Sexual Submission

Her Attraction and Arousal are both necessary, adding to Humility and Trust.

Readership: Christians; Married Men; Men called to Marriage;
Theme: Feminine Submission
Length: 2,600 words
Reading Time: 14 minutes

Introduction

In response to 16 Permutations of Submission (2022-10-7), Deti said,

I think this post overcomplicates things.  It really is just as simple as lack of sexual attraction.  No sexual attraction, no submission.  Sexual attraction, submission.  I don’t believe many women are marrying men they want to have sex with but don’t respect (submit to) those men.  Sure, they might not respect marriage, but that has more to do with their lack of understanding of what marriage is and what it requires, and less to do with the man himself.

Sure, women can love God and hate sex and their marriages.  The reason they hate sex and hate their marriages is due to lack of sexual attraction.

The quality of a marriage to a man centers on whether she’s sexually attracted to him.  There may be other factors re the quality of a marriage to a woman, but I am really not concerned with that.”

“If you have a terrible sex life, it’s almost always because she’s not sexually attracted to you.  That’s pretty much it.”

Yes, this is the standard RP lore which has now become rather simplistic.  That is, using a woman’s sexual performance as an indicator of the man’s SMV.  In the post cited above, I took a step away from this viewpoint and identified a woman’s sexual performance as an indicator of her humility and marital submission. In this post, it was also shown that attraction and submission are not necessarily concomitant in every case. There is more to it.

The reason we should be concerned about this factor of marriage quality is that if we get stuck in the habit of using women’s opinions and reactions to gauge our own masculinity, then we’ll get a feminized view of masculinity. The female view of masculinity is only one slice of it. OTOH, if we can take our focus off of the bottleneck (women’s disinterest and disobedience), then it will free us up to pursue the more important (and perhaps less confusing and less difficult) matters surrounding Christian Masculinity. After which, we can hope that the vexing issue of female sexual submission may fall into place, at least for some men. In this view, the following essay constructs a larger Frame which adds a wider perspective to the relational gridlock resulting from a lack of Sexual Attraction.

Going back a little further, there was a mini-theme about Attraction at the end of August.  From this discussion, we determined there is a difference between Attraction and Arousal.  In the comments, Joe2 asked for more details about the distinction between Attraction and Arousal.  This post will explore this difference in regard to Sexual Submission.

I could be mistaken, but I believe this distinction between Attraction and Arousal is a new topic that has not been addressed before in the Manosphere.  (Long time Manospherians are welcome to clue me in to any posts from the past that have covered this.)

Sexual Attraction

Similar to the Likert 10-Point SMV scale, Sexual Attraction is on a scale in which there are different levels of Attraction. For many purposes of discussion, these scales are identical. Zoned regions with specific cut-offs have been determined. Cut offs may vary slightly by individual.

  • SMV = 8-10 / SA = Chad / “The Have’s” — Raw visceral Attraction leading to off-the-charts, panty soaking Arousal. “I need you to F me NOW!” This is a special circumstance in which Attraction and Arousal are concomitant for women. (More on this point below.) Very few men produce this intensity of attraction.  And even if they do, even fewer sustain it over a lifetime.
  • SMV = 5-7 / SA = Normie / “The Maybe’s” — Warm, “sparks flying” attraction.  She’s repetitively showing IOIs (e.g. casual touching, etc.) and she’s thinking,“I wonder what it would be like if he kissed me.”  That kind of thing.  This is highly dependent on the social context and a number of factors, including the combined gestalt of personalities, Looksmaxxing, propinquity, shared enterprises, shared values, SMV parity, Trust, etc.
  • SMV = 1-4 / SA = Sub-5 / “The Have Not’s” — No attraction at all.  She’s offended by the thought of him being a potential, and she’s thinking, “No way!  I am out of here!”

Of note, IOI’s reveal whether a man is creating sparks for a girl, and are the main thing to look for in determining a girl’s clear expressed interest.

Sexual Arousal

Sexual Arousal involves physiological indicators of erotic passion (e.g. elevated pulse, lubrication in women, erection in men), and a psychological state of humility, openness, sexual desire, and trust.

For Men, Sexual Attraction almost always leads to his Sexual Arousal, and is thus concomitant.

For Women, Sexual Attraction does not always lead to her Sexual Arousal. It is common for Women to assign the responsibility and/or expect the man to create this shift in her emotional state, however, the vast majority of men are not naturally attuned to know how to do this. If he cannot or does not, and/or her Arousal is not forthcoming, then she will feel awkward and hesitant about moving forward towards Sexual Intercourse. In the case where she wants or is expected to have sex, women will feel confused, uneasy, and dissatisfied. If this situation is repetitive or prolonged beyond her expectations, she may even doubt the value of the relationship and wonder if she could find a more Tingle inducing man in his stead. Some women will swing on the Monkey Branch at this point.

For Men, Sexual Arousal does not always lead to Sexual Intercourse. If this situation is repetitive or prolonged (and it is for most young men), it is not uncommon for men to become frustrated and vexed, disintegrate, lose confidence, and experience what is known as “blue balls” (epididymal hypertension) — an extremely discomfiting heaviness, pressure, and mild pain in the testes. It is common for Men of certain means to spin plates in order to avoid this situation, or if this is not possible, resort to alternative forms of sex (e.g. shucking the corn with a bit of p0rn) to relieve the tension.

For women, Sexual Arousal naturally leads to Sexual Intercourse and thus is essentially concomitant. Both Men and Women are unlikely to refuse intercourse after the Woman becomes aroused. Even if a man refuses to bed an aroused woman, she can easily find another man to fill her niche and scratch her itch, and it is not uncommon for women to resort to this stratagem in order to ease her frustrations and soothe the pain of rejection.

For both Men and Women, experiencing Sexual Arousal without having an immediate recourse of sexual expression with a secure partner (i.e. marriage) is awkward, inconvenient, frustrating, and creates temptation. The Bible recommends those who struggle with this condition to marry rather than to burn with passion and be continually tempted (1 Corinthians 7:1-9).

Things that create Arousal are generally frowned upon for this reason. However, the facilitation of Sexual Arousal is absolutely necessary in marriage, since marriage is, at the core, a sexual relationship. Thus, mastering the arousal of one’s partner is important for the health and vitality of a marriage.

How Men create and channel female Arousal has been an ongoing topic within the Manosphere which offers insight to this end. Kino is one Game technique that feeds directly into Arousal. Readers are encouraged to suggest other techniques that can trigger female Arousal. (For married couples.)

Sexual Intercourse

In summary of the last two sections, there is a series of steps leading to Sexual Intercourse.

Sexual Attraction –> Sexual Arousal –> Sexual Intercourse

This series of steps is the same for both men and women, but the way it occurs is markedly different.

These differences are depicted in the following diagram and are explained thereafter.

Men are initially and primarily drawn to a women for her aesthetic appearance (i.e. “Looks” in the diagram). For men, Sexual Attraction and Sexual Arousal are concomitant. Thus, men can quickly move from Looks to Arousal and then desire Sexual Intercourse. However, Men face difficulty in getting to Sexual Intercourse. To succeed in this, Men often need to employ Game techniques in order to create Tingles.

Women are initially drawn to a man because he possesses certain indicators of masculinity which appeal to her (i.e. “Sparks” in the diagram). There are very few men who can create Sparks, thus there are few men she feels attracted to. Tingles / Sexual Arousal cannot happen WITHOUT Sparks / Sexual Attraction. In addition to the shortage of men who can create Sparks, Women face an additional difficulty in becoming Sexually Aroused. For women, Sexual Arousal and Sexual Intercourse are concomitant.

The red heart indicates the point at which one experiences humility and feelings of love, IOW being “smitten”.

  • For Men, this happens early in the process, and so it is relatively easy for men to get One-itis, even for a woman they have never slept with.
  • For Women, this happens when Arousal leads to Intercourse, and so it is relatively easy for women to get hooked on men they’ve slept with.

There are some exceptions.

  • There may be some men in which Sexual Attraction and Sexual Arousal are not concomitant (e.g. older men, low T men).
  • A very small number of men can produce Tingles / Arousal directly. Some men are naturals. Some men can learn how to do this, but most men cannot.
  • Some women are autoerotic (viz. able to become aroused at will and/or without external stimuli from a man) and may have lower standards for Sexual Intercourse.
  • Some individuals can go through the process with no heart. So they can jump through the process faster, and are not inhibited from abandoning the relationship, or having concurrent relationships. Also, having a well-worn familiarity with the process can kill the heart.

Vetting for Mismatch

Sexual Arousal is simply not possible without Sexual Attraction, and this is true for both men and women. Thedeti continually beats the drum on this fact – a fact that has been casually downplayed and ignored in most of the typical advice given to Men. Deti’s main point is that men often marry women who are not sexually attracted to them, and then become frustrated when her sexual arousal is elusive. As a result, the marriage relationship is weak and debased. (See Σ Frame Axiom 32, AKA Deti’s Third Law of Relationships.)

Joe2 and many other men are concerned about how Arousal can be vetted prior to marriage, without going for a test drive. “After we are married, what if I am not able to sexually arouse her and then I’m stuck in a sexless marriage until the day I die?  What then?” This is a genuine fear and something to consider. Just because the man is attracted, aroused, and willing to commit does not mean that the woman is suitable for marriage.  Scott’s Axiom states that a woman’s suitability for marriage depends more upon her own attraction and arousal than that of the man’s. But even this has problems and issues.

This is the reason why there has been so much talk about raw visceral sexual attraction ever since Scott wrote Probabilities (2020-2-24).  Because men believe that if a woman has that, then her Arousal is a given and sexual congress will occur naturally and spontaneously. “If she is truly attracted to me, then there is no reason to think she would not be aroused.” But this approach is half baked because it assumes that female sexuality functions like a man’s, and it does not represent a realistic concept of how women’s sexuality works.

For men, Attraction and Arousal are concomitant, but for women, they are not. For men, sex leads to orgasm nearly 100% of the time, but women only peak about 40% of the time. Some women need a man who is dominant in the bedroom and who takes the initiative to bring her into a state of Arousal.  And just because she needs that, does not mean she does not have attraction for him.  It just means her body works differently.

My testimony in Erotic Blueprints and Personality (2022-10-12) made it clear that creating Arousal leading to a mutually satisfying sexual congress can be a monumental task for some couples, even for those who are attracted and/or committed to each other. Yesterday’s post, Riding the Raging Rivulet (2022-10-13), described a case study of why Jill found it difficult to get herself into the mood for sex and how Jack had to do some work on her before she was able to loosen up.

Still, I can understand how Men find it difficult to imagine how women can be attracted to a man but not aroused, or aroused but not attracted (in rare cases). But in fact, Women experience this mismatch between Attraction and Arousal quite frequently. Women will seldom talk about this, and for the same reason that Men are shy about discussing erectile dysfunction or prostate enlargement.

The Fear of Mismatch

It is a genuine fear.  Just like Performance Anxiety can kill a man’s erection, Arousal Anxiety can make it nearly impossible for a woman to abandon her inhibitions and come forth in all her obscene glory.   Women fear not being able to orgasm much like Men fear not being able to stiffen up. Men usually don’t have this problem until they’re older and then they have Viagra just in case. But for many women, it’s an everyday problem with no Niagra available. It would facilitate our discussion if we could respect this reality.

This mismatch is partly why women have an interest in married men, or “players”, or men with a sexual history (e.g. divorced men, or men whom other women say are good in bed). It’s not only envy, preselection, or the 6-6-6 package as we are wont to believe. Women are subconsciously attracted to these men because they get the sense that these men are skilled in arousing women. “He can arouse other women. Other women say he is great in bed.  So he will be able to do that for me too!” Sometimes they can feel directly aroused by such men, even with only a modicum of social interaction, and this is an additional certification of his sexual finesse.

This mismatch is also why we have this whole lie sold to both men and women: “You need sexperience with multiple people to learn Sexual Arousal. If you don’t learn Sexual Arousal, then you’ll miss out on the best sex you never had.”  A big piece of this lie is founded on FOMO. Both men and women are afraid that attraction may not lead to arousal, so they want to hedge their bets so to speak, and they are hesitant to commit. This is also why many Christians who know that premarital sex is wrong will still decide that taking the Test Drive is a wise approach.

But in another sense, this lie is a half-truth, simply because we live in a broken world. Consider all the possibilities that could ruin Arousal:

  • Most men are generally clueless about how to create Arousal in Women, even men who have been married for years.
  • Most men cannot even learn or be taught how to create Arousal in Women.
  • Some women have learned how to create Arousal in Men, but because Men are easily Aroused through Attraction, these women often only do it to garner attention.
  • For married women, if they don’t already enjoy Arousing their husband, they tend to see it as a chore and are disinclined to learn.
  • Many conservative / Christian wives are averse to proactively creating Arousal in their husbands, thinking that it is “dirty”, or “below themselves” to behave “like a hussy”.
  • Some women are broken victims of traumatic abuse.
  • Some women are damaged by their own sexual sins.

With so many things that could go wrong, the fear of Mismatch is not unjustified.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Attraction, Calculated Risk Taking, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Denying/Witholding Sex, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discernment, Wisdom, Enduring Suffering, Erotic Blueprints, Female Evo-Psych, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Game Theory, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Identity, Inner Game, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Love, Masturbation, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Personal Domain, Power, Psychology, Relationships, Running the Gauntlet, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Sex, Sexual Authority, Solipsism, Sphere of Influence, The Hamster, Trust, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Sexual Submission

  1. thedeti says:

    You’re unnecessarily complicating this by trying to pick apart “attraction” in women vs. “arousal” in women.

    In my view, after a lot of work on this, it’s all the same thing. Attraction = arousal. Arousal is all that matters. If you can’t get her wet, nothing matters.

    What you’re going for is her arousal. The ladyboner. Turned on. You want her wet, panting, heavy breathing, chest heaving, face flushed. You want her aroused. Anything less is just nothing and meaningless.

    The way you’re phrasing it, “attraction” in women means only that she’s interested, or might be. “Interest” is not “attraction” or “arousal”.

    When I say that most women aren’t sexually attracted to most men, I mean that most men can’t get her aroused. I mean most men can’t turn her on. She can’t get wet for most men. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. She doesn’t want to have sex with most men.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      When I talk about attraction in women I am talking about visceral sexual attraction. I am talking about tingles. I am talking about “I want to have sex with him RIGHT NOW”. I am talking about her arousal. I am talking about the female physiological sexual response displays of arousal: vaginal lubrication, face flushed, chest heaving, hair twirling, heavy breathing, her squaring herself up to face him, her jutting her chest out toward him, her exposing herself and making herself physically vulnerable to him. I am talking about involuntary displays of sexual attraction/arousal that cannot be feigned.

      I am talking about her sexual interest in a man, as a man. Not as a companion, spouse, “life partner”, husband, or resource provider. I mean as a man. I mean she wants him to put his penis into her vagina and ejaculate into her. Not “is willing” to “let him” put his penis in if he buys her dinner and a movie and signs over all his resources to her. I mean wants, wants, desires, it.

      Clear?

      Liked by 3 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      “When I say that most women aren’t sexually attracted to most men, I mean that most men can’t get her aroused. I mean most men can’t turn her on.”

      I’m curious if you have personal experience or anecdotal evidence from others to back this up? I would very much like to know if married men agree more with you or if they agree more with Jack and myself.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        It’s pretty much RP 101 that most women aren’t attracted to (arent aroused by, can’t get aroused by, aren’t interested in) most men. Do you accept that premise?

        Are you talking here about the idea of an unattractive man trying to extract signs of sexual arousal from a woman? Going through physical, mechanical motions, trying to get her physically aroused? Manipulating her clitoris or trying to get her to orgasm?

        What are you talking about here? I mean, I can’t even conceive of a world in which an average man can get “most women” turned on and sexually aroused. What are you getting at?

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “It’s pretty much RP 101 that most women aren’t attracted to (arent aroused by, can’t get aroused by, aren’t interested in) most men. Do you accept that premise?”

        Attraction is (normally) a prerequisite for arousal. Both are prerequisites to sex. If you have attraction without arousal, you won’t have sex. As the OP is about married men and their wives, your RP 101 is a bit orthogonal to the point. Regardless, I chose an incomplete quote. Let me try again:

        “Attraction = arousal. Arousal is all that matters. [..] Most women aren’t sexually attracted to most men, I mean that most men can’t get her aroused. I mean most men can’t turn her on. She can’t get wet for most men.”

        …I’m saying you have reversed causation, as if arousal somehow drives attraction or the lack of arousal proves that there is no attraction. This is what I want you to prove by citing married men, married men who are not in sexless marriages who can opine on the difference between the two (or the lack thereof).

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        No. You answer me first. You’re very unclear.

        What exactly are you talking about here? Are you saying that most men can get most women turned on, sexually aroused? Because if you are, I vehemently disagree – that’s a patently absurd assertion.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “You answer me first. You’re very unclear.”

        Sure. Of course all men cannot arouse all women, because all women are not attracted to all men. It has little to do with arousal and everything to do with attraction. Without attraction, there is no arousal.

        The OP is about attraction and arousal within marriage and how wives often have the former without the latter. Meanwhile you are claiming that attraction and arousal are essentially equivalent concepts and that a lack of arousal proves that there is no attraction.

        Your error is equating marital situations with other non-marital (and newlywed) situations. When a woman has been married to a man for 5, 10, 20, or 40 years (and has long since proven her attraction), she may need work to become aroused. The novelty of lust has long since worn off.

        Biologically speaking, feelings of lustful attraction or arousal are maintained by hormones that stop being produced in significant quantities after a relationship has been established for a while. In long-term marriages, lust gets replaced by attraction, attachment, and sexual arousal.

        When a single woman meets a man who she is attracted to, feelings of lust can instantly drive her to arousal. He doesn’t need to do anything. But once the lust fades, she will move on. It isn’t because she didn’t find him attractive. Lust is ephemeral. A wife would have to be a biological anomaly to maintain hormonal lust deep into a marriage. A man has no such issue.

        So, for married men, who actually have sex with their wives, how many agree that attraction and arousal are separate and that arousal takes timing and work?

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        OK. I think I see what you mean.

        You’d have to ask Scott or Mike or SAM or their wives. Those are our real benchmarks here.

        For most women, in most marriages, they’re not attracted or whatever attraction was there, is gone.

        So you really are talking here about how most married men have to do herculean amounts of work to get their wives to have sex. Yes, most men are going to have to do all kinds of things from nice talk to light banter to 30 minutes of direct clitoral stimulation to get them wet… if that even works. I suppose then, yes, there is physiological arousal. Kind of. Artificially.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The other thing here, is that if you have to do THAT much work to get a wife going, she’s a “slow cooker.” She’s a “steam engine” like Jack was talking about in the last post.

        If you’re married to a slow cooker or a steam engine who requires that much work and maintenance to get going, she’s not sexually attracted to you. If you have to do this much work and go through all this rigmarole and procedure just to get her to notice you want sex, she’s not sexually attracted to you and any arousal you get out of that will be purely mechanical.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Why should I do all this work for lackluster response and a little dampness, when what I should be getting is great sex and Niagara Falls?

        And what work is she going to do for me? What do I get out of this? What’s in this for me?

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “Why should I do all this work for lackluster response and a little dampness, when what I should be getting is great sex and Niagara Falls? And what work is she going to do for me? What do I get out of this? What’s in this for me?”

        I’m interested in Jack’s explanation.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I’m interested in Jack’s explanation.

        Fair enough. While he’s at it, he can explain this:

        The other thing here, is that if you have to do THAT much work to get a wife going, she’s a “slow cooker.” She’s a “steam engine” like Jack was talking about in the last post.

        If you’re married to a slow cooker or a steam engine who requires that much work and maintenance to get going, she’s not sexually attracted to you. If you have to do this much work and go through all this rigmarole and procedure just to get her to notice you want sex, she’s not sexually attracted to you and any arousal you get out of that will be purely mechanical.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        @ramman3000

        When a woman has been married to a man for 5, 10, 20, or 40 years (and has long since proven her attraction), she may need work to become aroused. The novelty of lust has long since worn off.

        Sorry, I disagree. Being married for 5, 10, 20 or more years does not prove her attraction (meaning sexual) towards her husband. All this proves is she has been married for a long time. There could be many reasons for the longevity of her marriage.

        I do agree the novelty or newness of the sexual experience can wear off very quickly which can lead to a dead bedroom or less frequent and less satisfying sex. This phenomenon poses a serious stumbling block for Christians who marry as virgins or those with very limited sexual experience. Marriage provides for the immediate release of the pent up demand and desire for sex, but it does not provide for the staying power for continued sexual satisfaction unless there was a strong visceral attraction right from the beginning.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. ramman3000 says:

    Your post can be summarized as follows:

    When a woman says “I’m not in the mood”, it means “I’m not aroused right now.” But when a man hears “I’m not in the mood”, he hears “I’m not attracted to you.”

    I’ve been struggling for some time to put this into such simple terms. I murdered so many words trying to make this point in my discussion on “average sex in average marriages.”

    Male arousal requires almost nothing to occur. Female arousal is so very different. You listed some key ones in your bullet points, but this is a mere fraction of all the possibilities.

    I can see why this issue leads to comments like these:

    “No, no, no, NO, NO, NO!! I do NOT want to be in a marriage where we just have sex now and then and mostly on special occasions when the mood is right. This sounds like “we don’t have sex after we had our kids.”

    This post is certainly a different way to frame this issue. By changing “when the mood is right” to “when she is or can be sufficiently aroused”, this should change our perspective.

    The average married couple with 2 to 3 kids cannot spend 2 to 3 hours having room shaking, bed moving sex, with 2 to 3 orgasms (for him), every 2 to 3 days, as with Jack and Jill. It’s just not feasible. Nor will they be walking around the house naked while kids live there. As we recently discussed the public/private nature of sex, throughout history it has always been challenging to find enough privacy due to shared living quarters. Thus, compared to Jack and Jill, average sex for average couples with average numbers of kids is going to be average quality (relatively short, quiet, and okay) on average.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      When a woman says “I’m not in the mood”, it means she “I’m not aroused right now”.

      The only way you’ll ever even get to that is if she’s dealing with you in some form or fashion. Most women don’t even know most men exist, much less say anything at all to them, much less express moods to them.

      But when a man hears “I’m not in the mood”, he hears “I’m not attracted to you.”

      That’s PRECISELY what she means. She’s not attracted to (aroused by) him, probably never was at all. She was and is with him for reasons other than hard visceral sexual arousal. She’s with him because she can’t get commitment from the men who do hard viscerally sexually arouse her.

      She understands hard visceral sexual attraction/arousal. She’s experienced it – just not with HIM. She’s experienced it with other men, but she can’t get those men to stick around.

      This is so incredibly simple to understand… I don’t get why this has to be continually revisited….

      Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        ” I don’t get why this has to be continually revisited….”

        Because long-time married men don’t agree with you. What you say might be true on the sexual marketplace, the dating marketplace, or even among newlyweds, but I don’t think it is true in long-term marriages.

        “She’s not attracted to (aroused by) him, probably never was at all.”

        This is why I asked you for married men to testify to your claim, because it strikes me as a theory that hasn’t been shown in practice. Here is Jack’s situation:

        “My wife is … quite a fireball of passion. [..] I have to wait for the right timing (after dusk at the end of a nice day) and do quite a bit of work to get her in the mood (dominant, proactive frame game, talking casually about light topics, physical / sensual flirting, and foreplay).”

        There is no question that Jack’s wife is attracted to him, but she is not trivially aroused. Attraction and arousal are different temporal concepts to the female, neither interchangeable nor two sides of the same coin. I think it would be utterly absurd to describe Jack’s wife as:

        “She’s with him because she can’t get commitment from the men who do hard viscerally sexually arouse her.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        “This is so incredibly simple to understand… I don’t get why this has to be continually revisited….”

        Painful, unpleasant truths are always difficult to accept.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        “She’s with him because she can’t get commitment from the men who do hard viscerally sexually arouse her.”

        And she may not want commitment from these men because they may not make good husbands or good fathers (in her view). Her interest in these men can be purely sexual and nothing more.

        This situation can give rise to out of wedlock women having babies. Such women view themselves as a success story. They accomplished having a baby sired by man who had hard viscerally sexually aroused her. And she may not want child support from the father because such support may hurt him by crimping his style. The government and her mother are ready to step in and help. <– As told to me by a 21 year old single mother of a 2 year old boy.

        Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “Male arousal requires almost nothing to occur. Female arousal is so very different.”

      Something else I’m convinced that God set in motion as punishment for men after the Fall.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Yep. This fits into a Christian worldview fairly well. If was easy, we would be in heaven. Husbands and wives would be in sync all the time. They would anticipate and meet others needs with zero effort and they would absolutely love doing it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        The Millennial Reign is yet to come. So I am looking forward to the Righteousness and Harmony on those days unprecedented in Mankind’s History.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      “When a woman says “I’m not in the mood”, it means “I’m not aroused right now”. But when a man hears “I’m not in the mood”, he hears “I’m not attracted to you.”

      I used to think this way early in my second marriage. I used to think she was pushing me out, but actually, she couldn’t pull herself in. This weakened emotional integrity is an ingrained habit in her that she doesn’t know how to control. (I found it hard to believe this for the longest time, but this only postponed my learning how to deal with it.) I learned that with a little patience and warm persistence, I can push through her resistance. In fact, she wants me to push through her resistance because that’s what makes her feel loved and secure, like I’m in control of her emotional state even when she is not. This dominance is partly what opens her up and arouses her. Now, when she says (nonverbally) “I’m not in the mood”, I hear “I need you to push my ‘reset button’.” If she’s really not in the mood because she’s too busy, too tired, having menstrual cramps, or whatever, then I’ve taught her to explicitly say so in a respectful manner so that there is no mixed signal confusion.

      My first wife was always in the mood, but she could be so caustic that often times I wasn’t. I never realized that she probably needed a ‘reset’, just like my second wife does. Looking back, I can see how my ignorance of this matter contributed toward the failure of the marriage.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        No. I disagree. Women are responsible for their own sex lives.

        I am not here to “push through” a WIFE’s “resistance”. She’s a WIFE. She’s not supposed to resist. She’s supposed to be ready to do her job like I’m supposed to be ready to do mine. I shouldn’t have to push through any mental or emotional resistance. I should not have to push a reset button.

        No. She needs to manage her own mental issues. She needs to manage her own emotions. She needs to get her own sh!t handled so she can be ready to do what needs done. If she needs a reset, she needs to get that handled herself.

        I am done being responsible for other people’s emotions. I am done taking responsibility for the emotional states of others, especially Mrs. deti. I am not going to expend effort trying to figure out what people “need” emotionally and then trying to manage my way through it. No. You manage your own emotions and be there for me when I need it, or get going on down the road away from me.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “In fact, she wants me to push through her resistance because that’s what makes her feel loved and secure, like I’m in control of her emotional state even when she is not.”

        also

        “My first wife was always in the mood, but she could be so caustic that often times I wasn’t. I never realized that she probably needed a ‘reset’, just like my second wife does. Looking back, I can see how my ignorance of this matter contributed toward the failure of the marriage.”

        Aaaaaannnnd we’re back examining the topic of female agency, or, as it is more commonly known as “the most responsible teenager in the house”. I do get that the wife can be such a pain in the a$$ that it kills the mood, or the thought of being with her.

        thedeti —

        “I am done being responsible for other people’s emotions. I am done taking responsibility for the emotional states of others, especially Mrs. deti. I am not going to expend effort trying to figure out what people “need” emotionally and then trying to manage my way through it. No. You manage your own emotions and be there for me when I need it, or get going on down the road away from me.”

        The way I have laid it out to Mrs. A is that the initial feeling/emotion that comes up is to a large part out of her control, but everything that happens after the initial neurotransmitter dump in her noggin is under her control. Welcome to adulting, where we sometimes have to gather ourselves and do tasks that are not all that appealing at the moment, such as dealing with a wife’s emotional torrents.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The way I have laid it out to Mrs. A is that the initial feeling/emotion that comes up is to a large part out of her control, but everything that happens after the initial neurotransmitter dump in her noggin is under her control.

        The emotion is not under her control. Her response to it is under her control. Her treatment of others is under her control. Not my responsibility. No.

        I’ve done this before, where I’ve worked to manage and handle other people’s feelings and emotions, and where I’ve had to regulate and temper my own feelings and emotions to take a backseat to others. No. I’m not going to do that anymore. I am not going to take responsibility for my emotions and someone else’s. No. That’s not how it’s going to be. Big girls need to manage and handle their own emotions, just like we expect big boys to do the same.

        Welcome to adulting, where we sometimes have to gather ourselves and do tasks that are not all that appealing at the moment, such as dealing with a wife’s emotional torrents.

        The way a husband should deal with his wife’s “emotional torrents” is he tells her to channel that torrent in ways that do not adversely affect her husband or children. She’s responsible to handle that torrent herself. The husband gets out of the way while the torrent moves on through.

        Wives need to handle their own emotional torrents and then come to the table rationally and clearly, in a regulated way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Thedeti, RPA, et al.,

        Re: Women’s uncontrollable Emotional Torrents — This is the underlying foundation of the classical Fitness Tests, AKA Sh!t Tests. The Manosphere / Red Pill has made Fitness Testing out to be willful and volitional in nature, but I think most women are not very well aware of it. Those who are aware of it, are a bit more mature and have figured out that they can use Sh!t Tests to get what they want.

        Moreover, I don’t see how a man can pass Sh!t Tests unless he has some degree of proficiency in wrangling in a woman’s neurotransmitter dumpster fires. I think if a man can successfully handle all the little bonfires that come up every day, then he’ll never have to use deti’s nuclear option.

        Furthermore, I think women need a man to do this so that they’ll see their own nature clearly and learn to take responsibility for their emotional diarrhea. Fathers are supposed to do this with daughters, but when fathers don’t do this, then these girls grow into a habit of destructive emoting and it snowballs into an avalanche by the time they become “adults”. Then the mess is left to husbands to clean up and teach them how to behave better. But often times, as we now see all too clearly, it’s too late. Old dogs can’t learn new tricks.

        Congratulations! You guys have already figured out where this is all leading to, and what the theme will be next month! You guessed it right, it’s Women’s Agency! Please prepare your arguments to be presented at that time, gentlemen.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Women’s Agency!

        Women have full agency. Women know what men want. Women know how to treat men well.

        Women treat men well when they want to. Women treat men poorly when they want to.

        So if your woman is treating you poorly, she is doing so knowingly and intentionally. She is doing so with full knowledge of what she’s doing; and she’s doing so to achieve a desired end.

        Women know exactly what they’re doing at all times.

        Like

      • surfdumb says:

        This is the second time I have come to the conclusion you are unintentionally helping men figure out if they actually more made for being a eunuch, or having a gift of singleness, instead of thinking they are burning with passion.

        My blue pill church didn’t do a fraction of the instruction you and Dalrock have. But based on what you described above of your relationship, if I had known that was the cost of building a tower of a godly marriage, then I would pass. I don’t want all night sex either, let alone, all the responsibility and work to keep my wife properly reset. It seems very graceless in that every fault will result in a house of strife due to not managing my wife correctly with each step. However, it does make great sense that maintaining equilibrium is much easier than wholesale changes, but most men here are likely a relationally morbidly obese men (I am) compared with being at the place you are, maintaining relational fitness with easy-enough tweaking.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “Women’s Agency!

        Women have full agency. Women know what men want. Women know how to treat men well.

        Women treat men well when they want to. Women treat men poorly when they want to.

        So if your woman is treating you poorly, she is doing so knowingly and intentionally. She is doing so with full knowledge of what she’s doing; and she’s doing so to achieve a desired end.

        Women know exactly what they’re doing at all times.”

        Men, read what thedeti wrote and memorize it like you would a passage of scripture. Meditate on it and when a woman tells you anything to the contrary, know that she is lying and/or has set things up to give herself plausible deniability.

        Mrs. A knew what I wanted. She knew she was not being kind or loving. In an unexpected moment of honesty she admitted to doing and saying things for the express purpose of trying to provoke a reaction from me by hurting me. Mrs. A is one data point. Mrs. deti is another. Jack’s ex is yet another and there are millions more just like them.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. thedeti says:

    Attempts at picking apart women’s attraction from women’s sexual arousal have been discussed at length before so this is nothing new. Rollo has talked about this.

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/01/28/the-choice-of-attraction/

    I think what people are talking about here is not women’s attraction; but women’s kinda sorta interest. But that interest is not sexual. It’s not interest in the man as a man. It’s not interest in the man as a sexual being, his yin to her yang. It’s interest in the man as a resource provider, father to her children, life companion, validator/affirmer, husband (which gives her status with the female herd), or just plain someone to help her feel that her life isn’t a total waste.

    NONE of those things are SEXUAL.

    And that’s where you people are getting all tripped up.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. redpillboomer says:

    “I am talking about her sexual interest in a man, as a man. Not as a companion, spouse, “life partner”, husband, or resource provider. I mean as a man. I mean she wants him to put his penis into her vagina and ejaculate into her.”

    There’s some truth in this statement for sure, however the more I think about Jack’s statement, the more I think there’s something in there that needs unpacking:

    “Women are initially drawn to a man because he possesses certain indicators of masculinity which appeal to her (i.e. “Sparks” in the diagram). There are very few men who can create Sparks, thus there are few men she feels attracted to. Tingles / Sexual Arousal cannot happen WITHOUT Sparks / Sexual Attraction.”

    In having listened to my wife over the years talk about her attraction to men, Deti has a point, she is attracted to the 8-10 men visually, aka Chad and Tyrone. And I mean not “near” Chad or Tyrone, I mean the complete deal dude: tall, muscular, handsome, square jaw line, etc. My wife refers to them as her “eye candy.” Would she do anything with them in real life, probably not; would her “lizard brain” WANT to do something with them if she could get away with it, probably so. In short, he’s fantasy man for her and probably just about every other woman.

    I think Deti is correct up to a point here. When I go to the gym and workout, I know who these men are, the Chad’s and Tyrone’s. It’s pretty obvious.
    Are all the women in the gym attracted to them? More than likely. Would all let them F them if they were alone on a desert island with them?
    Probably so.

    So, all of the women are attracted to these guys, Jack’s “sparks.” However, to get to “tingles,” Jack’s women’s “sexual arousal” I think something more is needed from the man. First of all the language we’re using here, there might be better word choices. Not sure what they are, but sparks and tingles, maybe there is a better way of putting it. IMO sparks getting translated into tingles, requires the man to DO SOMETHING, notice her, talk with her, flirt with her, DO SOMETHING that draws her attention, that allows her to gauge “what kind of guy this is,” and this is true even for Chad and Tyrone.

    I have seen women’s attraction visibly deflate when they hear the stud open his mouth and say something that doesn’t square with his looks and physique. One time I was in a setting where a very good looking female was paying very close attention to a certain very handsome well-built man speaking, definitely a Chad. I could see in her body language that she had the “sparks” for him. When that man, who was talking before a group, mentioned his boyfriend, I noticed Miss Good Looking’s shoulders slump, her countenance fall, and her interest in him disappear… like in poof it’s gone, done flew away. He still looked the same obviously, however her tingles were killed off before they could take off (they appeared to be revving up during his little speech until he hit the part about the boyfriend).

    I’ve noticed this with myself over the years, this “Tingles” thing from women. I think I’m fairly good looking and built (older now, but when I was younger), not Chad or Tyrone like, but decent enough. I’ve occasionally noticed a woman taking an interest in me visually, but not very often where I can pick up on it. However, I’ve definitely noticed “sparks” and “tingles” with a number of women when I DID SOMETHING directly with them or in their vicinity, i.e. opened my mouth and spoke, or did something that drew their attention to me. In some cases, it almost seems like I could/can see the proverbial wheels turning in their heads and can get an idea of what they’re thinking about me (good things).

    Not sure where to go with this, just some musings out loud after reading this blog post and thinking about it a bit.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      I have seen women’s INTEREST visibly deflate when they hear the stud open his mouth and say something that doesn’t square with his looks and physique.

      Fixed it for you.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      And:

      She is NOT sexually attracted, interested, aroused, whatever word you want to use, to the 5-7 maybe men.

      The reason women express any interest at all in those men is NOT sexual. It’s for resources, for commitment, for validation/affirmation, or a myriad of other reasons, but it is NOT, NOT, because she wants to have sex with him. Let me say that again

      It is NOT because she wants to have sex with him. (Each word in that phrase is important.

      Wants (desires)

      to have sex (sexual congress)

      with him (not someone else, but him)

      Her interest in such men is NOT sexual. It has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with what she believes she can extract from him and get out of him, and nothing to do with an actual relationship or what she can do for him. It has nothing to do with him at all – it is all about her and what she wants and needs.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Scott says:

    Often times, married and “mature” people will make the argument that it is essentially “normal” or normative for the passion to die off over time. They mean LTRs or marriages. These are interchangeable concepts in this context.

    Regardless of whether Deti or Ramann are right, do this thought experiment.

    A man is told “the best sex of your life is the first 3 months to 2 years (on the long end) of your permanent, monogamous relationship. Then, for the next 5-7 decades it’s boring, non passionate, once every 9 weeks for 10 minutes of missionary sex.”

    What man would sign up for that on purpose?

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I rest my case.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      This is precisely why serial monogamy is so atttactive for men with a conscience and high enough SMV to pull it off.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        It’s why they are constantly accused of being “afraid” of commitment

        It’s why every time I have been access super early in a relationship I ask about how we got sexual so fast the answer is ALWAYS “because I didn’t think you would stay around long.” All the rules she had for “betas” go out the window. And then within 2 years the passion drops off a cliff. And traditionally, I bail. No thanks.

        Did I become “less sexy?” Who knows? And why should I care?

        Women did this to themselves

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        I know I’m always writing more after I already hit “post” but this needs a finer point on it

        Guys (like me) are not “afraid of commitment”

        We are afraid of women changing the parameters of the implied sexual agreement AFTER we have jumped in with both feet. And it happens EVERY SINGLE TIME. Hence my “n count.”

        Now, Rollo and others go to great lengths to describe why that happens. Essentially they argue that you have stopped being mysterious and difficult and started introducing “boyfriend” behaviors.

        No sh!t. I’m your fvcking boyfriend now. Ergo, I act like one. This is called being a grown up. If I have to “game” and treat you like crap to get you to KEEP ACTING LIKE YOU ALWAYS DID then I’m out. Bye.

        And being hot or alpha just gets you in the door. I get that. But if Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt can’t keep the flame going, then I would argue there’s something wrong with women today.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        No sh!t. I’m your fvcking boyfriend now. Ergo, I act like one. This is called being a grown up.

        The other side being:

        You’re my girlfriend now, Ergo, I expect you to act like one. This is called being a grownup. That means be nice to me, be affectionate towards me, practice submission to me, don’t treat me like sh!t, be who you say you are, and do what you say you’ll do.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Yes, and let’s be clear. When RP gurus talk about “boyfriend” (or TBH husband) behaviors they mean things like:

        Remembering birthdays, anniversaries, etc.
        Little things like flowers and such
        Helping out around the house
        Deciding things together
        Compromising
        Wiping shavings out of the sink
        Or whatever
        Being generally romantic and engaged

        These things apparently turn off 99% of women after things settle down

        Doesn’t that make women weird? Like mentally ill weird.

        When I say “no thanks, bye” what I mean is simple. We break up and I find another one, go through the whole charade of having crazy swinging from the chandelier sex, falling in love, blah blah, committing. Engaging in the above list until it dies.

        I’ve never had trouble getting the girl for the first part.

        I think the reason mine works is because Mychael knows this about me.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        I think the reason mine works is because Mychael knows this about me.

        That’s part of why you and Mychael works. I think the other part is because of her hard visceral sexual attraction/arousal/whatever we want to call it from the very first moment she saw you; and because you put down your expectations for her from the beginning and made clear if she failed to meet them, you’d be gone.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        “…if Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt can’t keep the flame going, then I would argue there’s something wrong with women today.”

        On the other hand, Johnny Depp married a chick who cut off his finger with a knife, and literally crapped on his bed because she was mad at him. Brad Pitt married a chick who wore her previous husband’s blood in a vial around her neck, and had a… um… how shall I put this delicately… “suspect” relationship with her brother.

        There’s a lot to learn from both Depp and Pitt, but none of it is about normal women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Oscar,

        “…Johnny Depp married a chick who cut off his finger with a knife, and literally crapped on his bed because she was mad at him. Brad Pitt married a chick who wore her previous husband’s blood in a vial around her neck, and had a… “suspect” relationship with her brother.

        There’s a lot to learn from both Depp and Pitt, but none of it is about normal women.”

        Did you ever think that maybe this IS “normal”, but most women are under legal, social, and financial constraints which impose consequences that prevent them from acting out their nature?

        When those legal, social, and financial constraints are removed, as has been gradually happening over the last 50 years or so, we get more “normal” behavior from women.

        Have you seen TikTok lately? That’s the new “normal”.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Did you ever think that maybe this IS “normal”, but most women are under legal, social, and financial constraints which impose consequences that prevent them from acting out their nature?
        …..
        Have you seen TikTok lately? That’s the new “normal”.

        Yeah, maybe, but that sounds a lot like when women make all men out to be abusers, so I’m skeptical. It’s true that there’s a lot more degeneracy than there was in decades past, but TikTok – among other media – are specifically designed to magnify it. TikTok is not reality, and reality is not TikTok.

        Like

  6. feeriker says:

    Doesn’t that make women weird? Like mentally ill weird.

    Yes, but that’s to be expected.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      The women just didn’t handle the Psy-ops so well. Not to mention the Psychological and Hormonal effects of the Birth Control Pill and other hormonal manipulations.

      And many of them even the so called religious are exposed as lacking the Holy Spirit from their Spiritual 2nd birth.

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        “And many of them even the so called religious are exposed as lacking the Holy Spirit from their Spiritual 2nd birth.”

        That’s because they were never truly reborn to begin with.

        Like

      • info says:

        @feeriker

        We can only pray for them at this point. God can do what we cannot do on our own.

        Like

  7. catacombresident says:

    I seldom comment about the subject of this post and the replies. My experience is wholly outside of it. My wife wasn’t riding a unicorn when I found her, but she was definitely a miracle. We were both virgins at marriage and she never flaked out on me after the wedding.

    I’ve been amused by it, but I’ve never taken seriously another woman’s attraction to me, never explored that in any way. I’ve never worried my wife would stray. It just keeps on working, and after some years of reading what other men have experienced, I know that I’m too far outside the norm to comment usefully. By the same token, the world you discuss is frankly alien to me.

    Liked by 3 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      “By the same token, the world you discuss if frankly alien to me. [..] We were both virgins at marriage and she never flaked out on me after the wedding. [..] I’ve never worried my wife would stray.”

      I feel the same way. I don’t know many people who are divorced, ~95% of people I know married once and are still married (or widowed and remarried). This sounds true to me…

      “When a woman says “I’m not in the mood”, it means “I’m not aroused right now”. But when a man hears “I’m not in the mood”, he hears “I’m not attracted to you.”

      …but apparently not to most people here, so what do I know?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        I’m not sure if this man/woman thing.

        In my years of practice, I have seen the occasional role reversal (wife very interested, husband not so much)

        In those cases the wives are devastated by the constant rejection, just like the men tend to be. They take it as a global refutation of their entire being and sexuality.

        The one “going for it” is offering something very special, very intimate and the rejector is saying “I do not want what you are offering.”

        This is extremely psychologically painful for all but monk-like Christians.

        Marriage is supposed to provide basically an automatic “yes” so neither party has to deal with that pain on earth.

        Liked by 8 people

      • Scott says:

        But the idea that saying “no” to your spouse is a sin in most cases is totally gone now. It is not heard in church.

        Liked by 4 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “In my years of practice, I have seen the occasional role reversal (wife very interested, husband not so much)”

        Scott, that is a very interesting and thought-provoking observation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        To quote myself:

        But the idea that saying “no” to your spouse is a sin in most cases is totally gone now. It is not heard in church.

        If clergy did this they would be accused of inciting marital rape, so it’s understandable why they don’t.

        We just don’t live in anything like a Christian world.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        …and even if they did preach this, the wives would just demand that they change churches because of the icky teachings.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        The answer is marriage as a sacrament, (as opppsed to a transaction/contract) but I believe we are too far gone as a species to put that toothpaste back in the tube.

        If any individual couple can work out this issue they are blessed. But there is nothing that can be done on the macro level to help make godly marriages a thing for the masses. Maybe there never really was.

        Liked by 3 people

    • locustsplease says:

      Good for you and it’s nice you understand it. Nothing worse than listening to advice from men who got lucky. “Hey I know a good thing when i see it! I was just at the ice cream stand and blah blah blah it’s been a great 20yrs”. “Did you ever think about not beating her and going to work every day that’s all I do!” Haha.

      Like

      • catacombresident says:

        My point is not that I have no useful advice, but to emphasize what Scott noted just above here: What is typical is so far removed from what is normal (what ought to be) that it represents just how bad our situation is in the West. Any comment I might have on the mechanics isn’t going to help anyone when the real problem is the common hostility to God’s ways for us.

        At the same time, my experience suggests that the ideal is possible. It’s just that you have to depart from the typical very far and very early. That’s always been my point in commenting here in the first place.

        Liked by 3 people

      • locustsplease says:

        I didn’t say you don’t have advice. I’m saying you can see the reality besides you which most can’t. Even me it’s hard. I’ve had many happily married men spout blue pill anti father feminist agenda. It seems like men who get what they want out of their wives actually turn blue pill.

        I can get endless rp from miserable abused husband’s almost in tears begging me to not get married when I was 20 and pump and dumping.

        Like

  8. Scott says:

    Kind of related. On the most recent YouTube video by thinking ape/stardusk, he says (in his usual deadpan delivery)…

    “I’m becoming increasingly skeptical that women are truly attracted to men for any reason at all.”

    It was pretty funny.

    [Jack: Video added for convenient reference.]

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      Lately, I’ve seen a lot of Manosphere content coming from the sudden disappointment that women can’t experience desire/arousal and have sex like men. I’ve heard that this is one reason why some men go g@y.

      “I’m becoming increasingly skeptical that women are truly attracted to men for any reason at all.”

      To me, this statement is just a simple realization of the fact that women do not experience sexual desire in the same way that men do. Men have urgent sexual needs that women do not have. Give him some p*ssy and he’s happy. Women have urgent emotional needs that men do not have. But give her some affirmation and a sense of security and she’s happy. Women get uneasy and bent out of shape because of the context in which men find their sexual needs met (e.g. p0rn, spinning plates, etc.). Men get uneasy and bent out of shape because of the context in which women find their emotional needs met (e.g. hamsterbated lies, herd mentality, romance fantasies, etc.).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        In context, he was actually working through why marriage and LTRs exist at all anymore.

        He was arguing that nowadays the basis of these relationships is “hey he’s cool, she’s hot, let’s hang out and enjoy these fuzzy wuzzy feelings until they’re gone” and that’s about it.

        The lack of any depth to it or longer term “reasons” to bond permanently was what he was commenting on.

        In that sense, he meant that pure physical attraction, while real, is ultimately not particularly deep.

        I’m not sure.

        I think that without that initial star-struck craziness, you would never be together. I didn’t meet Mychael in the middle of the street that day and fall in love with her character. It was the way her curves felt pressed up against me, and what I wanted to do next.

        Does it need to develop further? Sure.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        “But give her some affirmation and a sense of security and she’s happy.”

        Except, she’s not happy. She’s never happy. It’s never good enough. Nothing you ever do for them is ever good enough.

        Ask me how I know. I’m a lawyer who’s earned a solid 6 figures for the past 15 years. She got to be a stay at home mom for the last 21 years. I was totally and completely devoted to her. There was not a woman and a 50 mile radius with more affirmation and security than Mrs. deti.

        And yet I’m still here.

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        @thedeti

        I think this makes true salvation on the part of woman just as important.

        A content woman drinks from the rock that is Christ. The living Water. They eat the body and drink the blood of Christ.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Joe2 says:

        “Women get uneasy and bent out of shape because of the context in which men find their sexual needs met (e.g. p0rn, spinning plates, etc.).”

        Surveys by popular porn websites indicate that women do watch porn and nearly 33 percent of their porn viewing audience is made up of women and that share is increasing. And they watch for the fantasy and fulfilling of their needs. (If we believe the websites are telling the truth.)

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Joe2,

        “Surveys by popular porn websites indicate that women do watch porn and nearly 33 percent of their porn viewing audience is made up of women and that share is increasing. And they watch for the fantasy and fulfilling of their needs.”

        Oh, yeah… I forgot about that demographic. I was thinking about all those asexual wives who expect their husbands to be asexual as well, and then they throw a tantrum when they find some nudies on the hard drive. “He’s cheating on me by committing adultery with the computer!!!”

        It would be insightful to know exactly what percentage of that 33% of female p0rn viewers are Christian wives watching p0rn either to learn how to hone their skills at performing fellatio, or to get themselves aroused and in the mood to perform marital duties for their sex starved husbands.

        Like

  9. feeriker says:

    “This is extremely psychologically painful for all but monk-like Christians.”

    Since churchians expect sexually frustrated men to live monastic lives (“just pray about it and ask God to give you the strength to endure it” or “obviously God intended for you to be celebate” — usually coming from the same mouths that tell him that his wife was God’s choice for him), it never occurs to them to address 1C75 violations.

    “Marriage is supposed to provide basically an automatic “yes” so neither party has to deal with that pain on earth.”

    In a truly Christian covenant marriage (a “sacramental” marriage, so to speak) that would be the norm. The fact that it’s the rare exception speaks volumes as to the true nature of most marriages.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Jack says:

    There is a veterinary clinic next door to the breakfast cafe. Every morning, one of the dogs gives up a long mournful howl that’s sad enough to bring a tear to my eye. All forlorn, sick and in pain, stuck in a cage, no human or canine interaction…

    I hear this while I’m eating a delicious chicken burger served up with a smile by a cute young thing.

    It makes me think of all the men and women who are spiritually sick and suffering emotionally from living in the societal cage of Western progressive feminism, while I’m enjoying a dignified lifestyle of institutionalized patriarchy and the feminine women of the East.

    Every single day, I bow my head and sincerely thank God that I’ve escaped that mess!

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Indeed. Pray for us. We need God’s Help and all the Powers of Heaven to survive the onslaught of the Enemy. If there are local Christians you know. Please get them to pray for us too.

      Every Saint praying for us helps.

      Liked by 1 person

    • surfdumb says:

      I’ve visited Taiwan, Indonesia, and spent time in China. Yep, is all I need to say for me. What do you think the typical tatted fat American women thinks when she goes there? I don’t think she reflects, or is even unconsciously aware of how gross she is. They don’t speak jealously of the thin feminine Asian women visiting the church ESL classes or international group, but maybe that’s because the one’s who are here are driven and ambitious and western even while being more feminine and thin.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        Surfdumb,
        Western women hate Taiwan — I mean, they absolutely HATE it! They hate being the least attractive women in the crowd. They hate having to kowtow to the hierarchical structure of Taiwanese culture. They hate not having any tall white Chads around. They dislike Taiwanese men because they expect respect and deference but yet they don’t have the same charismatic confidence and swagger that they assume to be stereotypical of western men (but is actually rather rare in the West these days).

        Moreover, there are very few western women here, and they don’t stay long. Most of them who stay for any length of time are married to western businessmen, and they feel very bored, put upon, and insecure. They hate that their husbands love Taiwan and get constant attention from many local women.

        I know there is an extremely small number of western women who come here, marry Taiwanese men, and blend in rather well. These women want nothing to do with western culture. But these women are the rarest of the rare.

        From what I have seen, it doesn’t take long for Asian women to become corrupted by Western culture after they move to the U.S. 2-3 months will do it. I’ve seen happily married Asian women dump their husbands and jump on the CC just weeks after deboarding the plane.

        Like

  11. feeriker says:

    “I think this makes true salvation on the part of woman just as important.

    A content woman drinks from the rock that is Christ. The living Water. They eat the body and drink the blood of Christ.”

    Now let us dwell for a moment or two on how many self-described “Christian” women actually live their lives in ways that clearly manifest these practices, especially in their marriages, their day-to-day relationships with their husbands.

    Actually, don’t dwell on it. The truth that emerges from doing so will horrify you and pulverize your spirit.

    Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      Many situations were apparently hopeless in Biblical History. Yet despite all odds. Caleb and Joshua believed in the Lord. They survived to Old Age and participated in the conquest of Canaan.

      Even Jonathan when facing the overwhelming Phillistine Army all by his lonesome with his armor-bearer whilst Israel were cowering in the caves.

      We can only believe in the Lord. Do what we can and pray that even our meagre efforts are turned into great victories. Like when Jonathan acted in faith.

      And to fight beyond us at places where we cannot reach.

      Liked by 1 person

    • info says:

      As the Saints who were about to be thrown into the furnace said:

      Daniel 3:17-18
      17 If the God whom we serve exists, then He is able to deliver us from the blazing fiery furnace and from your hand, O king. 18 But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden statue you have set up.

      And the sheer faith of Job:

      Job 13:15
      15 Though He slay me, I will hope in Him. I will still defend my ways to His face.

      I have watched some videos of women who had supernatural experiences of Jesus.

      Even if the Majority of women aren’t saved. I will trust in the Lord. That there will always be Righteous Women truly saved. Like the few commentators here also.

      Liked by 3 people

  12. Pingback: The Wages of Sin are Paid in Marriage | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Validation is about Losing Self-Control | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Game is an invitation to Humility | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Feminine Submission | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Holding Out | 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