Humility happens when the Lady’s Libido Lights Up.
Readership: All; Men; Married Men; Marriage Minded Men;
Theme: Feminine Submission
Length: 2,000 words
Reading Time: 11 minutes
Introduction
I received an inquisitive email from a female reader who asked to remain anonymous. She brought up several questions related to the previous week’s focus on Sexual Submission (2022-10-14).
She writes,
“Your post, Validation (2022-10-11) sparked a few questions.
Obviously every man wants Validational Sex (VS) from his wife. Every woman definitely wants Validational Sex.
Question 1 — How does VS happen? You said that humility is an important part of validation. I never thought of this before I read your post because it seems counterintuitive. But after thinking it over I have to agree; validation doesn’t happen without humility. But then, how does humility happen? Is it about how much your husband / wife can make you lose control, or is it about how much you can make your husband / wife lose control?”
Your description is exactly right. Losing self-control is a key element of being humbled. The one who loses self-control is the one being humbled. During emotional and sexual intimacy, one’s true heart emerges. Outside a setting of intimate trust, this can be embarrassing or shameful, but when attraction and trust are present, it is humbling. This is essential for authentic bonding, learning, growth, and experiencing life. Also, humility is required to have a living faith, and I believe this is why it is said that God joins a husband and wife together on the marriage bed (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9). Ideally, both husband and wife should experience humility during sex, but it is crucial to the stability of the marriage for the wife to be humbled, as I will explain in the answer to the next question.
“Question 2 — I have noticed that a lot of my husband’s sexual satisfaction comes from ME losing control and going wild in the throes of passion, and not so much about HIM losing control. Our sexual interaction becomes hotter and wilder the more I lose control, and the more I lose control, the greater satisfaction he derives. So our sexual satisfaction is not so much about HIM getting off but the extent he can get ME off. Does that make sense? I am not a man but I suspect this is true for most husbands, not just my own.”
I would agree that your impression of what gives your husband satisfaction is true for all men. Moreover, the following is true for both men and women.
- Sex is experienced by women as Validational if the man can make her lose control.
- Sex is experienced by men as Validational if he can make the woman lose control.
The common denominator is that a woman losing control (being humbled) is what makes sex Validational for both sexes!
“Question 3 — I wonder if this desire for VS is hard wired into men — that it is not enough to satisfy him if he is getting off but not her. He needs to “take” her (past the limits of her self-control), and she needs to be “taken”. He needs to RULE over her, body, heart, mind, and soul, and to the extent SHE is getting VS from him, that is the extent to which he is RULING. If it is not VS, then she is not being humbled and so HE is not “ruling” her.”
Yes, I believe the desire for this kind of sex is hard wired into men. In fact, this is the crux of Scott’s Axiom as it relates to sexual authority — the man rules over the woman, not just in word, but also in deed, and this ruling penetrates her heart, her mind, and her loins. Too many men have underestimated the importance and the strength of this desire or have dismissed it entirely, and have thereby defaulted to The Quiet Desperation of the Autopilot (2022-10-1).
“This brings me to the next question…
Question 4 — Is VS ONLY about sexual desire?
Because if the above is true — VS is a man ruling his wife in the bedroom — then the important question is, “What leads to the VS?”
Sir deti will say it is the woman’s Sexual Attraction — and that is true — losing control is not going to happen without an intense attraction / arousal / desire. So sparks are important but it is not everything. Her humility and her willing submission also play an important part of it. If women are sexually attracted to only top 20% men, then either a man has to be in top 20% to get VS or he has to reconcile that he will never have VS. My husband is not in the top 20%, but he can give me VS anyhow, and if I’m having VS, then he’s having it too!”
The answer to this question is complex and hotly debated in the Christian Manosphere. Thedeti’s stance is the standard Red Pill stance. But personally, I’m of the opinion that although the various traits of attraction delineated by Red Pill lore (confidence, charisma, Game, HARPS, LAMPS, etc.) are certainly responsible for creating raw attraction, a man has to display dominance, or the ruling part of sexual authority that you described (in Question 3) to move a woman into damp thatch arousal territory. Without masculine authority “ruling over her”, intersexual relationships degenerate into the situation deti describes as The Unsolvable Problem of The Modern Sexual/Relationship Market (2022-2-7). BTW, this is the norm without patriarchy and I only realized this years after living in a patriarchal society in which it is not the norm (Taiwan).
Other married men have agreed with me that deti’s stance is limited to certain contexts common to gynocentric cultures and PUA subcultures, namely one in which the woman is already defiled and her expectations exceed what her SMV can draw. In this case (which is probably 85+% of the time in Western cultures), the man has to be top notch, and he has to Game her really hard and non-stop, which is exhausting for the man. And as deti et al. say, even this may not be enough. For most men in this situation, it’s a lost cause.
Outside of this context (i.e. within a patriarchal social order), when a man can rule over his wife and rein in and/or channel her emotions outside the bedroom, then it becomes all that much easier to rule over her within the bedroom. It’s like, when you restrict her passions in various ways, then her passion builds up and splurts out in the bedroom. I say this out of personal experience with my wife.
”Question 5 — As a woman I have noticed that when I ‘give’ and not ‘get’ it gives me a sense of power over my husband — to know that HE is the one being humbled by desire and not ME. HE is the one losing control and not ME. Is that control?”
Definitely! The power dynamic is determined by who loses self-control in the heat of passion. The person who is proactively leading the interaction, creating pleasure for the other, and inundating his/her soul with waves of orgasms is in the power bird position.
“Question 6 — I wonder if this ties back to Genesis 3:16 where sexual desire and control are interlinked. In other words, if I am humbled by my husband in the bedroom, then he is ruling over me. But if he is humbled by me in the bedroom, then I am ruling over him. If I am NOT humbled by my husband, then he is NOT ruling over me. If he is getting off but I am not, then he is submitting to me, and I am NOT submitting to him (at least in that respect) and that gives me power and to some extent control.”
Yes, that’s right. This is the one area in which wives may are instructed to exert authority (translated from ἐξουσιάζω, exousiazó) over their husbands, based on 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. I explained this dynamic in Sexual Authority and Sanctification (2022-8-8). I’ll add that the way the church has espoused ignorance of this matter is one of the most significant ways that the church has failed men in general, leading to a dead bedroom epidemic within the church.
“Question 7 — I think a lot of dead bedrooms are not so much lack of attraction but a CONTROL play. She can hold out by abstaining completely. But she can also hold out by refusing to lose control of her sexual passions. Either way, she is refusing to be humbled. She withholds VS and thereby exerts POWER. Would you agree?”
A brilliant observation. Yes, women can withhold sex entirely to prevent a man from having any sexual release, but she can also withhold humility and passion during sex to prevent a man from obtaining any sexual satisfaction. I would say both are sinful if done intentionally. However, men could do more to make it easier for women to open up and trust the man enough for her to lose control.
“Question 8 — How much does a man’s lovemaking skills come to play?
In your post, Erotic Blueprints and Personality (2022-10-12) you wrote,
“When I want her to have another Big O explosion, all I have to do is bite her ear or place my hands around her neck.”
In other words, the husband learns what gets his wife to lose control. He knows which buttons to push.”
Too often, the topic of “lovemaking skills” is confined to the realm of positions, procedures, and techniques. But mastering a woman’s sexual desire is much more complex than that. As I wrote in that post, it took me 2-3 years to figure her out – understanding her personality, learning to navigate her sexual blueprint, and removing any psychological barriers that made it difficult for her to become aroused.
Additional Thoughts
“…there is the concept of one flesh – when 2 virgins become 1 flesh in marriage – it is the best chance for a man to rule over his wife. The wife knows no better; she has no scale of comparison. She loses it (VS + virginity to husband). He learns what gets her to lose control (what turns her on). The more turned on she is, the more VS they both get. The more ONE FLESH they become. The more HUMBLED she is. The more he RULES over her. The more BONDED they become.”
Yes, there is also a spiritual component of sex that is closely tied to sexual authority. The blood covenant of virgin sex is intended to be God’s way of forming a one flesh bond between husband and wife, thereby molding a wife’s natural affections towards her husband and establishing his authority over her. But if Chad gets the honors, then other than the original Chad, only SuperChad Game Master can create Attraction / Arousal in her.
“All of this explains why fornication is harmful — because the wife has already been “ruled” by other men. She knows how to lose control with others, and so she knows that authority doesn’t come from her husband. She is sexually “liberated”. If the next man does not match up immediately and blow past the last man, then she moves on. There is no chance, no learning curve for him to rule her.”
Yes, a sexually liberated woman knows that being humbled, aroused, and losing control is a function of the man’s SMV prowess, and is not connected to nor related to her presumptive husband’s authoritative rule over her. Sexually liberated women are like a wild mustang — they are difficult to catch, tame, and domesticate. The sexual authority of a husband is basically destroyed when the wife has had previous sexual experiences.
Concluding Statements
As you can see, the most important element of a husband establishing sexual authority over his wife is in the act of taking her virginity on the wedding night, breaking her in for the first time, learning to master her sexual nature, and humbling her to achieve mutual Validation. As much as women may object to this characterization of masculine sexual authority and power, they deeply desire the Validating aspect of this consummation (e.g. see the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey). This is one of the main reasons why many women choose to ride the carousel if they cannot lock down that first man. They’re searching for that deep soul satisfying humility that they experienced with their first (or best). They may find Validation in the short term, and only for a few years at most, but in the long term they usually learn that they cannot trust men. This is because men humbled her, but did not truly love her enough to stick it through. Women err in choosing men who can humble them and give them VS, while they ignore those men who would truly love them enough to commit. Men who can do both are rare and get snatched quickly.
A man might gain sexual authority over a wife with a history of sexperience, but only rarely, and only by the grace of God (e.g. Jack and Scott.)
“Translation: One flesh leads to harmony in marriage.
Sex is God’s design. When we follow His instructions, it leads to sanctification.
I guess that is why I said there is a blessing in our marriage that I cannot define or explain. It is because neither my husband nor I have experienced defilement. For us, sex is entirely sanctified.”
It is a blessing for us to hear your testimony.
Related
- Σ Frame: Sexual Authority (2020-9-30)
- Σ Frame: Zizek – Everyday Sexuality (2020-12-14)
- Christianity and Masculinity: Sexual authority is only for sex and not against sex (2021-10-5)
- Σ Frame: Sexual Authority and Sanctification (2022-8-8)
- Σ Frame: Erotic Blueprints and Personality (2022-10-12)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Excellent exposition. I’ve not read nor heard anything like it in one place, bringing many of the pieces together under the Biblical principles of humility, becoming one, etc.. Much to contemplate. Of course, my first response is to run a comparison against my own experience, and it makes sense.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LastHoldOut,
Thank you. Lately, I have garnered a small number of detractors who have said my interpretative writings on these concepts (e.g. humility, glorification, etc.) are evil, foolish, and misleading. However, I am of the opinion that most Christians have but a superficial understanding of the metaphysical realities represented by words such as these. By writing of these things, I hope to draw greater awareness of these deeper realities and thereby inspire our faith.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I knew it was some type of coded speech! Many of us prefer to use the dictionary definitions of words. So that we can communicate clearly with others instead of casting metaphysical spells with our words.
When you say that fornication “sanctifies” a woman, that makes no sense. On its face the statement is evil.
Sanctify: transitive verb
1. To set apart for sacred use; consecrate.
2. To make holy; purify.
3. To give religious sanction to, as with an oath or vow.
You also say that fornication or having sex both “glorifies” and “humbles” a woman.
“Glorifies” and “humbles” are antonyms. Unless you explain the personal coded word definitions you are using, that thought, on its face is seemingly a self-contradictory statement.
My verbal/reading-comprehension score is in the 99th percentile, so if I regularly can’t make sense of some of your sentences, they are likely ambiguous or nonsensical. I believe you intentionally aren’t using the dictionary definitions for certain words, and instead of just choosing words that already mean what you want, you misuse these other words claiming they mean what they actually don’t mean.
For example, you used some form of the word “humble” 16 times in your post, but you never really said what you mean by that, or what characterizes that, or which specific definition of humble you are intending. Wasn’t sex “glorifying” to women last week?
You used the phrase “lose control” 21 times, but there again you never bothered to define what that means. Is that just during orgasm, or the whole time? What characterizes the lack of control? What behaviors would indicate when a person has lost their self-control? You seem as if you assume that your readers can read your mind, or that their minds track with yours. Why not explain what you mean at least once in all that text?
I think you’re onto something here in this post, but I wish you could just explain it clearly, rather than writing so many words yet still leaving some folks wondering exactly what you’re going on about.
I’d prefer if you could use the commonly understood dictionary definitions of words, and not instead refer to some other “metaphysical realities represented by words such as these.”
Otherwise, you’re clearly not communicating with men like me, but with some other metaphysical beings who seemingly like for you to say stuff like, “fornication sanctifies and glorifies and humbles women”.
LikeLike
“Question 7 — I think a lot of dead bedrooms are not so much lack of attraction but a CONTROL play. She can hold out by abstaining completely. But she can also hold out by refusing to lose control of her sexual passions. Either way, she is refusing to be humbled. She withholds VS and thereby exerts POWER. Would you agree?”
A brilliant observation. Yes, women can withhold sex entirely to prevent a man from having any sexual release, but she can also withhold humility and passion during sex to prevent a man from obtaining any sexual satisfaction. I would say both are sinful if done intentionally. However, men could do more to make it easier for women to open up and trust the man enough for her to lose control.
This explains why sexual attraction is paramount. Without attraction, the woman has no choice but to retain control. This is especially true today in a post sexual revolution, post Christian society. A woman who isn’t attracted must retain at least some sense of control. She does so because in the final analysis, she doesn’t trust the man.
Lack of sexual attraction – and empowering women to leave such marriages – remains by far and away the number one reason for marriage failure today. Women’s lack of sexual attraction for husbands has always been a problem. But for the last 50-60 years, we’ve allowed women to leave marriages solely for this reason. Make no mistake about it – lack of sexual attraction is the reason most women leave their marriages. If women had been allowed to do this from time immemorial, they would have done it. They’re allowed to do it now, so they do.
It is always about lack of sexual attraction. Always.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree! When I was a kid and teenager, thinking back to a few things I believe I remember hearing about the stable marriages and families that surrounded me; many would have probably ended in divorce if no fault divorce existed at the time. It created a degree of stability, the Zeitgeist at the time if you will, which I think was good for society as a whole, but those days are long gone now.
LikeLike
Interesting metaphor. The use of the word difficult is less imposing than the word impossible. The real question, are they even worth attempting to “catch, tame and domesticate?” The general consensus around the ‘Sphere seems to be “No.” The woman with the high N-count (What? five or more, maybe even less, 2?-3?-4?) is just not worth the effort other than having sex with her, and that comes with a lot of potential problems, if you attempt to LTR or wife her up.
I’m observing this from a distance with a number of the women I’ve known throughout the past several years in the educational work I participate in. They range in ages from 27-53, all having been “wild mustangs” to one degree or another, all wanting to get married now. The further I’ve gone into this red pill mindset, the more I think it’s better for men to stay away from all of them as far as an LTR or a marriage is concerned.
The only exception I’d allow for, and it is a big maybe, is the woman who genuinely commits her life to Christ and grows in her faith. She’d be a maybe, but I know a couple of those from my Life Group, and I’d say no; even though they are really growing in Christ.
Interestingly, one has a marriage proposal now and the other is ready to date again after divorce. I’d say as “godly” as they are, if I was single and looking to get married (hypothetically speaking), I’d still say no. Why? The baggage of their past. Even though Christ has forgiven her and cleansed her, I’d still have to deal with it in some way, shape or form, and I wouldn’t want to do it, Validation Sex or no Validation Sex.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 Paul writes that sexual sin is against one’s own body. I believe you have just described, at least part, the defilement that occurs which is why he wrote what he did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did He clean out the STDs too?
LikeLike
A perfect example of how Christ taking all the guilt and shame of our sin does not stop us from having natural consequences that are outside the parameters of our redemption status.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The forgiveness is instant, the healing is not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When I was a kid in the ’80s in Los Angeles, I met a married couple who were evangelists to drug addicts, prostitutes, gang members, the homeless – the lowest of the low. They were the perfect people for the job, because they’d been IV drug users before Jesus saved them.
They both died of AIDS.
God doesn’t always save us from the Earthly consequences of our sin.
LikeLike
RPB,
It all depends on who’s talking. For the rough riding ranch hand with years of experience, it is difficult. For greenhorn Opie, it’s impossible. Overall, I agree that it’s not worth the effort. But for men already married to such a woman, it is necessary. In writing about these things, it is difficult for me to discourage Opies from thinking they can handle this, while at the same time encouraging unfortunate married men to become old ranch hands.
LikeLike
One thing I’ll say for some of the blue pill men I know, they marry her and seem happy… baggage and all. I think a lot of it has to do with how they are “wired,” as in they don’t like to be alone — at all. I’m talking here about a few men I know in their fifties and sixties who “wife her up” for companionship. They also tend to pedestalize her, or pedestalize the relationship, with blue pill “syrupiness” (think I coined a word there! LoL). My red pill sensibilities go “ugh,” but I get it, they CRAVE the companionship; and will take her, baggage train and all. Each to his own I guess.
LikeLike
RPB,
These men are not happy. They are more afraid of being along than actually going after what they desire. There is weakness about them in that their fear of being alone drives their decision making on what they will accept behaviorally from their wives. They have allowed themselves to be emasculated in this sense and are sucking it up and dealing with the downsides of their trade-offs the best they can.
If you want to test my theory about their happiness, suggest a hypothetical in which you ask one of these men, “Wouldn’t it be amazing if wives would do (then fill in the blank)?” If they agree that whatever it is would be amazing, but they aren’t willing to try for it, then you have your answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: On Authority (Part 1) | okrahead
Pingback: Game is an invitation to Humility | Σ Frame
Pingback: It’s her choice whether or not to submit. | Σ Frame
Pingback: What we’ve learned about Feminine Submission | Σ Frame
Pingback: Trust, attraction, and the Biblical female marital roles of helper, submission, and respect Part 2 | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: A Response to GrifterShifter’s Comments | Σ Frame
Pingback: How to Assume the Missionary Position | Σ Frame
Before we pine too much for olden days, I suspect that few men or women, even then, experienced a “validational” sex life; this is because most men did not marry hot women, and most women did not marry attractive men – they married according to community and family requirements. Attraction was merely a nice bonus, when you could get it (lucky you!). Most couples, then, went about their sex lives not from wanton desire, but from communal expectation and duty: producing heirs for the lineage. Did a man require sexual satisfaction, he was permitted a discrete mistress for his need; a woman, though, unsatisfied with her husband’s performance, had only to make do: an affair on her part would garner the most severe punishment.
LikeLike
John
Most men married women they were sexually attracted to. A woman doesn’t have to be “hot” to be sexually attractive to a man. A man, however, has to be “hot” to be sexually attractive to a woman. So, yes, it is true that most women didn’t marry sexually attractive men.
It was also true however, that most women did not have the sexperience that the average woman of today has. The “average” woman has a reported, admitted premarital N of 5. That’s what women will cop to. It’s probably more on the order of 10 to 15. That’s for the average woman.
Most men could get women they were sexually attracted to ; most women could not get men they were sexually attracted to. Women didn’t like this and decided it wasn’t fair, so we jettisoned the old system for the one we have today. And it’s not worked out well for anyone.
Most men did not have mistresses. Most men, then as now, didn’t cheat because they couldn’t. Most men cannot cheat because they’re not attractive enough to cheat. To get a mistress you have to attract her, and you have to be a sexually attractive man to get a woman to run those risks.
Or, you have to pay. Most men who cheat, then as now, paid hookers or sugar babies. For most men, the only way to get sex is to “pay” for it in some way. Most men pay with money – financial support for a girlfriend or wife; or straight cash payments to a prostitute or sugar baby.
For men, it’s just understood – if you want a woman, you must bear all or nearly all of the financial burden of that relationship, regardless of the nature of that relationship.
Women cheated on their husbands. Women, then as now, cheat all the time. It’s just that women talk more and are more open about their infidelity now. Women are now in the power position in their relationships; with their cucked husbands increasingly staying married to women who have publicly humiliated them to “make it work” (translation – the man doesn’t want to live in his car for a year and never see his kids).
Then, at least some women did not just “make do”. If they really wanted to, they could cheat, and the bolder women among them did cheat. Cheating happened all the time especially with men away from home for long periods of time on military deployments or business.
Women still cheat now, and in fact cheat at rates equal to men (at least what’s reported). It’s around 20% to 25% for men and women – that’s what is admitted and reported, anyway. I think it’s more in the 40% range.
Women did not just “make do”. They cheated. They had all sorts of ways to cuck their husbands, and they did it all the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Men do not marry women they aren’t sexually attracted to. Men don’t have anything to do with women they aren’t sexually attracted to.
If a man is paying any attention to a woman and he’s not made it CRYSTAL CLEAR it’s platonic, he’s sexually interested in her. ANY attention a man gives a woman is a probe for sexual interest/ availability.
Women understand this. Women feign ignorance / confusion about this, but I call BS. They know. Women know the only reason men chat them up is to see if there’s mutual sexual attraction. Women are educated, trained, warned, and cautioned about this literally from the time they’re able to understand speech.
Men do not deal with women they don’t want to f_ck. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.
LikeLike
There is such a thing as post coital clarity which means that there is a lack of judgement pre-coitus. In the right situation, there is a pretty low bar for what a guy would consider for a roll in the hay.
LikeLike
Pingback: Is Sex a Necessary part of Vetting? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Asherah Makes Demands: Give Women what they want! | Σ Frame
Pingback: The 1,000 C0ck Stare | Σ Frame
Pingback: Attachment Style and Game | Σ Frame
Pingback: Sit and Spin on the Carousel | Σ Frame