Rowena Breaks down Female Attraction

Is Attraction strictly a binary function?

Readership: All; Christians
Theme: Perspectives on the Topic of Attraction
Length: 3,700 words
Reading Time: 20 minutes

Foreword

My post On Curating a Christian Culture of Attraction (2022-8-18) received a lot of discussion about the nature of attraction.  Two more posts spun off of the topic of attraction, so I’ve decided to have a mini-theme about these Perspectives on the Topic of Attraction.

Thedeti voiced a strong disagreement with the question, “Can sexual attraction be trained or taught?”  He said that it cannot, under any circumstances, as it is dictated solely by biology and evolutionary-psychology.

Rowena wrote a long email to me on 2022-8-22 in response to Thedeti’s statements.  In her essay, she made a lot of important distinctions about things that only women would know about.  I think it is important for men to know these things.  So I have sorted through her ideas, made a few changes, and have presented them below.  In fact, most of her ideas agree with what we already know from the Red Pill lore, but the viewpoint comes from a different perspective.

The value of having Rowena’s feedback is that women are extremely skilled in hiding their feelings of attraction, and so it may not be easily observed.  Secondly, only women would know whether certain things related to their own feelings of attraction are true or not, so we have to trust their word to some extent.  The problem in obtaining such a confirmation is in finding an articulate, honest, self-aware, and trustworthy woman.

There are a few reasons why I believe we can trust Rowena’s general assessments of women.

  • Rowena is an older married Christian woman with children (not a younger woman who is obsessed with her social status and sexual competition).
  • She has no personal interest in the outcome of our discussions except that we get it right.
  • In her email, she stated that she hoped we could make progress in reestablishing patriarchy.
  • Her track record of displaying respect to men.  For example, in the beginning of her email, she wrote,

“I wanted to respond to what Thedeti said, because I agree and disagree with him. Except your forum is not my place to disagree and it may come across as disrespectful. Also being a woman, I know I have the capacity to hamster and to be deceived (that is Biblical). I am aware of that and so I also want to take that into account. So, I respectfully present a few of my observations and if there is truth in them – you can perhaps sort the wheat from the chaff.”

I really appreciate the way she wrote to me privately to voice her objections to Thedeti’s points. This shows honor and respect to Thedeti as a man, and trust and respect for my authority as a Christian writer and blog host.  Her faith does not go unnoticed.  I wish more women had this kind of habit.

When Rowena says that she agrees or disagrees with a statement, men should be careful not to interpret this as a logical argument, but rather a confirmation of its truth according to the female experience.

A Trifurcated Hierarchy of Attraction

Rowena described a hierarchy of attraction that is different from the strict bifurcation of the “have’s” and “have not’s” that we are familiar with. In her model, there are “have’s”, “have not’s”, and “depends on maybe’s” which roughly corresponds to our SMV conventions.

Thus, statements like the following are not easily answered.

  • “Women are either turned on or off sexually.”
  • “A man can do nothing to turn the needle.”
  • “Sexual attraction is either there or it is not”

Such statements appear too vague, childishly simplistic, and overly reductionist to the female mind.  Furthermore, women conclude that the reason why men have such a simplistic view of “attraction” is because it is based solely on whether the interaction “pays off” in terms of male interests (i.e. ego, self-esteem, sex, etc.).  For example, men do not care if they can attract a woman who is grossly unattractive to them.  They would consider this an annoyance, not the attraction that it truly is.  True, women are the same way, but neither men nor women think this far.  For this reason, women are very careful not to allow men any “pay offs” unless it is clearly beneficial to her own interests.  Women who do so are considered by other women to have loose boundaries or no self-esteem, casually described as being “easy”, “flighty”, “flirty”, “stupid”, “loose”, “ungrounded”, or “vulnerable”, which is the diametric opposite of the widely celebrated Strong Independent Woman™.  Men are much more generous in this regard, and often let women take advantage of them.

Putting Rowena’s model into an easily digestible bon mot, these three categories of men are summed up as follows.

SMV = 8-10  “The Have’s”

Only 8-10’s (men very high in good looks and athletic ability – a part of LAMPS) can elicit the raw visceral sexual attraction that Scott and Thedeti are referring to.

For 8-10’s, the Tingle button is permanently ON.  These men are ALWAYS sexually attractive to women.  And to practically ALL women.  Even though they may not show it, respond to it, or express interest (because that would be a pay off.)

In this case, Rowena and Thedeti AGREE.

SMV = 5-7  “It depends on maybe’s”

There is no sexual attraction but there is no sexual repulsion either.  However, sexual attraction or sexual repulsion can be generated if the context changes.

So in this case, Rowena and Thedeti DISAGREE.

For men in the 5-7 category, the question is how to change and/or control the context.  The contextual factors of attraction will be covered in the next section.

SMV ≤ 4  “The Have Not’s”

For men below 5, the Tingle button is permanently OFF.  This includes the morbidly obese, profoundly ugly, etc.  These men are sexually REPULSIVE.  This is not the zone of a lack of sexual attraction, it is the zone of sexual REPULSION, meaning, “No way will I ever let this person touch me!”  Nothing can change this. 

This is the same for BOTH men and women (some men might have a lower threshold for casual sex), however men and women respond differently to it.  Men joke about it amongst themselves, but women have absolutely no sense of humor in this area.  So women are much more volatile and dramatic about their repulsion than men are.  In fact, this repulsion is so strong that younger women can be very rude in expressing this repulsion and quite nasty in avoiding such men, even going to excessive lengths to avoid any social association with such men.

So, Rowena and Thedeti AGREE here too.

Rowena said most men and women fall in the 5-7 category.  8-10’s are exceedingly rare, and below 5’s are a very small category.  I’ll comment that this categorization doesn’t agree with the data from OKCupid which indicates that women find the vast majority of men unattractive. But her views do agree with the OKCupid data indicating that women show a large amount of interest in the men in the middle.   Make of this what you will.

Contextual Factors of Attraction

There are many fundamental differences between men and women.

In general, Men are aroused by the sight of a feminine figure.  Women are also aroused by the sight of a handsome man.  The difference here is that men are turned on by looking at nearly any woman who is above average, whereas women are only turned on by a man’s appearance when he is tall, lean, well built, and very fit, which is a very small segment of men.

For men, sexual attraction is almost entirely created by a woman’s youth, physical proportions, and beauty.  But for a woman, sex is not ONLY about physical attraction.  There are other considerations that go through a woman’s mind.

  • Sex is about submission to a man. Essentially, when a woman gives her body to a man, she is submitting to him.
  • Sex involves emotional vulnerability. Can she open up her heart and body and be herself without feeling ashamed or being rejected by him for it?
  • Sex is bonding with a man.  The woman tunes into the man’s thinking and world view.  They share feelings and emotions.  They have synchronicities (e.g. saying the same thing at the same time).  Women often describe this as “oneness”.  This extends past the bedroom into everyday life, and it can be addictive if it feeds her emotional needs.  OTOH, Men get addicted to the sex, however, the Manosphere has picked up on the important aspect of bonding.
  • Sex is an identification with a man.  When a woman has sex with a man, she identifies herself as his, emotionally, physically, sexually, and (with the exception of one night stands) socially too.  This is how God created sex to be.  However, Women these days don’t like the idea of “belonging” to a man, so the way women usually express this phenomenon is by recasting it in terms of her ownership of him“He is MINE!”  “I got a new man!”  and so on.  This identification is not just psychological, it also includes the spiritual constitution of a woman, hence the Alpha Widow syndrome.
  • Biblically, sex was designed to be a ratification of the marriage covenant in which the woman submits to a man’s Headship covering.  Women who engage in sex but reject being submissive to the Headship covering lose all the blessings and benefits of that covering (and create lots of headaches and sleepless nights for the man as well).  This is a vital spiritual aspect of sex that Christian women are (or should be) aware of that our modern culture entirely ignores.

Rowena said Thedeti is mistaken in assuming this submission will happen ONLY if there is raw visceral sexual attraction.  The truth is that many women will refuse sex with their husbands because there is a confounding problem with one of the above factors.  But Thedeti is right in that if a man is exceedingly good looking, a woman will hamsterize and justify any of these other problems in order to be his sexual plaything.

7 Contextual Vectors of Attraction

As mentioned before, Men are aroused by the sight of a young feminine figure, clear complexion, full round breasts, long hair, slim tummy, WHR < 0.7, etc.  For women, a man’s health, fitness, and strength are also arousing, but there are other factors that come into play. Some of these overlap with LAMPS and are described as follows.

1. MONEY / POWER

A wealthy powerful man has the capacity to make a woman want to submit to him. (And I am not talking about r@pe.)  Money and raw power can generate sexual attraction where none exists. This is assuming the man is in the 5-7 category. If he is below 5 – he is sexually repulsive – any woman who sleeps with a man below 5 is hamstering a justification to sleep with him.  But not so with a 5-7 man.

Let me give some examples.

Example 1 – Bill Gates

If Bill Gates was a guy you met in a bar – he would not generate any sexual attraction but he would not be sexually repulsive either.  He is in the 5-7 category. A woman might peg him as a regular guy. Not attractive. Not repulsive.

Thedeti would say, “This man has no chance!”

But change the CONTEXT. BILL GATES – the billionaire walks into a bar; she recognises him as BILL GATES. He walks up to her and looks deep into her eyes. And says – Hi. I guarantee you – that woman will ‘tingle’. She is not hamstering her way into it. She is genuinely sexually attracted.

SAME GUY – DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

The MONEY, STATUS and POWER generates the tingles!

Example 2 – Donald Trump

Let’s consider the older version of Donald Trump. If you meet him as a regular guy – you will look at him as Grandpa. But if the multibillionaire PRESIDENT OF THE USA walks up to you and said, “Hi!”…  Well, some tingles would be generated – even if you hated the man. It is the POWER of his position.

SAME GUY – DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

Example 3 – An underworld criminal / don / thug

There are many guys in the 5- 7 in looks category who would never receive sexualized attention from women, but the DANGER in what they do changes the context.

Meet them in a regular situation – woman will not look at them. She is not repulsed. He just does not interest her. She will swipe left so to speak. But she finds out what he does – or she sees him hit someone – suddenly tingles will happen.

SAME GUY – DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

Example 4 – A Serviceman

By serviceman, I’m referring to a firefighter, military, navy seal, policeman… basically anyone in a uniform.

Girl meets him in regular clothes – if he is a 5-7, she will not take a second look.

But when she sees him in uniform – tingles will happen.

SAME GUY – DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

What is common in all these examples is POWER – these men symbolise POWER – through their jobs; the authority they hold.

A woman is NOT hamstering when she sleeps with this man. She is GENUINELY sexually attracted to him.

2. STATUS / FAME / REPUTATION

Fame and reputation often ties into the status, money, and power angle.

Actors, CEO’s, politicians, sports stars, TV personalities, etc. fall into this category, but the most noteworthy example of this is ROCK STARS.

Look at men like Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson, or Steve Tyler. These men are not objectively good looking – they’re not tall, no lantern jaw, and stuff. If you were to meet these men in a bar, they would NOT generate automatic visceral sexual attraction.

But put these men on stage in a rock concert and the context changes. When she sees them play music and sees his musical talent, she recognizes the larger than life image of the man.  He is now Steve Tyler from AEROSMITH. He is “THE” MICHAEL JACKSON – the ONE who can dance, do the moonwalk, etc. He is the one everyone imitates with sequined gloves and so on. Now, turn and look at the women in the crowd.  They’re twerking and flashing their breasts.

Do you really believe these women are going to be hamstering themselves into having sex with these men if asked?  Nope!  There is ACTUAL and GENUINE sexual attraction that has been AROUSED.

And yet, if any of these women met men like this in a bar — just as REGULAR men — how much visceral sexual attraction do you think they would generate?

SAME MAN.  DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

3. ATHLETICISM / MUSCLES

Regular 5-7 man with a Dad bod goes to church. No woman gives him a second glance. He starts working out, loses weight, and starts wearing T-shirts that show his muscles. Suddenly women are feeling up his biceps at the church BBQ.

SAME GUY DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

4. LEADERSHIP

A 5-7 man can stand out from the crowd by being competent, decisive, displaying confidence, conversational skills, having useful knowledge, using practical skills, taking up a martial art, etc. He can also look the part by dressing smart, maintaining good posture, and making eye contact. All these can be learned or trained. These things may or may not create attraction, however, such a man will have a distinctive presence and find it easier to become a leader in his small group at church or in his office.  If he is assertive then suddenly women start checking him out.

SAME GUY DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

5. EMOTIONS

Women are emotional. If you can change her emotions – you can generate sexual attraction.

The following are controversial examples.

Example 1 – FEAR

Stockholm syndrome – These women end up sleeping with their captors. A large part of this is the power dynamic. But there is also an element of fear.

Same if she goes on a date which includes some kind of risk or shock.

  • Risk: Motorcycling, rock climbing, roller coasters, white water kayaking or rafting, etc.
  • Shock: Horror movies, losing her keys, spilling a drink on herself, surprises, if the man is hit on by other women,* etc.

All of these tap into her fear.  The FEAR induces humility, which sparks the chemistry of love.  The FEAR triggers sexual arousal.

* Dread Game can also generate attraction because it invokes the fear of losing someone. When a woman sees her husband flirting with another woman, she might get angry about this, but it can also make her want to go home and do him.

SAME GUY, DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

Example 2 – GAME

Keeping ethical considerations aside – the manipulation part – not going into whether you should game or not, but on the effect of game on a woman.

The tricks and techniques that the PUA’s advocate do have some results. At the core of it is you are manipulating emotions.

People either feel Game works or it does not.  A huge part of its effectiveness lies in the charisma of the man, and whether his particular brand of charisma comes across as charming to a certain woman.  If the woman can easily tune in to a man’s charisma, then she will naturally want to submit to him if only to bask in the exciting warmth of his presence.  Imposing Frame tends to reinforce this attraction.

However, it does NOT work if the man is below 5 – that man is sexually REPULSIVE
But if he is a 5-7 it CAN work – because you manipulate the woman’s EMOTIONS
She is not hamstering when she sleeps with him. There is genuine sexual attraction where none existed before.

Regularly, when she meets a 5-7, she will not feel anything. But change the CONTEXT – Fear, Dread, Shock, Charisma, Frame, even Flattery – “I am gay but I am starting to feel things for you. Could you help me out?” – Yep!  There are women that would fall for a line like that and would sleep with that guy. Not by hamstering but because she is genuinely sexually aroused by what he said.

SAME GUY, DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

6. HORMONES

At certain times of the month, if she’s ovulating or if she wants to have a baby, Oh Yeah!  Suddenly 8-10 men become practically irresistible, and 5-7 guys become VERY sexually attractive. If he is below 5, sex might happen but with definite hamstering. The rest of the month it will go back to a lack of interest.

But yes, for a 5-7 guy there is actual genuine sexual arousal.

SAME GUY, DIFFERENT CONTEXT!

Unfortunately, thanks to hormonal birth control and all the drugs women take these days, this part is totally messed up.

7. PHYSICAL TOUCH ON A VIRGIN / MARRIAGE

While a woman can be visually attracted to a man, men waaay underestimate the TOUCH of a man on a virgin. When a husband imprints his TOUCH on a virgin – it is her FIRST introduction to sex. It AWAKENS something in her that explodes.

Once a woman has her first sexual experience, the innocence of her virginity is gone, and she becomes sexually ACTIVATED.  If a girl loses her virginity outside of marriage, she WILL become promiscuous. Unless she is RAPIDLY married off to him (which is what the Bible advocates).  Or she regularly does it with the man she lost it with and then gets married to him.  But if her first relationship ends, she will continue to be sexually active – just with another guy, and then another, and so on.

It was this SEXUAL AWAKENING that unleashes a woman’s dormant libido that the early church fathers were referring to (in Sharkly’s quote), in saying that women were lustful creatures. These church men had virginal wives. They knew how sleeping with their virgin wives pulled the pin on their sexual grenade. They KNEW what they were talking about.  Most modern men don’t even know this about women.

That is why the early church fathers and all patriarchal societies pursue the template of giving a girl in marriage when she is young and as a virgin.  For this reason, for many women across cultures and ages, sexual TOUCH is associated with her HUSBAND. He is the first man who awakens that in her.

That is why women close their eyes when they kiss. It is why women have no problem making love in the dark. It is his TOUCH that stimulates her. Man is VISUAL – he needs to SEE her for it to happen. Not saying women are not visual, but it is secondary to TOUCH.

That is also why sexual abuse is devastating for a girl. A young girl – who has been sexually abused – has ZERO visceral sexual attraction to her predator – but his touch imprints on her. He awakens a desire that, in the normal course, only her husband would AWAKEN. And she goes crazy. That is universally why most sexually abused girls end up promiscuous. If you see an abused 12-13-year-old girl sleeping with anything that moves, she is not viscerally sexually attracted to the men she is sleeping with. She is RESPONDING to what the predator awakened in her and acting out those desires.

Summary

We know that women are extremely skilled in hiding their arousal.  But what few men know is that…

  1. A virgin’s first time having sex is a sexual AWAKENING.
  2. Women who are not virgins are sexually ACTIVATED.
  3. Women who are NOT virgins and are NOT married are, by and large, promiscuous.

Non-virginal women are going to have sex, and it’s just a question of CONTEXT.  All women prefer the 8-10 man, but since these men are in very short supply, a 5-7 man will do her just fine — IF the CONTEXT hits her right.

The Christian context for sexual awakening and arousal is marriage. When marriage is postponed until after a woman’s first sexual awakening, and if marriage is not seized immediately, then the natural result is promiscuity followed by a deferred and debased marriage.

Women’s Attraction to Men Sans Context

  • 8-10’s will ALWAYS generate raw visceral sexual attraction.
  • 5-7 – GREY AREA – NEUTRAL – NOT sexually attractive but the KEY here is NOT sexually REPULSIVE either.
  • Below 5’s – Sexually REPULSIVE (they first have to get to a 5 – bariatric surgery perhaps!!!)

Women’s Attraction to Men having one or more of the above Contextual Vectors of Attraction

  • 8-10’s – She will DEFINITELY sleep with him and DEFINITELY marry him.
  • 5-7 – GOOD chance of sleeping with him at the moment when genuine sexual attraction has been AROUSED. She MAY marry him.
  • If he is below 5 – Sex is out of the question.  She MAY marry him, but expect a dead bedroom and/or hamstering to sleep with him.

Rowena said Thedeti is mistaken in assuming “lack of sexual attraction” = “sexually repulsive”.

Rowena disagrees with Thedeti in the 5-7 category because the CONTEXT matters and sexual attraction can be generated. She says women are NOT hamstering when they sleep with a 5-7 man under certain conditions. There is genuine sexual attraction which has been generated by the CONTEXT.

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 Adultery and Fornication, Attraction, Charisma, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Clothing, Denying/Witholding Sex, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Evo-Psych, Fundamental Frame, Game, Health and Fitness, Identity, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Leadership, Male Power, Military, Personal Domain, Personal Presentation, Power, Psychology, Relationships, Self-Concept, Sex, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Sphere of Influence, The Hamster, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Rowena Breaks down Female Attraction

  1. redpillboomer says:

    Interesting! One thing I wondered in reading this, and it is probably beyond the scope of this blog post, how much of this was “wired” in by God in his design of males and females, and how much of it is a result of the fall? If one were able to separate the effects of the fall from the way God wired the sexes to be, then it would seem that the closer a man or woman interacts with the opposite sex “by design,” the greater the chances of relational success. The more the interaction occurs in alignment with the fall, the lesser the chances of relational success.

    Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      “…how much of this was “wired” in by God in his design of males and females, and how much of it is a result of the fall?

      I’ve asked this question before as well. My guess: The ratio is 1 to 99.

      Liked by 2 people

      • catacombresident says:

        The Fall is the sole reason for our mortal flesh. I seriously doubt our eternal bodies include any of this. They have no need of procreation, families, etc. On the other hand, some of what we do is based on being a natural creature, and some of what we do is our sinful nature. In general, I believe that most of what we have here in this discussion is wiring, but the complications are the wiring having to transmit through sinful nature. Western culture in general, and American culture in particular, is generally hostile to God’s revelation on things.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Elspeth says:

    “She says women are NOT hamstering when they sleep with a 5-7 man under certain conditions. There is genuine sexual attraction which has been generated by the CONTEXT.”

    I appreciate Rowena’s (and Julianna’s) much more articulate and apparently more appropriate approach to saying what I was unable to coherently express. Namely, that female attraction really is multi-layered and tinged with a bit of… dare I say it? Mystery.

    Kudos to both of those ladies.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      heh. Says the woman married to a man for whom she has felt literal “can’t see straight” sexual attraction from the very first time she saw him.

      E, what she’s describing for 5-7 men, average men, is not “sexual attraction”. It’s “I like him, he’s really nice, eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess I could muster up enough willingness to have sex with him IF AND ONLY IF he gives me what I want FIRST.”

      That is NOT “sexual attraction”. It is many other things, but it is NOT “sexual attraction”.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Elspeth

      “Namely, that female attraction really is multi-layered and tinged with a bit of… dare I say it? Mystery.”

      I’ll contend that there is little to no mystery to female attraction. Female attraction is about how a man makes a woman feel. The mystery, if we want to call it that, or variability involved is in determining where her emotions have wandered off to on a given day (or hour). I think of it more as a consistency issue than a mystery issue.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        what Rowena is describing and E is talking about, is not attraction. It just isn’t. I don’t care what they’re saying. It’s not attraction. It’s lots of other things, but it’s not attraction. It’s

        –I like him
        –I love him
        –I like that he sticks around
        –I think he’d be a good husband to me because he hasn’t left me yet
        –I think he’d be a good father to MY kids
        –I think he’d be a good provider
        –I am willing to have sex with him as long as my conditions are met
        –I even have some good sex with him, sometimes, as long as certain conditions are met and the context is exactly right once or twice a year

        But that is NOT “attraction”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        What thedeti is looking for regarding attraction is more along the lines of,

        “I want to have HIS babies.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I want to have HIS babies.”

        Close enough. And “I’ll do what he tells me to do without b!tching about it.”

        Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      @Elspeth, et al.
      I think “mystery” accurately describes a woman’s subjective experience of attraction, love, and romance. Women are naturally embued with purely subjective sensibilities and seem not to understand how or why things happen, where their feelings come from, where they go, and how to properly respond to them. According to the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy, “mystery” would also describe a man’s subjective experience of God. So I think we should all be able to identify with the concept of a “mystery” to some degree. It is a problem, though, when men regard women as mysterious. Thankfully, the Red Pill has disabused us of many such notions.

      Liked by 2 people

      • b g says:

        Jack,

        C’mon chemically women change every day, that is truly mysterious. ;-D

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “C’mon chemically women change every day, that is truly mysterious. ;-D”

        There are women whose sex drive peaks into strong desire only during a fraction of the month and the rest of the time is “meh” to “OMG no”. There are even woman who go off The Pill who suddenly lose all sexual attraction for their man. Sexual attraction is definitely not just “utility and exploitation.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Sexual attraction is definitely not just “utility and exploitation.”

        Sexual attraction, and “utility and exploitation”, are mutually exclusive. Two completely different things, neither having anything to do with the other.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        I am perplexed by the contrast between this…

        “Sexual attraction, and “utility and exploitation”, are mutually exclusive. Two completely different things, neither having anything to do with the other.”

        …and this…

        “The only thing other than being 8-10 as Rowena describes it that generates sexual attraction, temporarily, is Game/charisma/whatever it’s called now.”

        Sexual attraction has a chemical component.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Derek,

        What’s your confusion? The two quotes have nothing to do with each other. Game can create temporary sexual attraction/tingles. Game as a temporary attractant has nothing to do with women using or exploiting men. Game can involve men using and exploiting women.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “What’s your confusion?”

        I’m so perplexed by your comment that I referenced that I don’t even know how to explain how I am confused. I’m just going to move along.

        Like

    • b g says:

      The male and female thinking processes are very, very different. ;-D

      Like

  3. thedeti says:

    Well, as you might imagine, I have several things to say.

    There are a few reasons why I believe we can trust Rowena’s general assessments of women.

    Uh huh.

    I have been interacting with women in the ‘sphere for 11 years now. They’re just women. The Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary hamsters to beat the band just like any other woman. I’ve been here and I’ve seen it, from all kinds of women, including intelligent women, women who ‘get it’, women who are sympathetic to men’s plight, and older Christian married women who have no real dog in this fight other than they want to hang around here and see what the men are talking about.

    I am sure Rowena intended all this in as good faith as she could muster. It’s still hamstering; it’s still not advantageous to men, it doesn’t help men, and it doesn’t advance the ball down the field one millimeter. This is all well trod ground in the ‘sphere and I’m starting to realize why men have left the ‘sphere.

    SMV = 5-7 “It depends on maybe’s”
    There is no sexual attraction but there is no sexual repulsion either. However, sexual attraction or sexual repulsion can be generated if the context changes.

    So in this case, Rowena and Thedeti DISAGREE.

    Rowena and MLA members, read this very carefully. It’s extremely important that you get this point.

    I.

    This is where I want to focus effort. Here’s the main point: With these men and women’s interactions with them, what is generated in women is not “sexual attraction”. It’s not any kind of “attraction”. The only kind of “attraction” that there is or that matters is SEXUAL attraction.

    It’s not arousal or desire. It’s utility and exploitation. It’s that the woman sees an opportunity to use, exploit, and take advantage of a man for whatever it is she wants from him (usually indicia of commitment and access to resources). She’s not attracted to him. She does not really want him. She wants him to commit to her so she has unfettered access to his resources into perpetuity even after she has decided that staying with him is no longer advantageous to her.

    I used to believe that the S, A, and M of PSALM generated real sexual attraction. I don’t believe they do now. Of course, looks generates real, actual sexual attraction. I believe P (power) can generate real sexual attraction if it is combined with looks, but not alone and not when combined with anything else.

    The only thing other than being 8-10 as Rowena describes it that generates sexual attraction, temporarily, is Game/charisma/whatever it’s called now. (Hey, guys- remember Game?) Game can generate some attraction in some women, for a while.

    The point is that the only thing that lasts is being an 8-10 (in her eyes, anyway). That’s what works. That’s Scott/Mychael. That’s SAM/Elspeth (“he was the most beautiful man I had ever laid eyes on” “He has a beautiful visage”). Nothing else lasts. Nothing else works.

    II.

    The problem with “contextual attraction” is that context always changes. When a man who attracts a woman in a certain context, his relationship with her continuing is totally dependent on the context of their initial meeting remaining constant. If that context changes, her attraction ends and your relationship similarly ends. Whatever the man was or brought or contributed, he must continue to be that, bring that, or contribute that for the entire life of the relationship, or he is doomed. At best, his relationship with her is doomed to her perpetual unhappiness, his perpetual sexlessness, and their perpetual misery.

    And “contextual attraction” is the circumstance under which most men and women meet. This is what most men are faced with. Most men are not Scott. Most men are not SAM.

    III.

    Touch/sexual imprinting

    I suspect the idea of women’s sexual imprinting on the first man they had sex with has a little truth to it. Maybe a little. I suspect this is much more complex than just sexual touching.

    I definitely disagree that every woman who has premarital sex and then doesn’t marry that man will become sexually promiscuous. I also disagree that every woman who has premarital sex who then became promiscuous, became such specifically because of that premarital sex. Most of the time when you really get all the way to the bottom of things with sluts, you find out there was some nonsexual mental/emotional/psychological trauma in childhood. Almost all the time it’s because of a poor, strained, or nonexistent relationship with a parent. It really is literally daddy issues and mommy issues.

    Daddy wasn’t around. Daddy was cold, distant, and unaffectionate. Daddy worked too hard. Daddy wasn’t kind. Daddy was an a$$hole. Mommy and Daddy didn’t get along and got divorced and they hated each other and I saw them fighting all the time. I miss Daddy and I wish he loved me. If he had loved me like I needed to be loved as a little girl, I wouldn’t have gone out seeking affection from men.

    Mommy was a b!tch. Mommy was a slut. Mommy was mean to me. Mommy told me to never ever ever trust men. Mommy taught me how to use men to get what I want from them. Mommy taught me how to keep men from using me. I saw how men abused and mistreated Mommy and I resolved that that was never ever ever going to happen to me. I hate Mommy because she was just such an awful human and I’m not going to be like her. Or I hate Mommy because she was such a doormat and I’ll do life better than she did.

    Rowena says: Once a woman has her first sexual experience, the innocence of her virginity is gone, and she becomes sexually ACTIVATED.

    No. She becomes sexually activated only for 8-10s and only if those 8-10 men do the right things and push the right buttons to get her going. Women’s sexual attraction has to be aroused and triggered, so even an 8-10 man has to do something. If he doesn’t do anything, her sexual attraction/arousal remains dormant.

    IV.

    It’s all well and good to say that men can do all these things, be in the “right context”, and then hope like hell circumstances or the woman or other things stay EXACTLY like they were when she met him.

    Sure, all this guarantees that the 5-7 man gives the woman what she wants (money, commitment, resources.

    (Important point incoming, Rowena, READ THIS CAREFULLY)

    The problem is that being a 5-7 man with context dependent “attraction” is not enough to give men what they want.

    And it is not enough to induce women to give those 5-7 men what they need from their women.

    It just isn’t sufficient anymore. It isn’t enough because the social, political, religious, monetary, and legal structures aren’t there to support it. The “attraction” a woman has for a 5-7 man works ONLY in a patriarchy. It doesn’t work anywhere else. It also works only when you make it extremely hard for the woman to leave a marriage where the man has given her no cause for leaving. Essentially, you make her stay – and you just can’t do that anymore.

    Women, CHRISTIAN women, are divorcing 5-7 men left and right, destroying these men’s families and everything they worked for, and destroying their children, simply because the “context” for the initial meet just isn’t there anymore. She’s just not “feeling” it.

    FIN

    I know that Rowena believes, honestly believes, that what women experience when trying to get commitment from a “eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess” 5-7 is sexual attraction. I know she believes that. It isn’t. It’s use, exploitation, and advantage. If it were sexual attraction it would not be context dependent and it would be more or less strong, sustained, and permanent. (See SAM/Elspeth. See Scott/Mychael.)

    People have tried to sell this to me before, specifically at Donal Graeme’s where some long-gone ‘sphere woman named “Velvet” called this “utilitarian tingles”. This discussion starts here

    https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/lighting-the-fire/comment-page-1/#comment-3509

    where she said, and I kid you not, “not beating the kids and sticking around is straight up tingly”.

    I literally laughed out loud when I read that. And so did Donal. (He’s left the sphere now too, not surprisingly. Probably where I should be too; since these discussions have long ago started repeating themselves.)

    Thanks for an interesting discussion. It simply has proven to me at long last that we’re just repeating ourselves and that men and women simply are not able to discuss these matters in any meaningful way. I am convinced that everything I’ve read here will resonate with most men, but most women will not understand any of it. And that’s fine. I understand it, and most men will, and that’s all that matters to me, really.

    Liked by 3 people

    • @ deti

      This is where I want to focus effort. Here’s the main point: With these men and women’s interactions with them, what is generated in women is not “sexual attraction”. It’s not any kind of “attraction”. The only kind of “attraction” that there is or that matters is SEXUAL attraction.

      It’s not arousal or desire. It’s utility and exploitation. It’s that the woman sees an opportunity to use, exploit, and take advantage of a man for whatever it is she wants from him (usually indicia of commitment and access to resources). She’s not attracted to him. She does not really want him. She wants him to commit to her so she has unfettered access to his resources into perpetuity even after she has decided that staying with him is no longer advantageous to her.

      I used to believe that the S, A, and M of PSALM generated real sexual attraction. I don’t believe they do now. Of course, looks generates real, actual sexual attraction. I believe P (power) can generate real sexual attraction if it is combined with looks, but not alone and not when combined with anything else.

      The only thing other than being 8-10 as Rowena describes it that generates sexual attraction, temporarily, is Game/charisma/whatever it’s called now.
      (Hey, guys- remember Game?) Game can generate some attraction in some women, for a while.

      The point is that the only thing that lasts is being an 8-10 (in her eyes, anyway). That’s what works. That’s Scott/Mychael. That’s SAM/Elspeth (“he was the most beautiful man I had ever laid eyes on” “He has a beautiful visage”). Nothing else lasts. Nothing else works.”

      I think what you’re getting at here is the difference between attraction and sexual arousal.

      Women generally won’t date or marry someone they aren’t at least somewhat attracted to (PSALM + masculinity) unless they are going for the status of married (which there are some). However, attraction does not always lead to sexual arousal.

      Expressed dominance is what usually leads to arousal. An already attractive man (e.g. PSALM + masculinity) applies a dominant frame and actions in a sexual situation. For instance, hunky, muscular romance novel lookalike pushes the women up against the wall and kisses her deeply. Then picks her up and throws her on the bed and has his way with her. Conversational dominance/flirting/charisma is another way.

      I’d say most 5-7s don’t develop that kind of frame unless they read about it here or PUA forums or whatever. While they may be somewhat or maybe even reasonably attractive to some women (and may even marry said women), they aren’t able to give women tingles that the expressed sexual dominance does.

      I think I differ from you a bit here in I think that even average men can attract a woman and then be dominant enough toward her to generate tingles.

      Like

      • Rowena says:

        In a country where about 75 percent of the population is overweight or obese, just NOT being overweight puts you in Top 25%. If one actually worked out, it is not hard to climb up the attractiveness scale. This is true for women as well. Of course whether that will lead to a successful marriage is a completely different topic

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @Rowena

        “just NOT being overweight puts you in Top 25%”

        That’s fine as a general rule-of-thumb, but not precise, otherwise I’d have been in the top 25%, but I was completely invisible to most attractive women. When someone like LastMod was even more invisible, despite being taller and at peak physical fitness, threshold to even being noticed at all must be more solid than this.

        There is obviously one or more other major ‘defect’ that turns off women (and quickly too).

        Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “The point is that the only thing that lasts is being an 8-10 (in her eyes, anyway),”

      The “in her eyes” jumped out at me in your post Deti. In this whole sexual attraction discussion, the “8-10” men I think we may subconsciously be thinking of as a fixed “8-10 man,” I.e.like in “everyone” knows they’re an 8-10 guy. IOW, there’s some sort of universal or near universal consensus they’re an 8-10 man, I.e. the Brad Pitt trope; “Isn’t it obvious, ‘every’ girl sees Brad as a 10.” BUT, what if he, the “8-10” man, is an “8-10” only because he is an 8, 9 or 10 guy IN HER EYES? There’s no universally accepted 8-10 man. So, a “5-7” guy we’d all say, “Yep, he’s obviously a 5-7.” However, he may very well be an “8-10” man IN HER EYES, I.e. the individual woman’s eyes.

      I’ve listened to my wife describe what she was thinking when she met me, and I mean it’s like, “Wow, that’s very flattering description of me!” I’d like to think I was an 8-10 man back-in-the-day when I met her, but I don’t know if I was or not (no poll was ever taken), however IN HER EYES I was, and that was all that counted for sexual attraction.

      I think the problem I might have had with my four year LTR (three years of which were a long distance relationship), and one in which I finally got dumped, was because I was not an 8-10 IN HER EYES, but maybe a 7 IN HER EYES. IDK, gives me pause for thought when I ponder the “IN HER EYES” angle.

      For all the so called “5-7” men out there, work on yourself, keep developing yourself and improving your game (life game, not PUA). There’s no guarantee of success with women, HOWEVER you may find one that sees you as an “8-10” IN HER EYES. That’s all you need for sexual attraction (according to Deti); and as long as you’re attracted to her, you’re in business. Is that correct reasoning Deti from the sexual attraction point you’ve been making over and over?

      Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        Oh, and I meant Brad Pitt on his looks only, not his fame and money. He’s been put forth as a “10” on his looks, as in every female would be sexually attracted to him based solely on his looks; even if they knew nothing of his fame and money.

        Like

      • Rowena says:

        Is one really in business? If Brad Pitt (the ACTUAL one) is a 10 – just for looks – and a 10+ because of his fame and money and he is able to generate raw visceral sexual attraction – the kind that is what will make women stay in a marriage, and that is ALL you need for a successful marriage – then how come he has TWO divorces. (With the second – he lived with her for more than 7 years and had kids)

        I respectfully AGREE with thedeti Sir – The present culture is not conducive to successful marriage. But I am not so sure that raw visceral sexual attraction is all that is needed to have one as even all the raw visceral ssxual attraction that Brad Pitt generated did not guarantee him a successful marriage

        As much as I believe and encourage my sons to work on raising their attractiveness to the highest level – I think most of the despair is – will the women they marry keep to their duties and responsibilities in marriage. Because today marriage has become ENTIRELY about the desires and feelings in the relationship and less about the covenantal commitment before God and about the duties and responsibilties it entails.

        My Email was only addressed to the question if it is possible to increase sexual attractiveness. It was NOT addressed to whether that would be enough for a successful marriage. At some point a successful marriage really requires a ‘fear of the Lord who HATES divorce.’

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        That’s a point I made earlier. Sexual attraction draws people to each other, but it doesn’t keep people together. If sexual attraction kept people together, Hollywood marriages would all last a lifetime.

        Virtue, not sexual attraction, keeps people together.

        Hollywood marriages have off-the-charts sexual attraction, but zero virtue. That’s why they don’t last.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Elspeth says:

        💯 💯 💯

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “The present culture is not conducive to successful marriage…As much as I believe and encourage my sons to work on raising their attractiveness to the highest level – I think most of the despair is – will the women they marry keep to their duties and responsibilities in marriage. Because today marriage has become ENTIRELY about the desires and feelings in the relationship and less about the covenantal commitment before God and about the duties and responsibilities it entails.”

        Agree. I was only looking at the initial attraction factor. LTRs and long lasting marriages are another subject altogether, albeit, related to attraction for sure, but a whole bunch of other dynamics come into play that aren’t really there (or as important yet) in say the first year or so of the marriage. If the “8-10” level of attraction is in play that first year, it’s like the proverbial rabbits, they’re all over each other physically. Yes, they may fight, but as I understand it or have heard it described, the makeup sex is as intensely passionate as the fighting is.

        And yes, there’s no way my marriage could have lasted 33 years on attraction alone. It still plays a part in my marriage, albeit in a reduced role; present, but there are a bunch of other factors that are far more important now: compatibility, familiarity, like faith, some like interests, having raised two kids, etc. etc.

        I think what Deti was getting at, the girl who wound up being my wife, DEFINITELY saw me as an 8-10; and therefore, in looking back, she was relatively EASY for me to have a relationship with (easy as in ‘not requiring a lot of effort to establish a relationship,’ not easy as in layable easy). The longtime girlfriend that ended up dumping me, possibly saw me as a 7ish, and she was in Deti’s: “SMV = 5-7 “It depends on maybe’s” category.

        Btw, I believe she dumped me for three reasons: 1) My faith in the Lord was deeper than hers, it made her a bit uneasy; she’d be what we call a nominal or churchian Christian today, 2) She wanted to pursue her education and her career, and 3) Hypergamy, she wanted the “bigger better deal” man out there. I really believe #3 was the driver in her dumping me. The other two elements were there, but not as strong as her, “I need me an 8-10 man.”

        Now, exactly what an “8-10” guy was in her eyes, I’m not sure. Never asked her and she never volunteered that information to me, I could only infer it. In looking back on it, one of the last things she said to me gave me a hint of it even though at the time I had no idea what she was getting at, it sounded like an oxymoron to me. She said to me in parting, “Whatever girl gets you is going to be a lucky girl, and I’ll be crazily jealous.” Then she literally walked away from me and I never saw or heard from her again.

        I was dumbfounded, like in, “Huh, then why are you leaving me???” Although I was rendered speechless at the time by what she said, I’ve never forgotten it. All these years later, seeing it through a Red Pill lense now, I think I get what she meant. I think what she was saying up underneath the surface level words, “You’re good, but not good enough for me, there’s something better out there waiting for me,” I.e. an 8-10 man.

        I now believe that if she had seen me that way, the career and faith thing would not have been a factor in her leaving, she would have let me lead her spiritually, and she could have easily pursued her education and career married to me (I could afford it). I think her attraction in me was a modest one. Then I met the girl who eventually became my wife and the attraction was HUGE. I mean, she acted like she couldn’t get enough of me, and the rest of the story is history as they say.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I don’t know. I’m not sure a man can even be a 8-10 in a woman’s eyes. I think we are here in this post talking about men who are objectively 8-10s, 5-7s, and <4s. Because if you’re a 9 “in her eyes”, that means eventually the facade will drop and the “real you” will be revealed, resulting in even more disappointment and disillusionment.

        Guys, this is nothing new. This is all well plowed ground. This has all been sussed out before. Women don’t want men at 7 and lower. They just don’t. That’s fine, but I don’t want to hear any more b!tching and complaining about “where are all the good men”. They’re gone, or never created – because you women made clear you don’t want them.

        Look, Rowena – I know you probably meant well. I know you want this fixed (but you want men to do all the work and do all the changing and fixing for a problem you women created). But it can’t be fixed, and it can’t be changed- not until you women change yourselves and fix yourselves. Since you have no incentive to do so, I don’t see this improving during my lifetime. I have already prepared my son for the very real possibility he will not have a wife or family, and I would suggest you do the same.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “I have already prepared my son for the very real possibility he will not have a wife or family, and I would suggest you do the same.”

        I have not fully committed to this course yet, but I’m keeping a close eye on it and an active hand in it. At the very least they’ll be aware of the possibility, if not told it is a strong possibility.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Another option is to join a church community where people are getting married and having kids young.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “Another option is to join a church community where people are getting married and having kids young.”

        Names and web addresses of each church where you claim this is happening, please.

        Names, phone numbers, and email addresses of each such church’s senior/directing pastor, please.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “Another option is to join a church community where people are getting married and having kids young.”

        The full list of Lancaster Mennonite Churches in the Lancaster Mennonite Conference, with addresses and phone numbers, is on the conference website.

        For those who do not know:

        “On November 19, 2015, citing a “cultural and theological divide” over MC USA’s increasing support for same-sex marriage and LGBTQ relationships, a proposal by the Board of Bishops to leave MC USA was ratified by 82.3% of those voting. The withdrawal was effective immediately and to be finalized by congregations on or before the end of 2017, but allowed individual congregations an option of continued participation with MC USA, if so desired. At the time, the conference had 13,838 members in 163 congregations. Most congregations opted to exit the Mennonite Church USA, leaving only 1,091 members from Lancaster Mennonite Conference remaining with the MC USA.”

        This act already puts them in the extreme minority of denominations, which are almost universally going the other way. Still, Mennonite Churches come in many different flavors (from small to large, English to Spanish, etc.), so I’d suggest calling the pastor and asking, “Does your church have many God-honoring young families and children? Do you actively enforce discipline on unrepentant divorcees?”

        I do not currently attend a Mennonite church, so I cannot personally vouch for any in particular and I haven’t asked any of my Mennonite peers what churches they attend. (I didn’t grow up Mennonite.) My experience with the Mennonites is more general.

        Lancaster as a whole qualifies as a community where people are getting married and having kids young. Compared to the rest of the nation, marriage and birth statistics deviate heavily from the average. It is called “Amish country” due to the vastly inordinate amount of cultural influence that the Anabaptists have, disproportionate to their share of the population.

        One can easily immerse one’s self in the faith community. For example, our family went to Dutch Wonderland (a theme park for younger kids) and we stayed on-site at the campground overnight. On Sunday morning, a church service was held in the main pavilion, led by a Mennonite lay minister. It’s a theme park. Down the road a couple miles is another campground where we stayed on a different date. There in the morning, an Amish rides in with his younger kids in tow, selling fresh Amish baked goods to the campers. We were able to have a conversation (and compare notes about who has more kids).

        Liked by 1 person

  4. thedeti says:

    One other thing before I take my leave.

    V.

    Ladies- it’s not “attraction”. Resolving to have sex with a “eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess” man because he’s agreed to be your boyfriend and take you out on dates is NOT attraction, no matter how much you’ve hamstered yourselves into believing that it is.

    I have no doubt you like these men. You really do like them. You even love some of them. You love what they give you, what they do for you, and that they stick around and they put up with your bullsh!t. You love that you can use and exploit their resources, and that you can keep doing that.

    You love that they are reliable companions who do pretty much what they always have done, and that they don’t leave. You love that they’re someone who will spend time with you and who won’t use you sexually. You’ve made d@mn sure they won’t, because James Dobson and Dennis Rainey and Sheila Gregoire tell you that you’re equals to your men. Al Mohler tells you that he has to “earn” his way every day into the marriage bed. So, yeah, when it comes to sexytime, you’ve made sure that if you’re gonna give up the sex, you’re gonna get something in return for it, or you’ll put all kinds of conditions and restrictions on it so you can control it.

    But you do not love THEM, as humans, as men, as individuals. You simply USE them.

    VI.

    OK, you want this to change. You don’t like how relationships are.

    Uh huh.

    Right.

    So, ladies who don’t like this: What are you doing to change it? What are you doing to fix it?

    Are you dating, having sex with, marrying, and having babies with, these 5-7 men you claim to want?

    Are you submitting to them, happily and without reservation? Are you doing what these 5-7 men tell you to do without complaining?

    Are you having sex with them as much as they reasonably ask/want?

    Are you following their leads and submitting willingly, going where they go as they set out the courses and directions for your lives together?

    Because, you see – if you want a man to lay down his life for you, if you want him to allow you to nail him to a cross every day, then you have to submit to him. You have to do what he tells you to do.

    Uh huh. Yeah.

    But you don’t have to do it this way. You can keep doing what you’ve been doing. You can do it all yourselves.

    I ask again:

    What are you doing to fix this? What are you doing to change this? Because all this relationship stuff you women keep talking about doesn’t work unless you do your parts too.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sharkly says:

      Proverbs 5:5-6 (GW)
      Her feet descend to death. Her steps lead straight to hell. 6 She doesn’t even think about the path of life. Her steps wander, and she doesn’t realize it.

      I hope your questions to the women of this adulterous generation are rhetorical. They’re natural defilers, the devil’s gateway, her steps lead straight down to hell, etc. Innocent Adam (who was obviously the hottest man in the world at that time) lived in a perfect paradise, a divine sanctuary, until the defiler usurped both he and God. She is “the devil’s gateway”, her steps don’t lead up to enduring joy and life eternal.

      She is by nature a defiler, wandering, driven by her lusts, not held in check by higher reasoning. She doesn’t even realize it. God’s word tells us so. If women are tasked with fixing the problems they so tirelessly worked to create, the result will only be women creating even more defilement and the devil using them to further gain mastery over men. They are not our saviors.

      Ephesians 5, pictures the husband as savior of the wife, just as Christ is savior of the church. Remember that. Women’s salvation comes through serving their husbands, who are images of God, by holy faithful childbearing/sex coupled with modesty and self-control, and by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Without those attesting “works” their “faith” is truly void and just a lie for public consumption.

      “The reason these marriages fail now is because there is no patriarchy. And patriarchy isn’t coming back anytime soon, because frankly, not anywhere close to enough people want it or want to do what it takes to restore it.

      So, there you have it. That’s the problem.”

      So, as a savior, that defines one of your tasks, to sway enough people to bring God’s holy patriarchy back on earth again somewhere where your family can benefit from it.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Sharkly says:

        If you don’t think you can foster much patriarchy where you are, then maybe “vote with your feet”, by moving your family to someplace that is already more patriarchal than where you are now. Don’t willingly feed your progeny into the mouth of the satanic Feminist meat-grinder. And by all means, don’t try to tame down their patriarchy, according to your Feminist-influenced sentiments, once you get settled there.

        Like

  5. feeriker says:

    What deti said, amplified.

    I certainly have no expectation whatsoever that any woman can be trained (or can/will train herself) to “become sexually attracted to” a 5-7 man. T’ain’t never gonna happen. But as deti points out, the only way that any man in this SMV demographic will ever be protected from the inevitable collapse of his marriage that is based on ephemeral “situation-dependent attraction” is through the return of hard patriarchy. That clearly isn’t likely to happen in our lifetimes, so as the risk of marriage, even “Christian” marriage, becomes inescapably obvious to more and more of the 80 percent of the male population, relationships, to say nothing of marriage, are going to be increasingly tough to sell. Good thing that what passes for “the church” today not only has no interest in either encouraging or preserving marriage, but amplifies the culture’s antipathy toward male participation in it.

    Liked by 5 people

    • thedeti says:

      Up until around 1960, most marriages, including Christian marriages between two committed Christians, fit the “context dependent ‘attraction'” model.

      With “attraction” always in quotes as intended, because again, what the woman felt for the man was not “attraction”. It was many other things but it was most decidedly not “attraction”.

      Yes, she liked him, loved him, cared about him, stayed with him – but she did not do so because she so enjoyed having sex with him or he really turned her on. She got with him mostly because he had something she wanted (resources, commitment) and living with him beat taking care of her parents or moving in with an older brother and working a crappy job. She got with him mostly because he could give her her own home, status with the female herd, and the children she wanted, and because unlike most of the other men she knew, he was willing to stick around.

      She stayed with him because she had few to no options. If she left without cause, she would be in the poorhouse, move back in with her parents or a family member, and have to work. So she made the best of it. And it wasn’t bad – it’s just that she wasn’t sexually attracted to him.

      So, no, it is not sexual attraction. These women are not “sexually attracted” to their 5-7 men. And they were not then, either. They were not sexually attracted to Joe Lunchpail or Carl ClaimsAdjuster or Frank Farmer or Fred Foundryworker or Paul Plumber. They liked those men. They were nice enough men. But what they felt was not sexual attraction.

      If these women really were sexually attracted to their men, there would have been no Betty Friedan, and no Feminine Mystique. There would have been no “The Problem That Has No Name”. Heh. Yeah. That Problem now has a name – it’s I’mnotattractedtohimitis. it was women who were married to decent schlub hubs who never really wanted those men, and who decided that working and making their own money and finally getting to have sex with the men their parents told them not to have sex with, was preferable to staying with, or getting, a Schlub Hub. That’s what it was, plain and simple. It was, quite simply, women not wanting these 5-7 men Rowena’s talking about.

      So don’t come in here telling me that women are “sexually attracted” to these men. If they were, there’d be no need for a patriarchy. The reason these marriages fail now is because there is no patriarchy. And patriarchy isn’t coming back anytime soon, because frankly, not anywhere close to enough people want it or want to do what it takes to restore it.

      So, there you have it. That’s the problem.

      Liked by 4 people

      • feeriker says:

        “The reason these marriages fail now is because there is no patriarchy. And patriarchy isn’t coming back anytime soon, because frankly, not anywhere close to enough people want it or want to do what it takes to restore it.”

        Prediction (one that I could safely wager a year’s salary on): if hard patriarchy were to be reimposed, the loudest, fiercest, most violent resistance against it would come from self-described Christians — of both sexes.

        Liked by 4 people

  6. Her “Have” / “Maybe” / “Have nots” system corresponds to Wheat Waffles “Chad / Normie / Sub5” system that I covered in Black Pill Analysis (2022-7-16).

    I think it’s reasonable system.

    “I’ll comment that this assessment doesn’t agree with the data from OKCupid… Make of this what you will.”

    I think the OKCupid data verifies the top 10-20% data accurately because it’s based mainly on looks.

    L is only part of PSALM + masculinity, but the other factors are downplayed in an online environment. In fact, though, when you include a man’s salary on dating sites, studies have shown that women tend to rate the same exact man 2-3+ points higher when they make 6+ figs. I’m sure if someone on a dating site can accurately ding some of the PSA factors like local celebrity or something then you get much more interest than usual.

    The rest I think we’ve covered before in different contexts with PSALM + masculinity.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. anonymous_ng says:

    Well maybe.

    See, thedeti is partially right.

    Yeah, there is a level of sexual attraction that most men will never know, being looked at like you’re a piece of meat and she’s a starving wolf. Had that happen a couple of times.

    But, 99% of the time, I’ve noticed women giving off the signs that they’re attracted, but definitely not as attracted as those other women were.

    So, yeah, Scott married one of those starving wolf women. What were the odds? How often did that happen versus women who were attracted, but not that level of attracted? IDK.

    Where I disagree with thedeti is that I think lots of good marriages can be built on that second level of attraction.

    Then, I agree with him again, that there are likely women who have baby rabies and feel their clock ticking, or whatever, and who marry and can barely stand their husbands.

    Liked by 5 people

  8. naturallyaspirated says:

    Being a married 5-7 man in the realm of contextual attraction sounds exhausting. If her day wasn’t too stressful, and you loaded the dishwasher without being asked after dinner, and it’s her right time of the month, and you got your haircut last week and wore your new blue shirt today, maybe she’ll respond sexually tonight the way men want a woman to respond.

    Nothing like completing the checklist and hoping for the best.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Derek Ramsey says:

      “Being a married 5-7 man…sounds exhausting…Nothing like completing the checklist and hoping for the best.”

      This applies not just to the realm of attraction, but all marital interactions. I can attest that being a married 5-7 man can be be exhausting at times. At times it can indeed be just hoping for the best. Yet, at other times it isn’t like that and it is sublime. Occasionally she’s like a completely different person, either good or bad. It’s definitely like a bell-curve of experiences.

      Women are crazy moody, driven by their emotions, and as far as I can tell, my wife is one of the tamer ones. I always described her as a “low maintenance woman” because she never had a big checklist and is extremely easy to live with. I can’t imagine what it is like for my introverted peers married to those business-oriented extroverted power women.

      If I’m bedrock, she’s a sea. I ground her and she relies on me. So, not only do I have to put up with those emotions and swings, but it is more-or-less my job to manage them. When I do this, things get better. When I do not effectively lead, things get worse. Perhaps if goal-oriented men see woman’s raging emotions as their problem to ‘solve’, they’ll think of it less as a negative and more as a challenge.

      I wouldn’t ever voluntarily go back to being unmarried, regardless of how exhausted I might get from time to time.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Pingback: More Thoughts on Christian Nationalism | okrahead

  10. locustsplease says:

    I understand men under 5 are less than desirable but they have more than no desirability. Half of women are below average. These women 5-1 many are desperate men 5-7 may b out of their league. Also just because they are low attractive it’s not like being hot makes women great wives. Being unattractive doesn’t make women bad in bed.

    Men at the top are way out of the league of women at the bottom. I know I see it all the time. Also typically these women live different lives and while may fantasize about attractive men they don’t want to live the lifestyle. I run or lift almost every day I don’t work my manual labor job. The average American woman 5’4″ 170 doesn’t want to hang. I don’t want to watch her eat chicken wings every day and lay around she knows it. In their imaginations they want to take clothes off for men with 6 pack abs but in reality they can’t handle this kind of pressure. The below average take what they can get. They are not all 10s

    Liked by 3 people

  11. thedeti says:

    Virtue, not sexual attraction, keeps people together. Hollywood marriages have off-the-charts sexual attraction, but zero virtue. That’s why they don’t last.

    will the women they marry keep to their duties and responsibilities in marriage. Because today marriage has become ENTIRELY about the desires and feelings in the relationship and less about the covenantal commitment before God and about the duties and responsibilities it entails.”

    Which is why I keep asking: Women: What are you doing to fix this? What are you doing to change this? And yet I keep getting excoriated and raked over the coals merely for suggesting ways women can fix and change this.

    Women keep saying “it’s bad it’s bad” and then won’t do anything to fix or change it…. other than having sex with and attempting to marry 8-10s. Newsflash: There aren’t enough 8-10s. There aren’t enough SAMs and Scotts. You will have to learn to accept those icky 5-7s you’re not attracted to; or do without. For decades you’ve been telling us your preference: It’s clearly do without and be baby mamas.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      And by the way: the women I’m talking about here are Christian women. The women populating our churches. The women running Sunday schools, teaching kids, serving coffee, leading altar calls, doing the “women’s ministry” and the “women’s Bible study”, and “ministering” to women by “praying” for them and “leading” them in the Sinner’s Prayer.

      All of those women are or have been engaging in premarital and extramarital sex and complaining about the men they have uncommitted sex with. All of those women are enjoying extramarital sex but complaining that none of them will commit or complaining about unattractive men who want to date them and reporting those men to pastors and siccing other church men and police on them.

      I will ask again: What are women doing to fix and change this?

      Liked by 1 person

      • farmlegend says:

        One of the most entertaining things about our social media age is the ability to look up individuals we knew years ago and observe where they are now, what they look like now, and the social media images they present of themselves.

        I’ve found a few doozies recently. One, a now a well-preserved middle-aged woman, about 50 years of age and well-preserved, who worked a couple levels below me some 25 years ago. At the time, she was cute, petite, single, professionally employed, and had a had a very active (and well concealed) party-girl social life that I only knew about because of some common acquaintances we had. The image she projected while at work was one of modesty and good-girlishness, and I was surprised at the credible stories I heard about her.

        Putting together the pieces from her prodigious FB history, it looks like she locked down her Providerman somewhere around age 30. She does not appear to have worked during her marriage, and has born her husband two children. He appears quite successful, and they have a couple vacation homes in prestigious locations and do some foreign travel. He appears studious, a bit beta-ish, and is probably a very good man who likely had substantially less pre-marital “experience” than his bride. She wears her religious faith on her sleeve, and, assuming she’s sincere about that, good for her.

        The thing is – I would place a very hefty bet that he would be quite surprised at her colorful past.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        “One of the most entertaining things about our social media age is the ability to look up individuals we knew years ago and observe where they are now, what they look like now, and the social media images they present of themselves.”

        Yes. It’s all becoming increasingly predictable too. You find yourself able to identify precisely where the falsehoods are, what kind of people they married, whether they’re still married, and what kinds of relationships they really have (as opposed to the relationships they represent to the world). You can tell who the beta bucks are, who the reformed sluts are, and who the alpha f * x are. You can always tell with blistering accuracy.

        And you can identify someone you knew and accurately predict things even before you look them up.

        Red Pill / sociosexuality is frighteningly accurate and universally explanatory. I know people here don’t want to admit it, but it is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • naturallyaspirated says:

        They can’t fix it. They can’t help what they want and how they aren’t wired to be happy settling for something other than a Top Man. Modern sexually liberated culture combined with women’s hypergamic nature is a lethal combination for a long and happy marriage.

        Liked by 3 people

  12. thedeti says:

    Here’s the last thing.

    Men and women are talking past each other here. Rowena wrote out all this stuff on female “sexual attraction” as if it was real. I am sure she thinks it is. But it’s nothing I haven’t read or seen before, it was bunk then, and it’s bunk now. It’s female hamstering and rationalizing their lack of sexual attraction to 5-7 men by stating that it has to be “context dependent” and that women sexually imprint.

    OK. But that’s not sexual attraction. And whatever it is, it is not sufficient to keep women with men who will commit to them.

    I have laid out how this really works, in painstaking detail. And the women will come here and tear it down and say it’s not important and “who hurt you” and all other kinds of shaming language. What’s really going on is they are being forced to face facts they don’t like and can’t respond to because they know I’m right but they won’t admit it.

    Ladies: Here are your choices.

    1) Accept a 5-7 man and do whatever it takes to make it work with him. Grow the f up, take responsibility, and accept that you will not be sexually attracted to him and the sex will be “ok, yeah, sure” at best. Accept it anyway. Submit, obey, and do it with a smile.

    or

    2) Stay single, be Chadrone’s baby mama, and finance your lives yourselves. Settle for occasional fun with Mr. Big. Accept cats, box wine, and complaints to your pastors, therapists, and friends about how there’s just no good men anywhere. There are good men everywhere; but you rejected them. Grow the F up and accept it.

    Either way, show some character and STFU. Get about the business of walking out the consequences of your choices.

    Liked by 4 people

    • naturallyaspirated says:

      “Ladies: Here are your choices.

      1) Accept a 5-7 man and do whatever it takes to make it work with him. Grow the f up, take responsibility, and accept that you will not be sexually attracted to him and the sex will be “ok, yeah, sure” at best. Accept it anyway. Submit, obey, and do it with a smile.”

      This is a big reason why men are increasingly growing weary of marriage. If you realize this is what the next 50 years of your life with the woman who is supposed to “forsake all others” and give her full self to you looks like, it’s easy to “go your own way.”

      Additionally, women are not wired to do this. They are not wired to settle and be happy with it. Especially in the modern world with 8-10 men flashed in front of them on screens, movies, books everywhere, and being told they are princesses and deserving and “good enough” by every self help mental health guru selling books and making podcasts. Heaven forbid someone “shame” women into thinking maybe they could do some self improvement.

      Remember, Eve couldn’t settle for paradise. Literal paradise. Had to see if there was something better she was missing out on. Hardwired, unfortunately.

      The only chance for some success is a mass movement of insight and acceptance of the female psyche among women, teachers, church leaders, and larger society. Good luck with that.

      Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        Well if women don’t want to do this, if they will not examine their own shortcomings and character defects, then let them be single and let them pay for it themselves.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        This is about women’s character defects. Until women are ready to examine their own character defects and are ready to come to the table, with compromise offers in hand and with broken and contrite hearts, this will not change.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “This is a big reason why men are increasingly growing weary of marriage. If you realize this is what the next 50 years of your life with the woman who is supposed to “forsake all others” and give her full self to you looks like, it’s easy to “go your own way”.”

        Wasn’t it so much better when men and women didn’t talk to each other about this stuff?

        Women don’t like men’s sexual nature either. Women don’t like it that men

        — want to spread the seed far and wide

        — want them only for sex and marry them solely to lock down the sex

        — don’t want to, or won’t, ‘keep working for sex’ after they’ve locked it down with marriage

        — would keep having sex with all kinds of women if they could, even after marriage

        — would cheat if they could but the only things that restrain them are moral and practical considerations (God forbids it, society punishes it severely, and they can’t anyway because they’re not attractive enough)

        — resort to consuming pornography to satiate their marital sexual frustrations

        — can use brute physical force upon them, but what restrains them are legal considerations and that there won’t be other relationships

        What made all this work was that women didn’t talk about their own sexual nature and kept it concealed. Lied about it. Women flat out lied to their men about how attracted they were and how they respected their men and how they loved their men.

        Now? Women tell the honest truth to their men about their seething contempt for men; their sexual repulsion for most men; and the fact that they have no intention of respecting, obeying, having sex with, or being faithful wives to, the men they married. They’re brutally honest about it now. They write about it. There are entire media conglomerates and industries devoted to it. They minister to women about this in church.

        It is what it is, eh?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        I’ve been in squadrons where we were the only couple who wan’t divorced. Infidelity was typically ubiquitous in those squadrons (on both sides). I’ve also been in squadrons with the opposite case. Divorce extremely rare and families happy (usually married early on). If I’d only seen one type of squadron and spent years under that paradigm I would probably doubt the other existed, and accuse anyone who claimed otherwise of lying. Cognitive dissonance is not a female exclusive trait.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “…usually married early on…”

        One of the things I’ve noticed is that the mark of a healthy community is early marriage. Statistically, the mark of an unhealthy community is also early marriage. When people get married young, they are much more likely to have an extreme result: success or failure.

        Boxer used to chide me for pushing early marriage, and he was correct up to a point. If one is not immersed in the right kind of community, early marriage is a recipe for disaster. But if you don’t marry early, your chances of a good marriage are also quite poor, as Jack recently pointed out.

        Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Ladies: Here are your choices.

      1) Accept a 5-7 man and do whatever it takes to make it work with him. Grow the f up, take responsibility, and accept that you will not be sexually attracted to him and the sex will be “ok, yeah, sure” at best. Accept it anyway. Submit, obey, and do it with a smile.

      or

      2) Stay single, be Chadrone’s baby mama, and finance your lives yourselves. Settle for occasional fun with Mr. Big. Accept cats, box wine, and complaints to your pastors, therapists, and friends about how there’s just no good men anywhere. There are good men everywhere; but you rejected them. Grow the F up and accept it.

      Either way, show some character and STFU. Get about the business of walking out the consequences of your choices.”

      Well put! I’d add one thing, for those with good looking daughters 21 and under, CASH IN YOUR CHIPS ladies, take the good coaching and do it. Stay away from the Chadrone Carousel and find that GOOD MAN, one that makes you tingle, that your older sisters are wailing about finding after 27 or so, and after dozens of men have pumped and dumped them.

      Take your peak sexuality and lock down a single man, 25 to 32 or so, up and and coming in his profession, career or job and lock him down. You’ve got one and only one shot at this, get it right! After that you enter “Deti’s Inferno” above (LoL, play on words on Dante’s Inferno).

      From Wikipedia:

      “Inferno (Italian: [iɱˈfɛrno]; Italian for “Hell”) is the first part of Italian writer Dante Alighieri’s 14th-century epic poem Divine Comedy. It is followed by Purgatorio and Paradiso. The Inferno describes Dante’s journey through Hell, guided by the ancient Roman poet Virgil. In the poem, Hell is depicted as nine concentric circles of torment located within the Earth; it is the “realm … of those who have rejected spiritual values by yielding to bestial appetites or violence, or by perverting their human intellect to fraud or malice against their fellowmen”.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • farmlegend says:

        “Take your peak sexuality and lock down a single man, 25 to 32 or so, up and and coming in his profession, career or job and lock him down. You’ve got one and only one shot at this, get it right! After that you enter “Deti’s Inferno”…”

        The thing is, young men of good character who have bright futures ahead of them are very easy to identify. Some of them are even a bit above-average looking, though not in Chad territory. Any non-obese women could easily snag one for marriage if that is what they wanted.

        But those guys cannot compete with the seemingly consequence-free forbidden fruit.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        There are churches where the majority of young women are doing exactly that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “There are churches where the majority of young women are doing exactly that.”

        Church names and web addresses, please.

        Name, phone number, and email address of each church’s senior/directing pastor, please.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        deti,

        Sent.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        I wonder what deti is going to do with this information?

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        At my church, I see most women marrying young, getting pregnant, and staying home. There were a few divorces but they were extreme situations. In one case, the husband was so psychotic he would pretend not to know me right to my face, when I’ve talked to this guy for hours in the past. Actual narcissism.

        Mostly, the single moms at my church started coming after becoming single moms. Most were unmarried making mistakes. These girls didn’t just frivorce their husband and think it’s fine. Most of the married men I talk to don’t know a guy who got divorce raped. For every divorce there are many more people who worked it out through hard situations. Most of the girls seem to be taken by 20.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “Most of the married men I talk to don’t know a guy who got divorce raped.”

        As recently as the late 90s, I regularly attended a church of a few hundred members where I was only aware of a single divorcee. Before I went to college in NY, I thought premarital sex/pregnancy and divorce were something only non-Christians did, lest they be disciplined and lose their place in the church. I did not realize that outside our local faith community, Christians were very, very different.

        That church has more recently changed its identity. I can no longer say that it is faithful, my parents having rejected the church, which is why I suggested the Mennonites. However, if you were to seriously consider relocating to Lancaster, I could ask my father for a specific recommendation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • farmlegend says:

        “Most of the married men I talk to don’t know a guy who got divorce raped.”

        Now that’s what I’d call a rather cloistered crowd. I’ve known enough to fill an entire respectably-sized congregation, myself included. But I’m an old dude and have seen plenty.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Farmlegend:

        Ditto. I’ve known plenty of men who were divorce graped.

        In my church.

        In FULL VIEW of the church.

        With the full encouragement and endorsement of the church.

        In the church I grew up in, half the men there were divorce graped. Publicly. Brutally. With the church’s full approval.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        You guys know my experience with church discipline. That’s why, when I first “interviewed” my current pastor, I asked about church discipline. This church has excommunicated men AND women for divorcing their spouse.

        Remember; every church, every community practices discipline. It’s not a matter of IF, but WHO, and FOR WHAT.

        Like

      • locustsplease says:

        So at my church, I am the guy who got divorce raped. I am literally alone which is good. But I can be so jealous at times. There is a discipleship program I go to out of church and many or most of the guys got divorce raped. And I do mean raped abused destroyed and they are all late reformers. Then they most all found faithful wives after their reform and then none got divorced after. And this is maybe 50 guys.

        So I don’t know anyone who was divorced by a faithful spouse at all. The two divorces at church the engaging spouse also abandoned faith. Most of the members of my church take their faith seriously and so many people have reached out to me as a single guy over the years. It has become my family. I go to every event possible. My previous experiences at church was show up, bring more people, donate.

        Liked by 2 people

  13. Pingback: The differences between sexual attraction and sexual arousal | Christianity and masculinity

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

  15. Rock Kitaro says:

    At some point these posts and the comment debates need to be made into a book, because… man… LoL, history needs to know these conversations took place! Truly awesome!

    Liked by 2 people

  16. RICanuck says:

    Deti bait, you have to be Brad Pitt, or Tom Brady to get married and keep your wife.

    Wait . . .

    Like

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

  18. Pingback: Riding the Raging Rivulet | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Sexual Submission | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Game is an invitation to Humility | 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