The Test Drive is a logical response to women’s hysteria — or the lack thereof.
Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: IOIs and Vetting
Author’s Note: This post is based on a discussion with Red Pill Apostle on 2023/8/3,17 and a comment from Dead Bedroom Dating on 2023/8/14.
Length: 1,200 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes
The Female Perspective
This is what Scott has talked about until he was blue in the face. When a woman thinks a guy is hot and has a connection with him, it’s wet panties off and condom on. Lots of rules for Billy Betaboy, but for Don Dynad!ck, there are NO rules other than getting some sack action ASAP.
Once a woman discovers the Man Magic, it becomes an acute opiate addiction, second to none. From then on, every man is filtered through this lens, and only top SMV men are then ‘visible’ to her lustful wandering eyes. There’s no going back to appreciating a man / relationship based on inherent compatibility / honor / trust / shared values / life purpose / etc., especially if they’re young.
Ever since the Sexual Revolution, popping the cork of nuptial festivities on every date has become the norm. From the 1950s to the advent of the Red Pill, this was a carefully guarded secret that was only discussed in quiet giggles and gasps among gaudy Gina’s. But now, thanks to the PUAs who spilled all the beans about the nature of women, men now have to adapt to the reality on the ground (or else go MGTOW).
The problem with all of this, as we know, is that a woman can never respect a man who will love and value her for serious reasons, and if she marries the poor sucker, it stagnates sexual bonding and leads to a billabong love life in LTRs.
The Male Perspective
Men can’t imagine a feral female’s passion for penile insertion until he’s been the target of a human feline in heat. Note how one woman used the line, “I didn’t want the date to end”, and that meant she was anxiously waiting for the grand finale of bum bopping. The guy who did his calculus homework instead of going to frat parties won’t pick up on this code, but the party guy will and will then move in and position himself for the anticipated rowdy romp.
For the top ~10% secular men, there has never been a better time to be a player than in the past decade. But the remaining 90% are facing a situation in which authentic female companionship is as rare as a 25-year-old virgin. The only available picks have already been picked up, pickled, and picked through by pick up artists and the like. All other men must tolerate female disrespect or else forego all things feminine.
In The Black Pill Fear of Being Used (2023/8/14), Jack posed the question, “Is [the Black Pill based on] an acute fear of being used, or is it a pervasive fear of living in perilous times?” In this post, Jack gave a list of things that men are afraid of, things that dampen their confidence and erode their faith.
Dead Bedroom Dating added “the fear of a dead bedroom” to the list, and this cuts to the giggling, jiggling, gigolo heart of the matter.
He writes [edited for accuracy, clarity, and readability],
“Women usually jump ship pretty fast, if he doesn’t escalate. As men read in every secular RP guide: If by deadline X nothing has happened, then fire the ejection seat. It’s usually the religious women who cannot wait when the tingles kick in. And that’s why men dating religious-style have such a hard time.
The Test Drive isn’t driven by actual sexual chemistry. It’s driven by fear. The fear of ending up with a LTR partner who is never going to bang you. The Fear of a Dead Bedroom affects men and women alike. This isn’t just men, who now are afraid of the “friend zone” like it’s living hell, it’s women too, who are afraid of non-tingles now, because tingles mean the world. So relationships are now initiated with: “Just get this over with as quickly as possible right at the start.”
This is the Worldly wisdom of the Test Drive. The reasoning is that if a sexual relationship is desired (and marriage IS a sexual relationship, or it should be), then the most fundamental element of said relationship should be fully examined and certified from the outset — AS IF there would be NO consequences. Going on the Sticky Tape analogy, this approach is like using up a lot of tape to remove the dirt from a surface until you can finally get it to stick. (Why not wash the surface first?) It’s like rolling the dice until you win, while NOT paying attention to how much money you laid on the gambling table. (There’s a good chance you’ll go broke before you win anything back.)
The Larger Picture
There is one inconsistency in DBD’s argument — Black Pillers are not likely to have the opportunity to take a Test Drive — after all, that is exactly why they’re Black Pilled. So here we are NOT talking about the majority of Black Pillers. We are talking about a very small number of men who are High Value enough to attract a woman’s interest, but who are also serious about marriage. But as discussed above, a woman’s interest doesn’t necessarily mean respect. Tingles = Respect. It remains to be seen whether such a man can obtain a particular woman’s respect. Thus, respect is one important quality to vet for.
With the way marriage has been fed to the dogs these days, we would call such men stupid idiots. But in fact, these men carry the most responsibility for shifting the market dynamics and in setting a good example for (younger) men. If these men give up and join the carousel, then it all goes to hәll in a hurry — even faster.
The different values assigned to the consequences is the whole reason for the schism between Civilizationists vs. Nihilists vs. Preservationists. That is why guys like Matt Walsh and Vox Day continue to endorse men getting married, in spite of the difficult odds and the spectacular risks involved. It is also why other voices are saying, “Western civilization is not worth saving”, “Never a better time to be a player”, “F ‘em all and let GNON sort ‘em out”, and “Sit poolside and watch it all burn down”.
Conclusions
Astute readers may have noticed that there is an intrinsic contradiction in the Test Drive logic, which is not surprising since it is motivated by fear. A Test Drive, by definition, assumes that one is serious about making a purchase, which implies that one is either a Civilizationist, a Preservationist, or a pitiful victim of an acute affliction of conscience. But the nature of the Test Drive, en masse, only drives the culture towards Nihilism.
So how is that supposed to work out?
And who will win this culture war? Civilizationists, Preservationists, or Nihilists?
Only a little leaven will leaven the entire loaf (Galatians 5:9). But who is doing the leavening? The marriage minded Br@ds, the p_ssy poking Ch@ds, or the victims of conscience?
Related
- Σ Frame: Sexual Compatibility is dependent on Sanctification (2020/3/2)
- Σ Frame: Sanctification and Sexual Compatibility (2020/6/19)
- Σ Frame (NovaSeeker): The Centrality of Sex in Western Culture (2021/2/8)
- Σ Frame (NovaSeeker): Ethical Issues Surrounding the Christian Conundrum (2021/4/5)
- Σ Frame: Sexual Authority and Sanctification (2022/8/8)
- Σ Frame: Sexual Submission (2022/10/14)
- Σ Frame: Is Sex a Necessary part of Vetting? (2023/10/2)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
I hope every man watches the video at the top there. That’s what women are really doing, and that’s what they really want. It isn’t just the turbos1uts doing this either. This is church girls. This is the secretary down the hall. This is the “nice” lady down the street. This was (and in some cases probably still is) your friends’ mothers.
If she isn’t giving it up for you, she already gave it up to a hotter guy.
If she is making you wait, she is not sexually attracted to you.
AWALT, guys. AWALT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course. My own data contains multiple cases of:
Church boy needs to wait (and gets dumped later).
vs.
She needs non-church boyfriend’s D so bad, that she voluntarily gets on hormonal contraception for the first time ever. And from there it’s all-in with no limits.
Men, you want to marry an all-in with no limits. Because that’s what the certificate means for you as well. Don’t settle for less!
LikeLike
Except, as Jack said in his post last month:
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Jax Then you don’t marry, regardless of what Evangelicals tell you. Simple as that.
LikeLike
DBD,
Then most men won’t marry.
LikeLike
Indeed. This is the reason why Martin Luther considered marriage being secular institution:
See how this directly cuts into the business model of the American Evangelical Protestant Churches? Weddings, weddings, weddings! Business is the primary reason why churches adjust their religious teachings to their liking.
LikeLike
Doing the right thing in this culture is the hard part, and the truth is it takes a lot of trust in God. At the end of the day it is better to be celibate than bound to a rebellious woman.
I knew a woman with a man that God Himself seemingly pointed her to, but with the patience of the man and the whisperings of her friend group, everything fell apart, despite what seemed like an answered prayer. You can’t really fix things after messing up.
Don’t forget too that Churchianity is just a facade and underneath the white (or maybe not white, since that would be offensive) marble is the gaping maw of Hell itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure to what extent the “The Female Perspective” video is just a parody of carefully culled responses designed to get You Tube clicks, as the interviewer is always laughing.
Not saying that women are not doing what’s going on in the video, but it’s hard to believe that the 5 or 6 women in the video is the population of interviewees.
I think it would have been more informative to hear more responses, but those most likely were not in accord with the interviewer’s agenda.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The OT describes certain conditions (not necessary a specific order) for a marriage:
Leave (parents)
Cleave / Cling (stick together)
1 Flesh (relationship)
Know (bang)
Blessing (fruit = children)
Not if there is a ceremony, certificate, or permission by a church or state.
TL;DR: If you make these things happen, you might end up with a family. If you compartmentalize or leave certain parts out, it won’t work.
LikeLike
And yet, you’ve still provided zero observable, measurable, repeatable evidence that other men can independently verify that your “approach” actually leads to what you claim.
LikeLike
That’s actually not about my own approach, which is about the search phase before the decision to “test drive”. (And test driving means test driving the whole thing including headship structure and submission, not just the bedroom.)
It’s comparing the OT with the general population’s approach to starting a family and that’s not so far off actually.
It’s also good for describing certain failure modes: Many people go for Bang, but skip Relationship (one Flesh = relatives = related = Relationship). Another failure mode is going for Relationship, but skipping Leaving parents (leading to a faithfulness problem). And then there are some people trying to skip Bang… only to find out, that Knowing is necessary as well.
The end results are all the same: no Blessing (children). So try to check off the whole list if you want to succeed.
LikeLike
That’s a whole lot of writing just to evade the fact that you’ve provided zero observable, measurable, repeatable evidence that other men can independently verify that your “approach” has the results you claim.
LikeLike
The argument “sexual incompatibility” is just a cheap excuse to indulge yourself before marriage. I have yet to find a real life evidence that couple that was feeling sexual attraction to each other broke up after sex attempt due to “sexual icompatibility”. Dead bedroom happens overtime, not after first sex(assuming both parties are into each other and noone is forced).
LikeLiked by 1 person
riuko, I know first-hand examples of couples being pressured into marriage in evangelical contexts – what would have been a few weeks to few months of high school affairs in a secular context.
The latter of course with trying sex, which pretty quickly filters out a “LTR” that won’t fly altogether.
After all for women the bedroom test is a pretty powerful vetting tool. It may come back false-positive, but never false-negative: Someone who doesn’t induce tingles even once is not someone a woman wants to spend her life with.
Church magic then focuses on replacing this secular tool with religious rituals, coming back with inferior results creating worse matches. This is reflected in the 14 % and 19 % share of divorcées in the American Evangelical Protestant and Historically Black Protestant groups in the Religious Landscape Study by Pew Research. Evangelicals do worse than all other religions and even atheists.
tl;dr: Your likelihood of getting divorced is the highest by your wife attending an Evangelical church. If she does, get her out of there!
LikeLike
But you don’t have to sleep with someone to know if you are into them or not. Dating, coddling, kissing, etc., these are the tools to filter out platonic relationships. The example you provided is I assume a situation when women is lukewarm in the firstplace and hopes she will feel the sparks during sex at least.
LikeLike
riuoku,
A famous Evangelical wrote a book titled “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” before leaving church dropping the Christian identity altogether. For this reason, kissing is banned too in sex-negative churches and the first kiss is reserved for the altar ceremony. At least that approach is clean-cut, it spares you the “How far is too far?” discussions which only happen if there isn’t any real female desire in play. If there is, full consummation happens anyway, breaking all rules.
In other words: If a church woman allows you to “court” her the “correct” Evangelical way, she is likely not attracted to you and you might end up as the one in six divorced American Evangelical Protestants (instead of the average one in ten).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree that “first kiss at the altar” obsession is doing more harm than good, but there is a room between that and sex whenever you please so.
Basically what this it boils down to is that you shouldn’t marry somebody you don’t feel sexual desire for. After all, in NT it is the only reason Paul even says you should marry.
If woman (and/or man) doesn’t feel the sparks, but still wants to marry for reproduction / safety / etc., they should at least be honest with each other and basically collectively agree that this will be more or less dead bedroom marriage and don’t get wrong expectations.
Dead bedroom wouldn’t be a surprise at least.
LikeLike
That room is called the “friend zone”.
Though sex-negative churchians don’t care for that. They care more for turning the sex-positive, pro-family, pro-creation (sic!) stance of the OT into the opposite, seeking closed-network control over people.
In the OT a man having as much heirs as possible (in a pinch with side-wives, concubines or slaves) was seen as a man blessed by God, while Evangelicals do everything in their power to prevent long-term relationships. This is also the reason, why such structures run themselves into extinction.
That’s impossible. A woman resents and despises a man who is not of her flesh. As a consequence, she is factually not married to that man. (That’s BTW the difference between praxeologist reality and a certificate creating a legal fiction). You cannot negotiate attraction, therefore you cannot marry a woman not attracted to you — at least not in the biblical sense.
You can ride along in that “friend zone” for while, but such a “marriage” never lasts. RP basics.
LikeLike
If you can see lust through her eyes and the only reason you’re not banging her is through holding your true christian frame, then I would hardly call that “friend zone”.
LikeLike
riuoku Come on, lets be serious. You won’t sexually reject a woman and 99 % of men won’t either.
Sexual rejection is a thing limited to the 1 % of men having total abundance of female desire and they reject them for the sheer numbers, taking another offer.
Women don’t take sexual rejection lightly, that’s why those men end up with rape accusations all the time. And a woman won’t stick around after you killed her attraction this way.
OTOH if you’re stuck in no-escalation land, somewhere between hand-holding, kissing and banging, you’re stuck in the friend zone and she feels no sexual attraction towards you.
LikeLike
DBD,
It’s not just abundance. Self-control is required for a man to reject imminent offers to have sex, and there is a threshold of how much temptation a man can withstand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find it hard to comprehend what it is you are advocating:
Option 1 – Fornication / Live in relationship – Let a girl prove her worthiness as a wife to you by sleeping with you – no strings attached. If she does, that is proof that you will not have a dead bedroom later
Problems – What you are referring to is fornication. Forbidden by the Bible and so not an option for a Christian man. Also there is ample research that proves that a live in relationship has higher divorce rates. So this approach is both Biblically wrong and statistically proven to be wrong in leading to a stable marriage. The US has a 52 percent divorce rate. Number of those marriages where couples were both virgins is abysmally low. So a lot of sex is happening out of marriage and is NOT leading to long lasting marriages. Case in point – Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt lived together for 9 YEARS. Marriage did not last 2 years
Globally and historically – the cultures with the lowest divorce rate are also the ones with lowest fornication rate
Option 2 – Sex=Marriage. The certificate is immaterial. While I have my reservations with this view, your statement above implies this.
This WORKS only if the couple sleep with just ONE person their whole lives (as is the case for my husband and me – even though we did get that certificate before we even kissed – which is why I said I had reservations but do not dismiss this view ENTIRELY as I have lived it myself). Is your girlfriend the ONLY woman you have slept with? Are you the ONLY man she has slept with? You can argue for lack of certificate if that is the case. If not – she is one of MANY you have slept with. Which means your Sex=Marriage stance is not tenable.
Also if you belive above Option – she is your WIFE not your girlfriend and you are not vetting or trying her out or taking her for a test drive. You are MARRIED to her. And you cannot put her away
So again – I am confused about what exactly are you advocating – Fornication or Sex=Marriage. Your comments bely both stances
LikeLike
Problem: The term “fornication” is 16th century term invented by bible translators and it is nowhere in the “bible”. It’s derived from the Latin term “fornicātus”, which is referring to “fornix” meaning an arch-like roof structure, where prostitutes in ancient Rome offered their services. It shows up in the Vulgate, a 4th century Latin translation of the Greek bible, which featured a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible (Septuagint).
The “bible” I’m referring to is a collection of Jewish and Christian texts written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic from ca. 800 BCE to ca. 200 CE. Those numbers (representing state-of-the art scientific research) already disagree with planet-created-in-six-days churchians. The latter also disagree with research on the authors of these texts: Not every epistle which says so has been written by Paul.
Thanks to their proximity to Hollywood “New Calvinists” with the help of American TV and radio stations in so-called “Medieval-English-translation-of-Latin-translation-of-Greek-translation-of-Hebrew-bible-only churches” have been very successful in spreading their doctrine of “A translation of a translation of a translation is God’s literal word” in America. They have also been very successful in invading and destroying male-only spaces on the Internet. It doesn’t mean they are right or that I care.
I give as much as a f_ck about these fundamentalists as I give about Qur@n thumpers. Thanks to modern-age secular tools for bible study (printed and paid for), I’m neither dependent on interpretation by the ancient or modern Roman Catholic Church and their “Textus Receptus”, nor on 21st century Hollywood pastors with YouTube channels.
The only thing I care for is what says the original source about inter-sexual relationships (referring to a 800 BCE Hebrew text, not to a 1611 English translation of a translation), and what can I learn from it. The opinion of American influencers is completely irrelevant to that.
Pew Research looked into this with their Religious Landscape Study, where American Evangelical Protestants had the highest divorce rates beating all other religions and even Atheists. They are the majority who make the 52% average divorce rate of the US. Those numbers are a result of the marriage doctrine of these churches, which their business model is based on.
LikeLike
DBD, et al.,
Stating one’s assumptions and supplying context is very important to discussions like these. From what I can tell, DBD is assuming a Sex = Marriage paradigm, as found in the OT, and applying it to the context of modern dating. If not, then please inform us how your views are different from this. It would help immensely if you stated these assumptions and context at the beginning of your comments on this topic.
LikeLike
I’m trying to get hold of original sources and to test-drive their wisdom in practice. The oldest texts in the bible are probably Psalms, Proverbs and Songs predating everything else (as I’m not bound by doctrine to assumption of a certain authorship I can depend on independent research instead), but in this case I was referring to Genesis.
Going back to my original post of this thread, in the source “marriage” (“cleave”, “cling”, “flesh”) is interleaved with intercourse (“know” = procreate), but that “marriage” is not set up by humans themselves according to the source.
Reviewing praxeology what that leads to humans clinging together is indeed something humans have no power over themselves. It cannot be negotiated, as we all know.
That’s why a whole bunch of marriage regulations have been put into place 2.500 years after these texts have been written, so that humans could in fact regulate and negotiate who has sex with whom. And that’s what Evangelicals like to do the most.
LikeLike
The future belongs to those who show up. Always has, always will.
LikeLike
Listening to the last woman in the video, condoms are optional (or even discouraged).
LikeLike
In general, I seriously doubt a woman can be so bold and come out and tell the man to his face that she doesn’t feel the sparks and then expect him to marry her. Yes, there can be exceptions, but such exceptions are extremely rare.
The man finds out whether the woman has sparks by her behavior. And by behavior I mean how she responds when discussing sex. Does she (a) recoil, act surprised, annoyed or embarrassed whenever sex is brought up for discussion and do her responses seem clinical or try to make you feel uncomfortable or does she (b) respond enthusiastically, is interested in your thoughts, wants to learn more and is looking forward to the day you will be her teacher? (a) = No sparks, (b)= Sparks
All this occurs before any clothes come off.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brometheus I remember saying that Emotional intimacy is what women need to ensure desire.
LikeLike
Pingback: Photo Comparison: Lively Affect vs. S1ut Eye vs. 1,000 C0ck Stare | Σ Frame
Pingback: Identifying Attachment Style is the New Game | Σ Frame
Pingback: Summary of IOIs and Vetting | Σ Frame
Pingback: 2023 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame