) much like Jesus’ purpose for the Church is salvation and sanctification. This is also correction and rebuke as evidenced in Revelation 2-3 where Jesus provides a rebuke for the Churches or they have no part of Him.

    ~ Modern western Christianity twists this Christ’s love to mean care the most about your wife’s feelings. For instance, if she’s “feeling unloved” you must do all you can to sacrifice to make her feel better because Christ’s love was sacrificial. It sounds good, but then you realize that actually trying to make someone feel better is just being a slave to their feelings. This leads to an inverted role relationship where the woman’s feelings are the head and a husband is merely submitting their every whim as a supplicating wimp.

    Wives may not like being corrected or taught, but they will respect it even if they don’t like it or try to rebel. Supplicating to her feelings inevitably leads to more unhappiness and almost always some sort of desire for divorce or adultery. No woman respects a supplicating wimp nor listens to him either.

    Biblical Christianity is GOOD and actually doing it has some components of attraction. But western Christianity has gotten things twisted because of notions of chivalry, marrying feminism with the Bible, and other things of these natures which leads to not only no attraction but worse marital outcomes.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Pingback: Biblical Christianity is both good and attractive while Western Christianity is not | Christianity and masculinity

  4. feeriker says:

    “Stop listening to the men of our churches, Pedestalizers and Supplicators.”

    I’m convinced that on a visceral level these guys know that what you’re saying here is the truth, but they don’t dare admit it to themselves or anyone else. They know (and have seen and experienced themselves) women’s true nature, and they are simply TERRIFIED of the prospect of being ruined by the women in their own lives if they not only acknowledge the truth, but start pushing back against the feminine imperative and attempt to influence women’s behavior in a more Godly direction. They are fully aware of the extent to which women are in open rebellion because … well, they’ve helped perpetuate that rebellion through their unbiblical pedestalization and white knighting.

    The biggest question that arises here is: Are these pedestalizers / white knights doing what they’re doing because they are ideologically committed to the progressive egalitarianism behind it, or have they been hoisted by their own ideological petard (to mangle a metaphor) and are simply coping with the aftermath?

    Liked by 4 people

    • info says:

      Serious sick and disgusting that many of those Fathers are encouraging their daughters to be empowered and masculine. Their own version of behavioral crossdressing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        “Serious sick and disgusting that many of those Fathers are encouraging their daughters to be empowered and masculine.”

        I’ve seen this somewhere before. LoL, I really do think it needs to be explored more because I do think that’s one of the key reasons why our society has become so gynocentric and how mainstream Western society has been able to move away from the Bible.

        I think part of it is because, the men who already have their women are like, “Whelp, I got mine! Now I’m trying to keep mines happy. I don’t care about the rest of y’all. Each man for himself!”

        And part of it is also, as you said… there’s something about a type of Father who doesn’t like the idea that his daughter would grow up and “submit” to another man that’s not him. Is it subconsciously “possessive”? I don’t know.

        Liked by 2 people

    • naturallyaspirated says:

      “The biggest question that arises here is: Are these pedestalizers / white knights doing what they’re doing because they are ideologically committed to the progressive egalitarianism behind it, or have they been hoisted by their own ideological petard (to mangle a metaphor) and are simply coping with the aftermath?”

      I think they are starting to realize where the slope is leading (after it’s been shoved in front of their faces) but they have no tools to stop it. It’s simply a consequence of fully embracing the shifting sands of modern culture.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. redpillboomer says:

    “The biggest question that arises here is: Are these pedestalizers / white knights doing what they’re doing because they are ideologically committed to the progressive egalitarianism behind it, or have they been hoisted by their own ideological petard (to mangle a metaphor) and are simply coping with the aftermath?”

    Hmm, good question! I’d go with the latter primarily. I’ve found myself sometimes “simply coping with the aftermath” of all this pedestalizing / white knighting we’ve done for decades now, just because at times it feels like an unstoppable wave coming at me (us).

    For example, in the last few years of my military career, sexual harassment was the the big “social engineering” subject du jour. Training classes, endless Powerpoint presentations, discussion groups, subtle and not so subtle warnings to us males, posters, specially created symbols for awareness across the bases, etc. made it seem like the military was simply overrun with sexual harassers and sexual harassment cases.

    I’d sit in these training sessions and think, “I’ve never seen a single outright case of what they’re talking about and/or alluding to.” I didn’t doubt it happened here and there, SOMEWHERE in the military, but in the circles I’d moved in, not much of it, if any at all.

    My point, it was pointless to try to say anything like, “Hey, wait a second, I haven’t seen those types and levels of sexual harassment you’re describing during my career.” Are you kidding me? You’d get ideologically tarred and feathered there right on the spot for raising any view that questioned the narrative that this SH thing is omnipresent throughout the military and a threat to mission readiness.

    So, I think a lot of what we RP and even the BP men alike deal with today is the aftermath of what so many pedestalizers / white knights / manginas / etc. who have come before us have allowed to happen, even if they weren’t ideologically committed to it. They either back handily supported it, or simply said nothing, and then let it slide on down the line to the next generations of men that simply had to “cope with it”; because how do you stand up to a “tsunami” of crap flowing at you with legions of men saying or doing NOTHING about it? Not even questioning it.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. dave sora says:

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

    So all women who ever took the pill then.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Red Pill Apostle says:

    Kristor wrote,

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

    Here Kristor makes a theological error. Sin being innate in all humans, taints everything we do. This includes women’s filtering mechanisms for selecting and attracting men. Basically, his first sentence in this paragraph is heretical because there is no “bit of moral purity” in any of us, anywhere. If there was, then theoretically a human could life a perfect life which we know is not the case.

    Thedeti rightfully recognizes this theological error and writes,

    “He apparently rejects a central Christian doctrine that is repeated a gazillion times in scripture (Job 14:1-6; Psalm 14:1-3; Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 59:7-15; Isaiah 64:6-7; Romans 3:10-20; Romans 3:23; et al.)…”

    So leaves us with women’s attraction filters having innate sin blinders on them. It’s part of the reason that there are vast numbers of videos where women are asked whether they like a$$ho!e$ or nice guys and the nice guys never win. At best this means being a “good” man is a neutral proposition from an attraction standpoint.

    For professing Christian men this leaves us a presumably no win situation when it comes to women. We can be the good Christian celibate man or the @-hole who gets women. Looking at how Christ really was with his followers shows us this is a false choice. Sure, he submitted himself to the will of the Father on our behalf and meekly went to the cross without defending himself, which seems to be the primary picture of Christ churches teach. But along with acting out the love he had for us, he spent the vast majority of his ministry being immovable from his purpose, confrontational in carrying it out and at times condescending to his disciples in his prodding them to be better (Matthew 15:16 for example). He was not primarily interested in sparing feelings, while at the same time being merciful, compassionate and laudatory when appropriate (Luke 7:36-50 anointed by sinful woman; Matt 8:5-13 faith of centurion).

    Christian men should take Christ’s attitude to heart. Being good means holding God’s standard to the best of your ability. This necessitates being confrontational with pig headed steadfastness at times, especially with women, because so few are humble enough to accept what the bible says their role is in life. In other words, if you’re ever confronted with a WWJD type question the reply should be, “He’d be the @$$ho!e he needed to be to fulfill his purpose, and so will I.”

    Here’s what I think the typical bible thumping man gets wrong about women liking good men. They’ve exalted acts of showing mercy, being patient, gentleness, etc into primacy over holding the standard. With women it’s only after you’ve held the standard, with all that entails, and she’s submitted and is obedient that showing the more tender side of masculinity does not overly risk the inversion of God’s order. It’s amazing how well this works and I believe this is the part where a woman’s desire for the man can be cultivated to some extent. This is clearly “The Taming of the Shrew” territory.

    Liked by 3 people

    • @ RPA,

      “So leaves us with women’s attraction filters having innate sin blinders on them. It’s part of the reason that there are vast numbers of videos where women are asked whether they like a$$ho!e$ or nice guys and the nice guys never win. At best this means being a “good” man is a neutral proposition from an attraction standpoint.

      For professing Christian men this leaves us a presumably no win situation when it comes to women. We can be the good Christian celibate man or the @-hole who gets women. Looking at how Christ really was with his followers shows us this is a false choice. Sure, he submitted himself to the will of the Father on our behalf and meekly went to the cross without defending himself, which seems to be the primary picture of Christ churches teach. But along with acting out the love he had for us, he spent the vast majority of his ministry being immovable from his purpose, confrontational in carrying it out and at times condescending to his disciples in his prodding them to be better (Matthew 15:16 for example). He was not primarily interested in sparing feelings, while at the same time being merciful, compassionate and laudatory when appropriate (Luke 7:36-50 anointed by sinful woman; Matt 8:5-13 faith of centurion)…”

      This is a false dichotomy though.

      Jesus was definitely no nice guy, but modern Churches are beta factories producing nice guy after nice guy.

      There’s no shortage of Church leaders or otherwise high(er) status positions in the Church attracting women. Almost every one of the men I know who regularly goes out doing street evangelism are married that I know of, and most of the rest that aren’t are single for God. They are confident when preaching the gospel which is much more difficult than being confident while asking someone out.

      You and many of the other husbands are clear examples of getting rid of the nice guy tendencies and actually starting to lead, workout, and otherwise become more dominant in your Christian walk and life. You can clearly see the effect it has on women and not just your wife too.

      The issue is not that you need to choose between being an a-hole and a nice guy, but it’s that you need to remove Western Christianity beta factory producing nonsense from your brain (easier said than done) and actually do what the Bible says.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        DS — I was not saying a man had to be nice or an @-hole. I was saying that Christian men should be an @-hole the way Christ was. He put people’s feelings second to mission whenever necessary because He served the Father. Yet He was kind and compassionate to those who were either humbled by life (many of those he healed) or who knew who He was and humbled themselves before Him (e.g. the centurion, Zacchaeus, the woman who cleaned his feet with tears…).

        What we’ve punted from churches is that for a man to actually be “good” he has to be both the @-hole and kind / compassionate. Teaching young men when in life to apply each aspect of who they are as men is the key.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ RPA,

        “DS — I was not saying a man had to be nice or an @-hole. I was saying that Christian men should be an @-hole the way Christ was. He put people’s feelings second to mission whenever necessary because He served the Father. Yet He was kind and compassionate to those who were either humbled by life (many of those he healed) or who knew who He was and humbled themselves before Him (e.g. the centurion, Zacchaeus, the woman who cleaned his feet with tears…).

        What we’ve punted from churches is that for a man to actually be “good” he has to be both the @-hole and kind / compassionate. Teaching young men when in life to apply each aspect of who they are as men is the key.”

        Ahh, I understand.

        Sort of a side point, I guess, but I would not phrase it like that when talking to others about RP topics because it’s too much of a turnoff. Generally, you have to be able to explain RP concepts without using RP language to get across effectively in Churches.

        I’ve done both, and the way I explained it here tends to go over way better than other ways. YMMV.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “You and many of the other husbands are clear examples of getting rid of the nice guy tendencies and actually starting to lead, workout, and otherwise become more dominant in your Christian walk and life. You can clearly see the effect it has on women and not just your wife too.”

        Yes, this has been a definite side benefit to being RP and developing myself in it. I had a good relationship with my wife prior to my RP’ing, and it’s even better now, mostly in subtle ways. And yes, I’ve noticed the effect on other women as well.

        Even in my church home group, I see the effect. The women in there, I believe, see me as the AMOG and I can sense the attraction. It’s not like I’m trying to be “Mr. Big” or anything like it. In fact, just the opposite, just one of the group; however I do have a leadership role — playing the guitar and leading worship (and I’m pretty good, a Rocker by background, so it’s not your normal Beta church guy strumming pithy Christian tunes), and I co-lead the study. We’re all pleasant and get along great. AND… I have noticed and felt the subtle attraction from the women, most of them married.

        I don’t take it as an ego thing. From our RP lense, I see it as natural attraction of the women toward us men when we are “Alpha’ing it up” so to speak. Interestingly, my co-leader does it to a degree, just a bit lesser than me. I sense he gets the attraction factor going too, even from my wife to some extent. I think the women really can’t help it, it’s their innate biological wiring, to respond to male-female polarity when it’s present.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “[After RP’ing] I have noticed and felt the subtle attraction from the women [increasing], most of them married.”

        I’ve noticed this too. I attracted women before I was RP’ed, but after taking the RP, I noticed that the quality of women giving me attention and IOIs steadily increased. I wasn’t getting attention from higher SMV women, just higher quality women, and it was warmer and more authentic too. I also got more attention from married women, most of them about 10-20 years older than me, but also a few younger ones too. When this first began happening, I was afraid their husbands would be jealous, or that people would think I was a cad or something, but instead, I found that everyone trusted and respected me. For example, whenever my friend’s wife sees me at church, her mouth drops open and her eyes get big. She’ll come over to me and hang on my upper arm and giggle while she talks with me. My friend will soon join the conversation with a big smile on his face. He’s not jealous, just glad to see me and happy that his wife and best friend get along so well. I was somewhat surprised to find that people trusted and respected me more as I became more RP aware and grew more comfortable with my masculinity. It is a blessing. I hope that other men can experience this too.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “For example, whenever my friend’s wife sees me at church, her mouth drops open and her eyes get big. She’ll come over to me and hang on my upper arm and giggle while she talks with me.”

        Yes, these and some other subtle indicators like touching me lightly on the arm with their finger tips when making a point, or how they position their body when they’re talking one on one with me. I think these are subconscious IOI’s (Indicators of Interest). I don’t think they even realize they’re doing it, but I pick up on it right away.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. catacombresident says:

    It is indeed no-win for men in our society. This is why the Bible is so tough on women; let them choose and they will rarely choose what God intended.
    The Bible actually advocates a high degree of restriction on women. This is why a genuine biblical covenant community is so unlikely to be seen in America … until something destroys everything we know and shakes everyone out of their comfort zone. As counselors love to say, “We have to hit bottom.” What else could we reasonably pray for?

    Liked by 3 people

    • info says:

      We must nonetheless stand for God especially when the world is against us.

      When David faced Goliath he had confidence in his God. And we should too.

      Like

  9. Devon70 says:

    The most damaging lie from the pedestalizing of women is telling guys that women don’t care about appearance. Only those bad men care about appearance. In the modern dating market a blue pilled-physically attractive man will do well but a physically unattractive guy will struggle mightily. There’s a popular non-manosphere YouTube channel called QOVES Studio that has in depth videos about the importance of your appearance and how to improve your appearance. Their recent video is about how people will lie to someone when they’re seeking advice about improving their appearance.
    “Toxic Positivity.” Lying to people doesn’t help anyone.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Best way to have a good appearance is to be well nourished. And exercising regularly. Lots of ugliness is the result of bad nutrition actually.

      Like

  10. anonymous_ng says:

    Before the modern age, calories were expensive and difficult to obtain. Our labor saving devices had yet to be invented. Thus, the environment imposed an external discipline on people that kept them from being obese. Obesity was a hallmark of the very wealthy. See for example paintings by Rubens.

    In the modern age, calories are cheap and you can have them delivered to your door without the need to even walk the aisles. Now, obesity is a hallmark of the undisciplined. To maintain a lean physique, one must discipline their eating, and the use of their body.

    Similarly, on a sliding scale before the welfare state, and before abortion on demand and hormonal birth control, the consequences of being an immoral woman were so great that it imposed an external discipline on women. Now, those women who maintain their purity are those who don’t have the opportunity for sex because they have no discipline in their eating and exercise, or those who exercise discipline over themselves.

    Before the modern mass media age, women had a few options, and could see the relative status etc of those options.Now, she has a seeming plethora of options, but cannot actually know their status etc. Also, she has her own money, a safety net for when she screws up, and thus no need to discipline herself against exercising her every whim.

    It does little good to bemoan the current state of things. Most women aren’t going to be worth the time. They are little more than the joke of being life support for their ____.

    The biggest problem most men have is that they’re too shy, too introverted, and thus will never talk to or interact socially with enough women to find those who are possibly interested and worth talking to. It’s like when someone ran a demographic analysis on NYC for women in their 30s wanting a man with a good job, and a degree. It turns out, just those two limitations resulted in one potential per city block or something equally ridiculous, and that was before considering religion, politics, looks and attraction etc.

    Most men don’t have the social skills, and are uninterested in developing them. If you’re Chad, you don’t need to develop the social skills. I’ve known several men who didn’t fit the Chad mold, but were charismatic due to their social skill. They might not have been dating Hollywood starlets, but they weren’t dating water buffalo either.

    A friend at church is the kind of man who bitches about the need to develop social skills. Well, that’s just the way of things. One of my kids bitches about having to eat, that it’s such a hassle. Well, suck it up. The toilet always needs cleaned. Dinner needs cooked. The laundry needs done. Unless you are filthy rich and can pay someone else to do these things, you’re going to have to do them, and unless you were blessed to be Chad, you’re going to have to develop yourself.

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “I’ve known several men who didn’t fit the Chad mold, but were charismatic due to their social skill. They might not have been dating Hollywood starlets, but they weren’t dating water buffalo either.”

      Seen this too. In the educational programs I participated in that had younger women involved, the good looking older late twenty-somethings seemed to all gravitate towards the guys around the 38 to 52 year old range.

      None of these men were a Chad, however, they did have good social skills, charisma if you will, and they were bedding the late twenty somethings. They also had some money, or the ILLUSION of money. All that packaging seemed enough to get the younger women to focus on them instead of the one or two Chad’s in the program.

      In other words, they CHASED after the slightly older guys with the decent looks, money (or the illusion of it) and the charisma (social skills, charm). They might have slept with the Chad’s here or there, but it was those guys they wanted.

      Part of that was the women’s age, 27-29, looking for that guy they may have been able to lock down instead of Chad. However, I always felt that a measure of the attraction was the charisma, aka confidence, those guys exuded. The women wanted them even though they were known throughout the place as players. Didn’t matter, they wanted them anyways.

      Like

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

  12. farmlegend says:

    Wow that last image hits home.

    I can imagine the caption — “Your Damn Logic Means Nothing to me.”

    Like

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

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

  15. 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