Summary of IOIs and Vetting

Posted on 2023-10-30 by Jack

Vetting still has relevancy, but for a different purpose.

Readership: All
Theme: IOIs and Vetting
Length: 2,300 words
Reading Time: 12 minutes

List of Posts

Here’s a list of all the posts in this 2 month long theme. This theme has attracted 6 responses from Christianity and Masculinity and his posts are included in the list. Thanks goes to the anonymous contributor and to Oscar for writing 3 and 2 posts for this theme, respectively.

  1. Σ Frame: The History and Current Value of Vetting (2023/9/2)
  2. Σ Frame: Vetting Flags (2023/9/4)
  3. Christianity and Masculinity: Misconception about college educated women and divorce Part 1 (2023/9/5)
  4. Σ Frame: Natural Selection Dynamics leading to the LTR / MMP Breakdown (2023/9/6)
  5. Σ Frame: A Cross-Sectional Study of Situational IOIs (2023/9/8)
  6. Σ Frame: Are College educated women less likely to divorce? (2023/9/9)
  7. Christianity and Masculinity: Misconception about college educated women and divorce Part 2 (2023/9/9)
  8. Σ Frame: More Education, Less Marriage (2023/9/10)
  9. Σ Frame: Is Education now more desirable than Beauty and Youth? (2023/9/11)
  10. Christianity and Masculinity: Churchianity’s Red Pill Equivalents (2023/9/11)
  11. Σ Frame (Anonymous): A Christian Woman’s View of Submission (2023/9/13)
  12. Σ Frame: Are Working Women Less Likely to Divorce? (2023/9/14)
  13. Σ Frame: Slut Eye (2023/9/15)
  14. Σ Frame: The Green Line Test (2023/9/17)
  15. Σ Frame: Boss + Female Employee = Steamy Hot Chemistry (2023/9/18)
  16. Σ Frame: Revisiting Val Bure’s Dominant Manhandling Incident (2023/9/19)
  17. Σ Frame: 11 Tips to Flush Out Flakes and Ghosts (2023/9/20)
  18. Σ Frame (Oscar): You Can’t Vet This (2023/9/21)
  19. Σ Frame: Who’s your sponsor? (2023/9/22)
  20. Σ Frame: Ideal Women Don’t Exist (2023/9/23)
  21. Σ Frame: Some women just can’t live without a man (2023/9/25)
  22. Σ Frame: The Applied ¡ScIeNcE! of IOIs cannot be independently confirmed (2023/9/26)
  23. Σ Frame: Rizz (2023/9/28)
  24. Σ Frame: The Attraction of Glorification (2023/9/30)
  25. Christianity and Masculinity: Attraction and glorification (2023/10/1)
  26. Σ Frame: Is Sex a Necessary part of Vetting? (2023/10/2)
  27. Σ Frame: The Ever Present Fear of a Dead Bedroom (2023/10/3)
  28. Σ Frame: The 1,000 C0ck Stare (2023/10/5)
  29. Σ Frame: Photo Comparison: Lively Affect vs. S1ut Eye vs. 1,000 C0ck Stare (2023/10/7)
  30. Σ Frame: Good Relationships are Chosen and Developed, NOT “Found” by Chance (2023/10/9)
  31. Σ Frame: Attachment Styles (2023/10/11)
  32. Σ Frame: Identifying Attachment Style is the New Game (2023/10/12)
  33. Σ Frame: Attachment Style and Game (2023/10/13)
  34. Christianity and Masculinity: Dating and Relationships: Assessing a woman’s ability to be Helpers or Harmers (2023/10/14)
  35. Σ Frame: Self-Selection and Adverse Selection (2023/10/16)
  36. Σ Frame: 2 Timothy 3:1-5 on Vetting (2023/10/17)
  37. Σ Frame: Natural Affection (2023/10/18)
  38. Σ Frame: Vetting Social Systems (2023/10/19)
  39. Σ Frame: Why most Woke People are Women (2023/10/20)
  40. Σ Frame: Does the Purple Structure Exist? (2023/10/21)
  41. Christianity and Masculinity: Delusions of blue and purple and removing the haze (2023/10/22)
  42. Σ Frame (Anonymous): Brides are Subject to Vetting (2023/10/23)
  43. Σ Frame (Anonymous): The Effect of Theology on Relationships (2023/10/25)
  44. Σ Frame: If it talks like a Christian and walks like a Feminist, then what is it? (2023/10/28)
  45. Σ Frame (Oscar): The Importance of Family and Community (2023/10/29)

Also, Deep Strength has written volumes on vetting a potential wife and specific checkpoints to be aware of.  Some noteworthy posts of his on this topic are listed under Related below.  Readers are encouraged to go check out his place if you want more.

Secular Vetting

When I set forth the theme of IOIs and Vetting, it was a foregone conclusion that vetting in a debased market has little benefit, and that the Western market is debased.  Dead Bedroom Dating concisely summed up why secular vetting is tenuous.

“…the whole discussion about selection and vetting is about male decision power that simply isn’t there.  It’s about pretending that something in the West happens on men’s terms, while everything is happening on women’s terms.”

In this context (vetting in a debased market), the quality of the relationship is all that really matters, because little more can be expected.

Vetting via Test Drive

Thedeti has stated that a man should expect / demand sex after 2 dates, and then sort through things afterwards.  Of course, this is a “natural” mating tactic, not a Christian one.  This only has benefits in a debased market, i.e. if the woman is NOT a Christian.  Furthermore, a man should only pursue this option if he too is NOT a Christian.  The problem with this is that it shoos away chaste Christian women. If a man chooses to pursue this avenue, then at best, he can expect to have a rocky relationship with a worldly woman.

Unfortunately, the mating markets in many churches are just as debased as the culture.  YMMV.

The larger and more urgent importance of vetting within a debased / secular market is in figuring out which women are potential #MәT00 w!tches in waiting.  If a man takes deti’s 2 date tick, then he’d better be d@mn sure she’s NOT one of those.

Vetting via Cohabitation

Dead Bedroom Dating has endorsed cohabitation as the only sure way to know what it is like to live with a woman.  This would also be a “natural” / non-Christian approach, simply because it’s unrealistic to expect that a man and a woman who are strongly attracted to each other can shack up (even with intentions to marry if all goes well), but also NOT have intimate relations. I suppose it would be possible if they don’t have any libido or they aren’t strongly attracted to each other, but this is more or less a necessary precursor for marriage. Moreover, what DBD describes sounds very much like Running the Gauntlet combined with Playing House, and with a mutually agreed expectation of marriage between two people who are too doubtful and hesitant to make that step.  We have already found some problems with this approach.

For those men who perceive present day legal marriage as a trap, or who live in states unconducive to Christian marriage, and deduce that this is the best approach for them, I would recommend that you treat this as being a common-law marriage (i.e. marriage as it was before 1563), because you have to be “all in” for it to work out well.  That also means you have to involve your families and establish the terms and conditions of the marriage before moving in together. It also means “breaking up if things don’t work out” is NOT an option remaining on the table. If the latter is even mentioned, then the relationship is probably tenuous at best.

But this isn’t really what DBD is saying.

Christian Vetting

Family and Community

This theme has shown that the interested involvement of family and community are critical elements of successful pairings.  Vetting really only has value when the mating market is within a Christian or other small community of decent people in which daughters have been taught Christian virtues.  In this context, the primary purpose of vetting is to determine which chicks truly adhere to those values, and which ones are just faking it.

Finding such a community with a viable mating market may pose quite a challenge.  It is an additional challenge for men to figure out which women are potential relationship material.

In the Application of Vetting

It has been established that a girl’s relationship with her family, especially how she interacts with her father (and brothers, if any) behind closed doors that is indicative of whether she’ll respect her husband.  However, Families can and do put on a “front” for public consumption whether it’s in church or at the shopping mall.  Thus, a young man can invest a lot of time in observing and getting to know her family, and yet, he will never get a clue on what it would be like to be married to her.  He’ll only know how well her family can put up a show for him, even after spending much time with her and her family.  Perhaps the best way to get a true glimpse of what it’s like to live with her is to talk it over privately with her father, and ask him what it’s like to deal with her. Is she compliant and sweet, or is she headstrong and self-centered?  If he avoids the question, him-haws, spouts feminist boilerplate, or gives anything less than a satisfactory answer, then it remains in doubt. While he’s at it, he should also ask her father how he gets along with her mother, knowing that she’ll probably mimic her mother’s behaviors.

On Spiritual Disposition

Men should take notice of women displaying compassion / kindness / natural affection, especially with her family or peer group, as this is an indicator of emotional and spiritual vitality.

On Education

A woman with a higher education offers a mixed bag of pros and cons that requires more diligence in vetting.  Educated women are more likely to stay married (according to the statistics), and yet, they are also more likely to divorce (because of her increased opportunities for independence).

Key Determining Factors

Here are the key determining factors for Christian men vetting a potential wife.

  1. Whether it is a relationship having the Headship, Tingly Respect, or Peaceful Unity structure.
  2. Whether she is trustworthy, such that the relationship is characterized by Heart Trust.
  3. Whether she has developed sufficient agency / spiritual maturity to make responsible decisions.
  4. Whether you share meaningful faith / goals / purposes / values / etc.
  5. Whether she is comfortable in seeing herself as a companion and helper to a man and makes diligent efforts to fulfill this role.  [Examples]
  6. Whether she has realistic / reasonable expectations for marriage.
  7. Whether she has honesty and integrity, i.e. her words correspond with her moral actions.
  8. Whether she exercises personal boundaries.  [Example]
  9. Whether she has a good relationship with her father.
  10. Whether she is teachable.
  11. Whether she is modest (1 Timothy 2:9-15; Ecclesiasticus 26).
  12. Whether she is submissive, especially to her father’s authority.
  13. Whether she is respectful to men (i.e. her father and other male family members), and to authority in general.
  14. Whether she displays natural IOIs.  [Examples.]
  15. Whether she is naturally affectionate, e.g. compassionate, good willed, kindhearted, etc.
  16. Whether she is sexually pure, i.e. a virgin.
  17. Gestalt / God’s blessing on the relationship.

Some but not all of these qualities are encapsulated in FAST — Faithful, Available, Saved / Submissive, Teachable.

Readers are encouraged to add anything I have missed.

Philosophical Fruits

A new maxim.

Σ Frame Maxim 35 (Jack): Women want and need to be viscerally owned by a man. It makes them feel loved and secure.
Corollary A to Maxim 35 (Proverbs 5:18-19): Women breathe better with a little thoracic constriction, e.g. firm hugs, arm over her shoulder or around her neck, squeezing boobage, etc.
Corollary B to Maxim 35: Women LOVE it when you grab their tits in public. They’ll breathe sharply, their eyes get big, and their jaw drops open, and then they’re wanting you to do it more often, sometimes grabbing your hand and placing it on their breasts.  Why?  It’s humbling.
Caution: Maxim 35 is only to be practiced with women within your domain of sexual authority, i.e. serious girlfriends and wives. Otherwise is sexual h@r@ssment.

A new Axiom.

Σ Frame Axiom 34 (Oscar, RPA, Feeriker, Jack): Many of the uglier aspects of Feminism, hypergamy, and The Curse of Eve are expressions of female covetousness. For example…

  • Lust is the sexual form of covetousness.
  • Adultery often grows out of covetousness.
  • Mate poaching is often motivated by covetousness.
  • The RP concept of “pre-selection” is founded on covetousness.
  • Envy, and the criticism and drama it creates, is pure, naked, ugly covetousness.
  • Gaslighting and Psychological projection arise from a mindset of covetousness.
  • Feminism is wholly based on the sinful pride and covetousness of broken and/or low SMV women.
  • Womens’ / wives’ grasping for power and control over men / husbands (i.e The Curse of Eve) is an expression of women coveting mens’ autonomy, authority, and power.
  • Many implications of the Feminine Imperative (AKA, The Gynocracy, The Matrix) are presumably vain attempts to dispose of female covetousness by satisfying urgent desires.

Some additions to Σ Frame Axiom 7.

Σ Frame Axiom 7 (Jack): The natural interaction defines the relationship structure according to which model it fits best, not what we think it is or hope for it to be.
Corollary to Axiom 7 (Rollo): Rollo’s axiom, “The medium is the message” is a practical praxeology that correlates with Σ Frame Axiom 7; e.g. if a woman flakes or ghosts you — that is the message. If the conversation falls off before the first date happened — that is the message.

I toyed around with Attachment Theory and Personality types hoping to find some insights about vetting.  I didn’t get much out of this about vetting, but I did learn some things about how attraction works and why some relationships just click. I put these gleanings into the “ideas for future posts” bin.

Closing Statements

I sense that the tables are beginning to turn in men’s favor, and that our coverage of vetting will take on a new significance in the coming years.

In conclusion to this month’s theme of IOIs and Vetting, we find that our earlier conclusions stand firm, that is, “Find a woman who is really crazy about you, who is consistently displaying IOI’s”, and interpreting IOIs and non-verbal communication are valuable in both secular and Christian markets.  There have also been some fantastic observations and conclusions that came out of this month’s topic of IOIs and Vetting, giving us a few extra takeaways.

As a final word on all of this Vetting stuff, reducing risk to a minimum is no guarantee.  If we rely primarily on comparative risk assessments, probabilities, and statistics for vetting, we’re bound to miss God’s best for our lives.  To have a godly successful marriage, faith and prayer should be central to the decision making progress.  The value of the statistics is that it reveals exactly how much grace we hope to avail of.

Proficiency Exam

There are three women in Figure 1.  Two are s1uts.  One is a super-s1ut.  Can you pick them out?

Figure 1.

Answers to Exam Questions

Figure 1:  Left to right.  Non-s1ut.  Super s1ut with mild s1ut eye and 1,000 C stare.  Typical s1ut.

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, Boundaries, Building Wealth, Calculated Risk Taking, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Collective Strength, Conserving Power, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Faith Community, Fundamental Frame, Holding Frame, Indicators of Interest, Inner Game, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Male Power, Moral Agency, Paradigms of Religion, Personal Domain, Power, Purpose, Relationships, Sex, Sphere of Influence, Theme Summaries, Trust, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Summary of IOIs and Vetting

  1. Dead Bedroom Dating says:
    2023-10-31 at 1:57 am

    It also means “breaking up if things don’t work out” is NOT an option remaining on the table. If the latter is even mentioned, then the relationship is probably tenuous at best.

    Indeed. Almost no couple entering a serious LTR does this with the intention of breaking up if things don’t work out. The common arrangement is still “indefinitely”. However going in with the exception of a certain Hallmark Christmas movie scenario to happen won’t work – you have to be more flexible at what the result might look like. Yet a stable relationship with proper pair bonding won’t break – exactly for the latter reason. A relationship without it is not worth keeping.

    Trial running cohabitation happens while not actually cohabiting: two places of living, primary (his place paid by him, 70-90 % residence) and secondary (her place paid by her, 10-30 % residence). It improves pair bonding, while it exposes all real-world problems – including libido going out of the window due to professional life and chores – very soon without anyone feeling trapped and allows the couple to work on those.

    Using contraception there are no children involved early on, so when actual cohabitation and procreation happens (depending on the results one or both might not be in the cards), there are only those problems left to tackle by a properly bonded couple. The whole process is data-driven like a real business, you isolate issues as early as possible and make adjustments before real trouble comes up or money runs out. And as with any start-up, there is simply no success guarantee, you have to risk something.

    Of course the above doesn’t look anything like the church recipe book, but I already deemed that not working – like most solutions based on idealism. For example if you arbitrarily remove physical intimacy from the method, you will create huge problems exactly in that department later on. That also impairs pair-bonding on the female side. That data I gathered from watching and data-mining real-life marriages and divorces: All divorcees I know in person are from religious marriages.

    Like

    Reply
    • Deep Strength says:
      2023-10-31 at 10:16 pm

      Using contraception there are no children involved early on, so when actual cohabitation and procreation happens (depending on the results one or both might not be in the cards), there are only those problems left to tackle by a properly bonded couple. The whole process is data-driven like a real business, you isolate issues as early as possible and make adjustments before real trouble comes up or money runs out. And as with any start-up, there is simply no success guarantee, you have to risk something.

      Of course the above doesn’t look anything like the church recipe book, but I already deemed that not working – like most solutions based on idealism. For example if you arbitrarily remove physical intimacy from the method, you will create huge problems exactly in that department later on. That also impairs pair-bonding on the female side. That data I gathered from watching and data-mining real-life marriages and divorces: All divorcees I know in person are from religious marriages.

      Lol.

      Imagine claiming that the Biblical approach is ineffective and then advocating for cohabitation, pre-marital sex, contraception, and many other things that are statistically WORSE than the Biblical approach.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Oscar says:
        2023-11-01 at 9:40 am

        He bases his “approach” on “reality”, donchakno? That’s why he never provides any observable, measurable, repeatable, objective evidence that supports his “approach” that other men can independently verify. Because – like his “reality” – it doesn’t exist.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dead Bedroom Dating says:
        2023-11-01 at 3:32 pm

        “…many other things that are statistically WORSE than the Biblical approach”

        It’s statistically worse to not be a wealthy white American living in a suburban multi-bedroom home located in the US, secular or not.

        This weekend I heard a sermon by a fundamentalist quoting American statistics, where he also confused social milieus (both containing Christians) with non-Christians vs. Christians.

        We don’t live in America BTW, it’s just that Evangelicals get all their wisdom from there. He can’t use local statistics, as practicing Evangelical Christians are a 1% minority and Muslims have more stable marriages than them (secular people no longer marry).

        While the missionary demonstrated the superiority of the cultural milieu of his churchian role models, he admitted, that he spent the first six months newly wed on the floor of his apartment, because he couldn’t fit a double bed for him and his wife.

        The pastor, who married in his late 30s, slept in a single bed until the day of marriage, because otherwise it would be sin. Changing living arrangements while engaged was also considered sin in his Pentecostal sect, so he ended up with honeymoon on a floor mattress. The sermon ended with copycat Joshua Harris advice (who recanted his error and left fundamentalist Evangelicalism).

        Guess what: I choose adult logistics fitting my environment over “biblical approach” any day. If I know that I’m in a housing shortage, I look at least a year in advance for a shared home and move in once I get hold of it. Redpill-informed common sense.

        Like

  2. theasdgamer says:
    2023-10-31 at 7:47 am

    “The problem with this is that it shoos away chaste Christian women.”

    Yeah, both of them.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  3. rontomlinson2 says:
    2023-10-31 at 8:49 am

    Bravo and the final picture test is great. I wouldn’t have known about the eyes if it hadn’t been for SF.

    All I would have had to go on previously was the horizontal stripes, being a pro-family sign in women. But hush don’t tell them lest they exchange leopard print for horizontal stripes in accordance with Goodhart’s Law.

    Like

    Reply
  4. ramman3000 says:
    2023-11-04 at 1:03 am

    “When I set forth the theme of IOIs and Vetting, it was a foregone conclusion that vetting in a debased market has little benefit, and that the Western market is debased. Dead Bedroom Dating concisely summed up why secular vetting is tenuous.”

    I don’t think it is true that vetting fails because males lack power, per se, nor even that the market is debased (though it obviously is).

    Recently a read a comment where someone noted that you can only marry what the market allows. If you have a 100 IQ and marry a woman with a 130 IQ, the market will arbitrage this to death — she’ll ride the carousel and dump you for a better, higher IQ model. It doesn’t matter how much power you have or the state of the market.

    The antithesis to “getting the lucky unicorn” is that if you marry too well, the market will correct it for you (i.e. you’ll get divorced or cheated upon). Jason always said that unless you are born with it, no amount of vetting or self-improvement can help, and it’s a good rule-of-thumb.

    If you try to cheat the market and get a good deal, due to the eventual market correction, you’ll only get burned harder by the greater arbitrage opportunity. This is why many men will often get worse results by following self-improvement or vetting advice. Any advice that attempts to move a person out of their lane is not without its own risk.

    Yet, contrary to Jason’s claim, it is possible for anyone to marry well, as can be see when two “1 out of 10″s marry for life and have 46 grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

    I can’t prove this, but I hypothesize that one reason certain secular, leftist marriages are successful is because they don’t try to do too much with them: they’re certainly not having as much sex, but they’re also not trying to force it.

    Market vetting has benefit, but not always for the reasons most people want to use it for. They want to use it to move up and get an objectively “better” woman, but it should instead be used to pick a better woman out of the garbage pool that they are already in. Or put more practically and concretely: improve yourself, don’t try to improve her.

    That said, were I dating, I would probably ignore this advice, so proceed accordingly.

    “A woman with a higher education offers a mixed bag of pros and cons that requires more diligence in vetting. Educated women are more likely to stay married (according to the statistics), and yet, they are also more likely to divorce (because of her increased opportunities for independence).”

    See my comment here.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment