Dark Brightness Returns In Times Like These

Announcing the return of Dark Brightness on two weblog platforms.

Readership: All

Dark Brightness has been experiencing technical and political difficulties with his blog for at least the past six months. I wrote about this situation in an earlier post, Notice: Dark Brightness Relocates (June 7, 2018), and I included a prayer at the end.

“If you’re the type who prays, you might consider asking for DB’s blog and livelihood to be preserved, and even that it might grow as a result of this persecution.”

Now, we are seeing this prayer being answered! Dark Brightness has a new blog up now. The address is:


His new site is called “In Times Like These“, and the title is eponymous of the Foo Fighters song of the same name.

In parallel, he is changing webhosts and trying to resurrect the old site. To do so, he needs to transfer his previous blog to a different platform, and that will take another week or so. He is using the Ghost program, and he needs to modify everything. He requests anyone who knows how to use Ghost to contact him or post a link to a tutorial.

Even after DB repairs his old site, he intends to maintain two blogs. I am not sure if these will include two different subject materials, or aim for two different audiences. I am guessing that his designated purposes for each one will evolve soon.

Back in June, Dark Brightness moved from an older set up. You may need to check your subscription linkage to make sure you’re up to date.

Before June, 2018: http://pukeko.net.nz

Coming soon: https://blog.pukeko.net.nz



Posted in Answered Prayers, Communications, Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

A Tribute to Matthew, AKA “Zippy Catholic”

A collection of various testimonies concerning the influence of Zippy Catholic.

Readership: All

Zippy Catholic was the first Christian Manosphere blog that I discovered. So I must thank him for introducing me to the RP sphere. His work stands out in my mind as being perhaps the first gut-honest blog that really spoke to my heart as a Christian man facing the evils of a reviled western society.

It’s been exactly one month since our beloved brother in Christ, Matthew (the author of Zippy Catholic), passed from this world. During this time, there have been sweeping changes in this corner of the web. Scott is back. Roosh shuttered Return of Kings. Jason closed down Air Strip One. Dark Brightness had a Trojan (or something similar) that forced him to restart his blog on another server. Lexet decided to expand further into RP topics. There’s a whole lot of shaking going on.

My tribute to Matthew cannot properly be in the form of a eulogy (since I did not know him personally), but instead, I have taken the time to compile a list of all the other articles that have been posted in his memory over the past month.* I hope my readers would savor reviewing these articles as much as I have, as we grieve his loss together.

Please continue to keep his family in your prayers.

Rest in peace, brother!

Zippy’s last post: At least the rationalization hamsters are fecund (September 12, 2018)

  1. Patheos (feat. Mark Shea): Some Bad News (September 20, 2018)
  2. The Price of Non-Conformance: Waylaid and Off-Kilter (September 20, 2018)
  3. Boxer: Zippy Catholic, R.I.P. (September 21, 2018)
  4. Cane Caldo: May Light Eternal Shine Upon Him (September 21, 2018)
  5. Dalrock: RIP Zippy (September 21, 2018)
  6. Elspeth: A great mind has transitioned… (September 21, 2018)
  7. Moose Norseman: On the dormition of Zippy (September 21, 2018)
  8. Mother of God: Tragic death of Zippy-Catholic, RIP (September 22, 2018)
  9. Reddit/Catholicism: Pray for the soul of Zippy Catholic. RIP. (October 22, 2018)
  10. The Night Wind: Blogger ‘Zippy Catholic’ Passes Away (September 22, 2018)
  11. Insanity Bytes: Saying good bye to Zippy Catholic… (September 23, 2018)
  12. What Do You Do For An Encore?: Sunday Music – Jimi Hendrix – Gary Moore – RIP Zippy (September 23, 2018)
  13. The Orthosphere: An Eu Logion of Zippy Catholic (September 25, 2018)
  14. Social Matter (feat. Nick B. Steves and the Twir Staff): This Week In Reaction (2018/09/23) (September 26, 2018)
  15. Crisis Magazine (feat. Austin Ruse): Farewell, Zippy Catholic. Godspeed. (September 28, 2018)
  16. What’s Wrong With the World: Zippy Catholic: Requiescat in pace (September 28, 2018)
  17. Sydney Trads: “Zippy Catholic” — Requiescat in Pace (October 1, 2018)
  18. Apologia (feat. William Luse): Zippy Catholic: an inadequate Farewell (October 5, 2018)
  19. Donal Graeme: A Farewell and a Remembrance (October 6, 2018)
  20. The Social Pathologist: A Little Eulogy for Zippy (October 18, 2018)

* I am sorry if I have missed anyone’s post. If you find an omission, please leave the link in a comment, and I will add it to the list.

Posted in Communications, Influence, Zeitgeist Reports | Leave a comment

The Blue Pill, Feminism, and Sin

Feminism, and most of the Blue Pill, is SIN!

Readership: All

Recently, Rollo wrote about Blue Pill Trauma (August 1, 2018) – the experience of being so hopelessly lost in Blue Pill conditioning, the indoctrinated self-incrimination, and the simultaneous (and contradictory) sense of self-righteousness – that it drives their nature to vehemently fight tooth and nail against the Red Pill truth.

Why so serious? Because… Sin ye, all ye sin! Thou shalt not dismantle mine precious sin!

White hair blue pill

I gave the following speech about “Sin” to a mostly Christian audience on Thursday, September 13, 2018. Since I wrote this speech, I pondered the subject further, and couldn’t help but see how Feminism, and much of the Blue Pill mentality, is nothing more than a bastion of sin.

Following further introspection, I made some connections to Feminism and modern culture, and added these points to the speech. In the following essay, my speech is displayed in blue font, and my RP comments follow in black font.

Welcome to the show!

Tonight, I will pose the question: What is sin?

The idea of Sin is one of those concepts that is shrouded in a lot of confusion. Christians hear this word often, but they don’t really know what it means. They think they do, but not really.

So what is sin?

Sin is when you don’t want to accept reality. You’re always trying to change your reality into what you want it to be. You always have the opinion that you’re right, and other people are wrong, and you might even have the habit of saying so. Your deceitful heart resorts to various defense mechanisms in an effort to protect your thoughts and ego from the vicious assaults of the truth. You’re relying on a wide assortment of tricks, lies, deception, slandering, stealing, killing, and so on, all done in an effort to change the world according to your comfort and liking – that’s sin.

Sin can be interpreted from a holy, or unholy view, depending on whether one is really pursuing God’s truth or not. That is to say, from a holy perspective, anyone who indulges in solipsistic, self-centered sin is a sinner, while from the sinners perspective, anyone who upsets their own fantasy world is a “sinner”. Here, defense mechanisms abound, exacerbating the confusion. And so, a war erupts between different factions, based on their variations of what they consider to be “truth”.

“And almost all things be cleansed in blood by the law; and without shedding of blood remission of sins is not made.” ~ Hebrews 9:22 (WYC)

Today, we see the “shedding of blood for the remission of sin” in the form of terrorist bombings, suicides, assassinations, politically motivated violence (e.g. Antifa), martyrdom of Christians around the world, and especially the sacrifice of abortion. All these things are committed in an effort to defend and advance the perpetrators sinful world view, and reduce the subjective abrasiveness of reality. At the same time, it increases the corruption of offenses that cause the faithful to stumble.

One prominent example of this dynamic of sin is the “planning” aspect of Planned Parenthood. Young wimminz want to ride the carousel, and they don’t want to marry and have children (“yet”, so they say), so they sacrifice their sexual purity, their honor, their unborn children, and with them, their opportunities to start a happy family, all in order to control their own lives, and fulfill their own will about how they think their life should turn out.

Of course, it never turns out exactly as they imagine, and that is the deception of Satan. The strategy of Satan (their god) is to forbid that they should ever offer their bodies to inspire and motivate a husband or their reproductive ability to produce Godly children. For the family to be destroyed, such noble purposes must be calumniated, as they currently are.

[Eds. note: So far, my Red Pilled readers may have picked up on the point of this essay – that the lies of Feminism, the Blue Pill, and much of the Purple Pill, the convalescent legal system of the west, and the convergence of the Church, are the steel reinforcement for the expression of the sinful nature.]

Most people experience their sinful nature as frustration, or “quiet desperation”. They want something, but they can’t get it.

This completely sums up the life experience of both the typical Blue Pilled incel, and the post-wall Feminist. The Blue Pill conditioning creates a shroud that surrounds and blinds the male since early in life, and he cannot see past it. This experience of guilt and frustration catches up with “Liberated” women about a decade later, when they become a widowed victim of their own Hypergamous Addiction to Choosing.

If a person were sufficiently determined and diabolical, he/she could probably find a way to fulfill his/her desire, but at some point along the way, guilt kicks in, and he/she stops in his/her tracks thinking, “This is wrong. I can’t do this.” Various people have different thresholds for how much guilt they can endure. It seems that the wide variance in the tolerance for hell is a quality that sets people apart from each other.

The tolerance for hell and self-deception is also something that can be conditioned into a person from education and cultural norms, as well as a converged, Churched-up, Feminist doctrine. This is basically what has happened over the last 40+ years since the sexual revolution. People have developed a taste for indulging their personal sin-fetishes, and a tolerance for guilt.

Christianity is basically a guilt based ethical system. If a person feels guilty after doing wrong things in his efforts to fulfill his particular preferences, then that is God’s way of saying, “This is not who you are. You’re better than this.” So through our guilt, God calls us to change our life strategy. In Christian parlance, this is called “repentance”.

But if a person is doing everything according to their feral liking, and they are successful at that, and they don’t feel guilty about any of their offensive methods or techniques of forcing their will onto others to get the job done, then they are really going to hell.

The rationalization hamster, as well as various defense mechanisms, have a way of accounting for any feelings of guilt.


“…hate speech is acceptable provided it’s aimed at what feminists decide is the ‘right’ demographic.”

The ‘right’ speech and demographic is whatever aligns with, and supports, their self-centered sinful predilections.

Although everyone has this inclination, God condemns it as evil. It is evil because you are basically requiring other people, and perhaps even God Himself, and all of creation to submit to your will. You set yourself up as the ruler of reality, and as the judge of all that transpires. This is essentially a rebellion against God’s will.

Feminists and SJW’s have a regular pattern of resorting to violence, rage, and dishonesty, all efforts to force others to conform to their narrative of truth.

Even if you don’t actually do anything to cause others to follow your will, you still have the desire for them to do so. Your nature is no different. Either you don’t have the ability or opportunity to make things your way, or else you are just wasting a lot of energy to act contrary to your nature, which is basically lying, because you are not being your true self.

A lot of Christians fall into this trap of denial, thinking that they are being “righteous”, simply because they do not act out the feral inclinations of the flesh.

When we face the truth, the first thing we perceive is that nothing is the way that we want it to be. That introduces the elements of suffering – we have to live in a situation where nothing is as we wish. We have to be patient. We have to forgive people. We have to accept other people’s shortcomings. Yet, we still need to do something to contribute. But what we contribute is not what makes us valuable and worthy in God’s eyes.

A lot of people think that our “work” is what makes us good. They think, “if we do good things we will go to heaven, and if we do bad things we will go to hell”. But that is only part of the story, and certainly not the main point. To be declared righteous in God’s eyes, you have to get to the root of the problem. You have to face the fact that you are sinful. You have to face the fact that you want to change everything to be as you want it to be. Then, you need to depend on God to make things right by faith.

SJW’s always talk about being offended, but they are the ones who are primarily creating offense through their alternative reality. Their “offensiveness” only serves to draw others into sin. For example, angry Feminists draw men into sin when they gain weight, hatchet chop their hair, and dye their hair strange colors.

elisophie drinking male tears

A normal man’s reaction will be, “No, I don’t want women to be fat, or have short, blue hair! I cannot accept this reality! I must do something – anything – to change this reality!”

Now enter the ‘perfect’ sex dolls… Oh luscious silicone aphrodite! Fulfillest thou mine sin!

But then Feminists are angry that men have access to sex dolls, and bring further judgment upon them. Sin compounds sin.

The problem is not that everything is wrong and that you cannot change it without doing something bad. No, the problem is that you cannot accept the fact that everything is wrong, and you’re doing (or want to do) all kinds of wrong things in an effort to make it according to what you think is right, according to your self-centered opinion, which is not actually right.

So when we come to Jesus, we just say,

“God, I don’t like anything the way it is, I want to change everything according to my liking… and this is the problem. Not that I can’t change everything to my liking, but the fact that I can’t swallow my pride and accept the truth of being helpless and in a state of need – that’s the real problem. Please show me Your will.”

Feminists have been trying to bend the social structure to their liking all along. But because of their rebellion, the western, Christian, white male is facing this state of sin more and more. Unfortunately (I suppose), Christianity, whiteness, and being male will never qualify as “intersectional disadvantages” under the current regime. But that, you see, would be buying into their argument.

So when we begin to accept the truth, then we have to suffer because things are not the way we want. Actually, we have been suffering all along, but this is the moment when we stop resisting it and denying it, and begin to accept our suffering as a path to a new life.

Those men who resist prostitution, or the trappings of the sex doll, will either go MGTOW, or will be forced to search for a wife-worthy woman elsewhere, maybe even abroad. Such men are destined to sacrifice and suffer, but they’ll also find a new and better life.

God has a purpose for us in this suffering, and that is to build character in us. Character gives us the vision to see beyond our selfish preferences. It gives us the ability to say,

“I’m not going to do things the wrong way. I’m not going to do things the way I want. I’m going to do things the right way, God’s way, even if it doesn’t lead to the outcome I want. I will do what is right, even if it hurts me.”

And when you begin to think this way, then that frees you from the bondage to sin, which is basically just the habit of serving your self-centeredness (and Satan), and it puts you in alliance with God. You stop resorting to your old ways of lying, stealing, deception, and so on. That’s also when you become righteous, because people will know that you will do the right thing, even if it hurts you. Only when you are willing to sacrifice, then people can trust you, respect you, and even fear you. People will begin to like you (or hate you) for that reason, and that sets us free from all those bad ways of thinking and doing things.

Case in point: MGTOW’s all make a personal sacrifice by abandoning females and Feminist society’s rules. Even though MGTOW’s only comprise a small segment of the male population, their sacrifice has struck fear in the hearts of all women everywhere.

The thing that a lot of people really don’t like about Christianity, is that (1) it does not provide a solution to satisfy the sinful nature, which is merely your being bent on getting what you want. If that were not disappointing enough, (2) it frames and embraces suffering as a character-building coping mechanism.

It is possible to get what you want out of God, but not in the way you think. He will satisfy the desires of your heart.


Personally, I could never find contentment as a white Christian male in the U.S. It wasn’t until I went to Asia that I found satisfying relations with women, a new life, a wife and children, and eventually, a new purpose for living, contentment and joy.

Every man is different. Find out what you need to do, to escape the traps of your own predilections and predetermined asservations, and to find a new life in Christ.


Posted in Enduring Suffering, Purpose | Tagged | 1 Comment

Value Harassment Training

A review of some articles discussing sexual harassment training, and how the narratives contained within stand in diametric opposition to Christian values and the Tingly Respect courtship model.

Readership: All

This post reviews the following articles.

  1. BBC Capital (feat. Claire Lampen): Why Sexual Harassment Training Doesn’t Work (November 22, 2017)
  2. (feat. Marcel Schwantes): Yes, We Can Defeat Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Here Are 6 Powerful Ways to Do It (December 11, 2017)
  3. Biblical Gender Roles: Do Christian Values Cause Sexual Harassment? (December 16, 2017)
  4. Sigma Frame: Meretricious Power and the Tingle (October 9, 2018)

The first post laments the lack of effectiveness shown by training sessions designed to end sexual harassment in the workplace. The article cites studies, one by Lipnic, reporting the carelessness of the employees, and the awkwardness of the legal mumbo jumbo as supporting reasons.

“People are kind of cynical about it,” Lipnic says, comparing such training to an episode of TV show The Office. “People are kind of rolling their eyes… they’re watching the clock and trying to get through it because they’ve got to get back to work.”

Also in this article, Eden King, an associate professor of psychology at Texas’ Rice University, lists the following four values, labels them as false, and claims that they actually lead to the sexual harassment of women.

  1. “A belief that women are inferior to men”
  2. “the belief that men should have power over women”
  3. “men should be aggressors”
  4. “women should be gatekeepers”

King labels the first value with the adjective “inferior” to describe women, and the label “aggressor” to describe men. That’s quite a twist of “toxic masculinity” spin on these values.

King and Lipnic suggest that sexual harassment training is more effective “in person”. [Eds. note: Sounds exciting!]

“Perspective exercises, like imagining oneself or a loved one on the receiving end of an unwanted touch, for example, encourage empathy…”

Yes, make it an emotional experience, and make it thoroughly embarrassing so that no one will forget it. That will teach those conservative Christians falsely presumed to be perverted, ham fisted thugs to detest the training even more, while reminding them to keep their Gamma hands to themselves!

These professionals actually suggest that the executive and middle managers should start playing the Name and Shame Game.

“If the leaders themselves act as allies, if they engage in behaviours that call attention to inappropriate behaviour… that can create a norm that that’s what we do in our organisation,” King says, adding that the presence of senior managers – whom we know to be just as likely to be perpetrators or as capable of offense as anyone else – might also win respect from the more likely culprits, who wouldn’t take much away from a video presentation but might be more inclined to listen to an authority figure.”

That line in boldface says, “We SJW’s value conservative hypocritical bigots, as long as they’re supporting our narrative and sealing our grip on power. We Feminists value upper level managers even more, simply because they’re jacked and loaded.

“With those offenders in mind, among the most important things training can communicate, Lipnic says, is: “This is not trying to change your mind, this is telling you how to keep your job.”

The message is clear: Don the psychological strait jacket. Conform or die!

In the second article on Inc. listed above, the author takes King’s assessment a step further by calling these four values “toxic” ways of thinking, and concluded that the fight against sexual harassment is “about deconstructing false values embedded in toxic systemic thinking”.

“Toxic thinking” – That’s exactly what they are doing by labeling traditional values as “false”. They are projecting their own spiel onto others.

The methods suggested include these six, followed by a RP interpretation.

  1. Promote more women into leadership positions. [Just because they’re women? Isn’t that sexual discrimination?]
  2. Make sexual harassment training mandatory for every leader. [We can’t leave them out, because they’re the hawties with the cash to fork over after being accused of anything inappropriate.]
  3. Create a culture of intervention. [#metoo wants to get our hands on you! Not the other way around.]
  4. Return to values. [But not those values!]
  5. Creating a culture of openness. [Like post-#metoo open.]
  6. Fight against gender bias on all fronts. [Wasn’t the gender wage gap refuted years ago?]

The reader will note that all of these approaches will have the opposite effect as what women truly desire. Just give it some time there.

In the third post, Biblical Gender Roles did a take-down of the aforementioned claims that these four values are false and toxic, by showing that they are actually rooted in Christian values! If you are a Christian who is being forced to take a course in sexual harassment training, then this is worth reading.

Finally, one of the conclusions of my last post (number 4 above) was this…

“…much of the success of a Tingly Respect courtship, in terms of it leading towards a satisfying marriage, is largely dependent on practicing self-control (especially for the female), and self-development (especially for the male).”

On reviewing the article from BGR, it occurred to me that men pursuing self-development requires self-determination and initiative, which falls right in line with value 2 concerning power, and value 3 about men being “aggressors”. Also, women practicing self-control is exactly what “gatekeeping is all about”.

That’s 3 out of 4. I’m waking up now, but I’m still not Woke!

In conclusion, these training philosophies not only contradict Christian precepts, as BGR elucidated, but they also undermine the requirements for preserving the more successful and relatively God-honoring Tingly Respect model of courtship, especially during its fragile formative stages.

In other words, the attack on traditional values posed by sexual harassment training is not only anti-Christian, but it is also anti-Tingle (so to speak), and (ultimately) anti-family-formation.

Is anyone surprised?

Feminists might believe this poses no trouble for them, because they can claim sexual harassment against any typical Joe who looks at them longer than 20 milliseconds, but they can still accept improper advances from hawt upper management chads for a few weeks or months before blowing the whistle on them. But in the wake of #metoo, anything on the topic of sexual harassment only adds fuel to the flame of male burnout.


Posted in Conspiracy Theories, Culture Wars, Female Power, Holding Frame | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Meretricious Power and the Tingle

A response to Lexet: (1) Courtship model Framework, (2) the unavoidable merger of the SMP and MMP and the resultant dominance of visceral power, (3) the necessity of the Tingle in the Tingly Respect model, and (4) how the fragile Tingly Respect model of courtship becomes spoiled at the outset, especially in the converged MMP.

Readership: All

Lexet’s post, Courtship and Power (October 4, 2018) offered a thoughtful analysis and critique of my previous post, Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (October 3, 2018). As a response, I wish to further develop a few important concepts that are essential to my original post.

1. Courtship Model Framework

There are a few broad statements I should say up front. The first is that we are talking about theoretical models, so of course, real world examples of relationships will always have their own unique characteristics.

Secondly, these models of courtship could be formally institutionalized, or informally practiced, and we might also find many variations, or ‘sub-models’ of these two types, based on different cultural and religious values, as well as the personalities of those involved.

I am sure there are other models of courtship besides the Courtly Love or the Tingly Respect models – models which are not focused on the visceral power dynamics between the man and the woman involved – and these other models might be more suitable for couples who are more mature in their ability to offer selfless love, and altruistic respect, and who are more willing to submit to a hierarchical order of authority out of faith in God’s Word.

There are also variations of these models with respect to the individual roles of the bride and groom within the extended family. Lexet pointed out one variation of the Respect model, by offering an example of specific arrangements of power between the husband and his father-in-law.

“[In one variation, the] family calls for the suitor to submit to the father… forever. The single man does not maintain any sense of personal identity, as he is over shadowed. [In contrast,] The Respect model should theoretically work both ways with a father and the suitor: mutual respect, and an understanding of boundaries. From a Christian perspective, this is due to the father’s authority over his household, until the daughter marries and cleaves to her husband.”

2. Meretricious Power

Of course, mature people should not make lifelong commitments based on passing emotions, but in fact, this is the norm for modern society, and the church is hardly any different.

Currently, the Courtly Love model is institutionalized in society au fait, and it is perceived as a formal style of courtship. However, it is not formally institutionalized, meaning that the model is presented as a traditional standard, but there are no regulations for courtship that are enforced by society or the church.

Since a formal, institutionalized model of courtship is absent, young people are naturally going to approach courtship from a subjective point of view, just as they now do. Hence, the visceral power to create emotional impressions on the other partner then becomes the overriding center of focus in defining the rudimentary nature of the relationship. I believe Lexet would agree with this description of the present ontology, because he wrote,

“The result of this curse is that there is constant friction between the sexes, with power being a fluid force. Men tend to abuse their power, or give it to the woman, who tends to desire that power. It takes great strength and willpower to find that balance (for a man).”

do not feed the monkeys

On a larger scale, the fact that the modern SMP is marshalled by meretricious Machiavellianism, and the fact that “courtship” is besmirched as much as cuckoldry is taken for granted, are sure signs that the sexual revolution has reached its’ rapturous consummation. Pursuing Zoe has been replaced by ravishing Trixie. The flesh is thrust in everyone’s face at adolescence, and there is little other recourse.

“…even in Christian circles, men face the dilemma of being forced into a non-biblical, or even anti-biblical, system to become married (the only lawful outlet for sex permitted).”

In other words, the MMP is converged with the SMP.

Will society repent, or roll over for another round?

3. Don’t forget: Tingles Uber Alles!

Aside from his preamble, Lexet conspicuously dropped the adjective “Tingly” from the name of the Tingly Respect model. I know “Tingly” makes the name somewhat ludicrous, but it is an integral part of this model, because this is the form of power that the man has over the woman. That is, the man makes the woman Tingle, and the woman responds to his power over her emotions by displaying respect for him. This fundamental characteristic of this model was derived in a previous post, Tingles = Respect (October 6, 2018).

Similarly, for the Courtly Love model, the Courting is an integral part of this model because the woman requires the man to court her (e.g. show various expressions of his love, devotion, and willingness to invest in her) in return for her “love”. Of course, we know that “love”, in this sense, is experienced by the man as a purely subjective experience which motivates him to perform acts of love towards the woman. The problem with this model is that the man’s respondent acts of love are unable to generate the Tingles, and are therefore merely expressions of obsequiousness. This is the visceral power that the woman has over the man in this model.

Lexet argues that there are no examples of the Respect model in western culture as follows.

“In all seriousness, this model needs to be fleshed out. It can only work in a Christian environment, or in a culture influenced by Biblical Christianity, and not churchianity. This model must be fleshed out in order to advocate its implementation. The likelihood of a person finding this in the real world is slim to none.”

I would fully agree that there are no formal or institutional examples, but informal examples are somewhat ubiquitous. Anytime a woman gets the Tingles for a man and chases him down, we are seeing an example of the Tingly Respect model in its beginning stage. Although this happens very frequently, it is considered improper, dishonorable, and often obscene, to discuss, reveal, provoke, or satirize female desire. Furthermore, females are extremely careful to hide their arousal, and are evermore discrete in their liaisons with the male objects of their affections. In fact, women will usually lie about their feelings towards a particular man whenever they are confronted, especially in public. So it is not something that is obviously witnessed, except by those who have the knowledge and discernment of such things.

The reason why these budding Tingly Respect relationships seldom develop into stable LTR’s is somewhat complicated. The next section examines the factors.

4. Complexities of the Tingly Respect model during Courtship

As mentioned in my previous post, the Tingly Respect model is weaker in the courtship phase. The failure could be caused by either the man or the woman. If either one fails, so does the model.

  1. The woman’s failure: The woman foolishly chooses a man who Tingulates her, but who is also far above her own MMV banding, and therefore cannot attract a marriage proposal from the man.
  2. The man’s failure: Even when a woman chooses a man who Tingulates her, and is also within her own MMV band, the man may not feel any compunction to develop a LTR with her, and therefore may not take responsibility for the relationship, nor offer any commitment.

There are a few different methods by which either sex could louse up the process.

Concerning the first stumbling block, Dalrock describes how women should be aware of the feedback they get from men, identify their true MMV, and learn to regulate their expectations accordingly. He wrote,

“She can subtlety indicate interest to the kind of men she thinks would be a match for her, men she is attracted to. If her standards are too high and the man isn’t interested, or is only interested if fornication is on the table, her ego is bruised but she has retained deniability in her expression of interest. As her over inflated ego is reduced to reality, eventually she will be able to feel attraction for the kind of man who wants to marry her.  Internalizing responsibility creates a mechanism for her to both get real world feedback on her self-perception, and for her to be able to become attracted to the kind of man she can attract for marriage.”

For the second error, men need to resist the easy opportunity for a pump-and-dump, and think more seriously about sex and marital commitment. Or else, make it clear to her that she should move on. If a man screws her up, and then dumps her, then afterward, she is defiled in the eyes of any future suitor (i.e. Alpha Widow syndrome).

A third problem is when a woman becomes so defiled by previous (sexual) relationships, that recalcitrant men refuse to marry her. This is the biggest challenge to young Christian woman – to resist the urge to merge with any particular man who turns her headlights on.

A fourth issue arises when men have no power, because they are clueless about how to create a Tingly emotional response in women. Developing visceral power is the biggest challenge to young Christian men, as Churchianity has basically castrated their sexual potential and forced them to submit to the Courtly Love model. As a result, women have a much smaller pool of Tingle-inducing men available to choose from, and those few men who remain “sexually visible” to females are more likely to resort to p*ssy plundering and thereby mass produce defiled Alpha Widows.

In view of the above issues, much of the success of a Tingly Respect courtship, in terms of it leading towards a satisfying marriage, is largely dependent on practicing self-control (especially for the female), and self-development (especially for the male).

monkey tongue

Knowing human nature, Lexet’s statement is probably true.

“[The successful implementation of the Tingly Respect model] can only work in a Christian environment, or in a culture influenced by Biblical Christianity, and not churchianity.”



Posted in Female Power, Game Theory, Male Power, Models of Failure, Organization and Structure, Relationships, SMV/MMV, Strategy | Tagged , , | 10 Comments

Tingles = Respect

Hypergamic selection carries with it a woman’s Respect for the Tingle-inducing man.

Readership: All

Hypergamy is a term that has been redefined since the advent of the Red Pill, and since then, Rollo has cornered the search engine market on the term. The references to hypergamy are ubiquitous in RP venues, almost universally giving hypergamy a bad rap. However, I have come to believe there is a silver lining to women’s inherent desire to “marry up”. Consider the following expositions.

  1. Adam Piggott: The Definition of Hypergamy (August 14, 2014)
  2. Spawny’s Space: Hypergamy Unleashed — Tingles Uber Alles (December 30, 2014)
  3. Christianity and Masculinity: Hypergamy is good (December 7, 2017)

In the first article, Adam quotes Keoni’s definition of hypergamy. The latter part reads,

“In other words, if she does not “look up” to a man in some way, she will not be attracted to that man.”

Second, “Tingles Uber Alles” is the 3rd Titanium Law of the Manosphere. Farm Boy wrote,

“The difficulty is that for a woman to feel tingles, the man has to be dominant.”

“From a woman’s perspective, there are so very many men of the wrong type (non-tingle-inducing) approaching.  These must be rejected and rejected quickly, lest they get any ideas.  This was such an inconvenience.  She must get on with her purpose, the tingles.  This situation is bothersome, but it is the price that women must still pay.”

“The flip side of the same coin is that much of “dominance” comes from the relative status between the man and the woman.”

In the third post, Deep Strength offered this:

“Hypergamy is simply the traits in which women are sexually attracted to men: masculinity, power, status, charisma, looks, money, athleticism, talent, and so on. These are the ways that women will “marry up” because they want to be with a man who is sexually attractive to them.”

fire eyes

I want to offer the reader an observation about this trait of Hypergamy, and I hope I’m not stretching this a bit too far.

If a man has the ability to strike the blessed Tingles in a woman, then he has a strong, visceral power over her. Respect is the proper display of appreciation for one who has power and authority. Therefore, a woman’s desire for a powerful, Tingle-inducing man, and “looking up” to that man, could easily be conflated with “having respect” for that man.

Men can’t really identify with women’s hypergamic instincts, or their experience of the Tingles. But respect is something that men can relate to, as it is a pertinent need for men. Men need to be respected by the women in their lives. This is both empowering and inspiring to them. In this view, hypergamy offers a win-win deal for both the male and female, as it offers Respect to the male, and Tingles to the female.

If you’re following this connection, I will here propose the theoretical law that there is a high correlation between when a woman experiences the Tingles, and when she has a high degree of respect and admiration for the man. In other words,

Tingles = Respect

Of course, there is the all too common exception when the woman is too selfish, immature, or clueless to know how to express respect to the man in a way that the man can read and appreciate.

There is also the exceedingly rare exception when the woman chooses to respect the man in her life out of obedience to God’s Holy Scriptures, even though he may fail to confer the 3 T’s of Total Tingle Tantrum on her.

But other than these exceptions, this equivalency generally holds true. This knowledge may offer to certain men who are desperately in need of Respect, a greater motivation to become Tingle-inducing studs.

This interaction is a key point to understand the Tingly Respect model which I described in the last post, Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (October 3, 2018), because this is the fundamental dynamic within this type of relationship.


Posted in Confidence, Game Theory, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Male Power, Models of Success, Relationships, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV | Tagged | 10 Comments

Models of Courtship and Marital Structure

An examination of Male vs. Female dominance in the formation and continuation of relationships. Which structure leads to a preferred outcome? Which structure is more God honoring?

Readership: All

Date of Study: August 18 to October 3, 2018

This essay is comprised of the following sections.

  1. Introduction – Two Contrasting Models of Courtship and Marital Structure
  2. The Power Game
  3. The Power Structures
  4. A Comparative Physiognomy of the Structural Models
  5. Differences between the Two Models
  6. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Courtly Love Model
  7. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Tingly Respect Model
  8. Courtship Models vs. Marriage Models
  9. The Transition from Courtship to Marriage
  10. Which Type of Courtship Model is More God Honoring?
  11. Conclusions

1. Introduction – Two Contrasting Models of Courtship and Marital Structure

“Courtship” is a term I’ll use loosely in this essay, referring to the social selection process leading to a matrimonial union. There are generally two types of courtship models, corresponding to which sex holds the majority of power in the interaction. The first type of pseudo-traditional courtship model, in which the female holds power, is known as the “Courtly Love” model. The second type of time-honored traditional model, in which the male holds power, is apparently lacking a formal name, so here I’ll offer the moniker of “Tingly Respect” courtship (for reasons to be explained later). I’ll go further with the creative labeling (if only for the sake of humor), and say that a marriage based on the Courtly Love model is a matrimony, whereas a marriage based on the Tingly Respect model results in a patrimony (for the children).

These two models have been described and discussed in snippets from varying viewpoints within the Manosphere. However, I don’t believe a meaningful connection has been made between them. So the larger goal of this essay is to draw knowledge about the two different power structures into one concise comparison.

Of note, Dalrock has written extensive descriptions of modern courtship dynamics in the following posts. A few of the most representative posts on the subject include the following.

  1. Cane Caldo: This Weekend on: What’s the Real Tradition? (April 7, 2017)
  2. Dalrock: A shortage doesn’t indicate a buyer’s market. (August 17, 2018)
  3. Dalrock: A challenge to traditionalists. (August 20, 2018)
  4. Dalrock: *Real men* confess their love to the gas station attendant.(August 21, 2018)
  5. Dalrock: The wages of wooing. (August 22, 2018)
  6. Dalrock: Returning to a Past that Never Was (September 11, 2018)
  7. Dalrock: Empowered to Avoid Responsibility (September 12, 2018)
  8. Dalrock: Feminine Wiles (September 13, 2018)

In the first post listed above, Cane briefly describes the two different courtship models addressed here in this essay. He wrote,

“According to traditionalists (and others): Men are supposed to chase, and women are supposed to be caught. Or they might say: Men are to initiate, and women are to respond. Imagine a party. There are single men and women. The traditionalist wants the men to pick a woman, and then woo her. Then he (the trad) wants her to respond with a Yes, or No, or Show me more. That traditional mating ritual is wrong and foolish. Roissy/Heartiste’s maxim that ‘Men display, women choose’ is much more true. Go to a party and see for yourself.”

In the second post, Dalrock describes the Courtly Love model, as well as a point of confusion between these two models as follows.

“[The idea] that their unmarried daughter is in a great position to find a husband because she’s not remotely interested in the kind of men who express interest in her… [is related to] the erroneous idea that the Bible teaches that men should pursue and women should judge the performance. But it isn’t the Bible that teaches this ethic, it is the religion of Courtly Love that teaches this. Think of the only two women to have books of the Bible named after them. Both Ruth and Esther pursued their eventual husbands. […]”

“But since very few Christians can separate Christianity from Courtly Love/Chivalry, there is a widespread belief that Courtly Love is God’s model. In the Courtly Love model a man selects a woman and sets out to prove his worth to her in the hope of winning her heart. The woman’s only job is to keep being awesome while deciding if the man’s performance is worth rewarding with a token of her favor. This is what so many unmarried women and their fathers are so loudly complaining is lacking today.  It isn’t Christian, but it is a religious expectation.”

The third post revisits Cane’s original post (1) and asserts that the model that is commonly held to be traditional is backtually bass ackward.

In the fourth post listed above, Dalrock further explains the similarity between the Courtly Love model, and modern Christian sensibilities. This comparison would be hilarious, if not for the obvious (and evil) inversion of the hierarchy.

The fifth post compares, with striking similarities, the nine stages of Courtly Love with the modern Churchian sensibilities of courtship – offering further evidence that the traditional model is backward.

In the sixth post listed above, Dalrock describes how the Courtly Love model has been entrenched in the stereotypically conservative Greaser culture since the mid-20th century, and that because of its long revered history, has somehow created the misleading illusion that it is essentially God’s model applied to the modern MMP. I will add here that the Greaser sub-culture of the 1950’s actually precipitated the onset of the sexual revolution in the 1960’s, which led to Feminism in the 1970’s. (This argument remains to be explored in a future post.)


In the seventh post, the Tingly Respect model was described by Dalrock as follows.

“She can subtlety indicate interest to the kind of men she thinks would be a match for her, men she is attracted to. If her standards are too high and the man isn’t interested, or is only interested if fornication is on the table, her ego is bruised but she has retained deniability in her expression of interest. As her over inflated ego is reduced to reality, eventually she will be able to feel attraction for the kind of man who wants to marry her.  Internalizing responsibility creates a mechanism for her to both get real world feedback on her self-perception, and for her to be able to become attracted to the kind of man she can attract for marriage.”

One important factor which I’m sure Dalrock agrees but fails to mention here, is that she must resist the urge to fornicate with any man she might take an interest in. Remember, women are the gatekeepers of sex, so to speak.

In post number eight, Dalrock highlights a successful example of the Tingly Respect model offered by a reader, Joe. I encourage readers to consider this post as an example of how this model quite often leads to marital success and satisfaction.

2. The Power Game

Far from being the state of “equality” that feminists purport endorsing, the two courtship models discussed herein, are actually two different power structures. This should not be surprising to my regular readers, because I have described ethical structures in several past posts. To briefly reiterate a conclusion of my past studies on this topic, Feminism has adopted a Power vs. Fear based ethical system.

Now, when we talk about the basic power structures of courtship and marriage models, of course, we mean the visceral power. In every relationship, there is always one person who has the ability to shake up the other’s world by inducing strong somatic emotions, and thereby incite that person to change their mind and cooperate. This power is often expressed in a relationship in the way one person has the final decision-making authority, and the other person continually strives to “get with the program” defined by the other. Moreover, the person holding more visceral power is the person who defines the structure and goals of the relationship.

As reviewed in a previous post, Conflict Structure and Marital Satisfaction (November 15, 2017), the person in authority is apt to make demands on the other, and the other person must either (1) comply, (2) fight to establish himself as the one holding power, or else, (3) fold and bow out of the relationship.

As we well know, in modern Western Society, men tend to do (1), while women go for options (2) or (3). The large scale frequency of this dynamic indicates that women hold more power than men, in relationships, and in society.

The next section will take a closer look at the balance of Power.

3. The Power Structures

Aside from any religious misgivings, the real difference between the two aforementioned models is how the power game is constructed. In the Courtly Love model, the woman holds the lion’s share of power, whereas in the Tingly Respect model, the man holds the better portion of power. Again, power in this sense, is mostly attributed to the visceral power that dominates the emotionally charged motivations of the relationship interaction.

Interactions in which both the male and female truly hold equal amounts of power, as promoted by Feminists and Complementarians, is here presumed not to truly exist except in theory-isms. In reality, one person always has more power than the other, although the forms and expressions of each individual’s power may vary.

However, there is one interesting caveat in the Tingly Respect model. Here, men retain power, but women have an advantage in the way of choice. And we know how women have an addiction to choice. Because choice is the deciding factor in the establishment of the relationship, this model is fairly well balanced, in terms of influence. The woman trades her choice for the benefits of a marital commitment. The man may then consolidate his power, and establish order in the newly formed family. (At least, that is how it should work.) The woman also benefits from this arrangement through gaining the freedom to focus her energies on the home and family, if she should wish to do so.

The weak link in the chain is not so much a lack of courage or righteousness in the man’s authority, but in the willingness of the woman to continue in a posture of submission.

Women who pine for power, but who fail to achieve it in a relationship, often resort to cheap but greatly annoying substitutions of pseudo-power. This situation is especially prone to occur after a woman loses her SMV/MMV power (AKA “hitting the wall”), while her male counterpart is reaching his peak SMV, which further enhances her sense of insecurity and powerlessness. Typical expressions take the forms of women nagging, issuing various threats such as divorce, playing jealousy games, and setting themselves up as the egotistical judge of the man’s character and worth. If the woman feelz led to take this behavior to an extreme, then it has the potential to upset the relationship, as is well known.

In fact, modern women have become adept in using this underlying weakness of the marital bond to intentionally destroy the relationship in order to gain various social and material advantages, such as attention, affirmation, enjoying the continued exercise of willful, wanton choice, divorce settlement and alimony, AKA “frivorce theft”.

However (and this is a major point in this essay), there do exist unique situations in which one gender holds the majority of defacto power, but still chooses to conform to the structural model in which the other sex holds authority. Examples of crossovers from both types of structures are prominent. As of late in western society, men who hold the upper hand often willingly choose to defer to women, merely to fit into the Courtly Love model, which they presumably believe is the better model. Here I wish to emphasize the alternative, that women who hold the upper hand, especially young women in their peak SMV years (18-25), can willingly choose to fit themselves into the Tingly Respect model, and obtain the related benefits thereof, such as retaining their purpose and relevance to society after their peak years have passed, and their power has waned.

Within the community of those subscribing to the Courtly Love model, there are obviously many blue balls pilled men who are confused about the proper sex roles and expressions of power. Even for those who hop on the Tingly Respect model, it is not uncommon for a bit of mock chivalry (an expression of the Courtly Love model) to be displayed by the man out of respect for her ‘weaknesses’, including a formal, down-on-one-knee marriage proposal. It is presumed that this is due to ignorance on the part of men, concerning the differences and dynamics of the two models.

For those who are interested in further exploration of the two different types of models, the discussions under Dalrock’s posts listed above provide more detailed illustrations of the contrast between the two social dynamics surrounding “courtship”.


4. A Comparative Physiognomy of the Structural Models

Since we are talking about visceral power in this essay, there is necessarily a full spectrum of responses correlating to the power structure.

  • The Emotional response – Tingles (in women), Anxiety (in men)
  • The Physical/Biological response – Increased pulse rate, an erection (men), the slop spilling out of her shorts the moment he enters the room.
  • The Psychological response – Self-Consciousness, Scrambled Thinking.
  • The Relational response – Admiration and Respect (women), special consideration, Pedestalization (men).
  • The Spiritual response – Love, Joy, Humility, Deference.

If the man displays the cues listed above, and the woman much less, then it is obvious that the female has visceral power over the male – and he becomes a simpering, starry eyed fool. This is the case with the Courtly Love model.

If the woman is experiencing the above responses, then it is the male who possesses visceral power over the female – and she is loving every moment of it! This is the case with the Tingly Respect model.

All these conditions are cofactors of a healthy relationship, and ideally, both partners should experience these responses. So the models presented here express the general overall nature of the interaction.

For those of you who are having trouble visualizing what this difference in structure appears like to the eyes, Rollo offered a concise comparison of Body Language (September 26, 2018), in which the visceral difference can be felt by the reader. The poses he labels as “Lean In” (by the male), “Lean Out” (by the female), “Mate Guarding” (by the male), and “I Love Mommy” (by the male), all illustrate a relationship structure in which the male is pursuing the female’s adoration and attention. All these types of poses are characteristic of the Courtly Love model described by Dalrock. Rollo describes the physical display of the Courtly Love model in terms of Frame as follows.

“…the lean-in is a physical display that illustrates how a man’s subconscious has decided that his woman’s Frame is the dominant one in the relationship. He feels the compulsion to put himself into her space as his natural impulse.”

“A (Beta) man leans in to find inclusion and acceptance in a woman’s Frame while her own hindbrain instinctively reacts and attempts to lessen any inference of intimate acceptance to a larger audience.”

Rollo only offers one section entitled “Alpha Tells” in which the opposite structure, Tingly Respect, is depicted.

“…a natural Alpha man is almost never aware of his own Alphaness and that’s what really stands out in these photos – the men aren’t trying to evoke the reflexive responses of the women. They fluidly (almost Zen-like) prompt these reactions in women. There is no pretense or the obvious mugging for the audience that you see in shots where the Frame is clearly being directed by the woman while the hapless Beta tries to prove how in love he is by kissing on her while she finds something more interesting to occupy herself with. When a woman admires her man he is literally all she can think about.”

It should be noted that the male may not necessarily be an Alpha for this structure to be manifested, but only that he is the dominant visceral power figure in the relationship. Lost Patrol adds,

“It’s just more confirmation that there is no such thing as the equal partnership most women claim to want. When you’re talking about men and women, somebody is operating within the other body’s frame.”

Next, let’s review some major points of contrast between the two models.

5. Differences between the Two Models

In the Courtly Love model, the man is overcome with emotion, and openly pursues the woman. In the process, he loses his sense of his God ordained purpose in life, becomes the plea bargainer, and plays a submissive role to the woman – all done in an effort to “win her love”. This is an inversion of God’s ordained hierarchy, and is well known to produce sin and ungodly unions. The results are catastrophic, not just for the man and woman involved, but for others as well. Dalrock has written a multitude of posts to this end. To offer a few Biblical examples in which the man pursues, or is subject to the woman, we have David and Bathsheba, Amnon and Tamar, and presumably from the context, Ahab and Jezebel.

It has generally been implied that the Tingly Respect model of courtship typically involves a situation in which the man is just doing his thing, and the woman picks him out of the crowd and offers IOI’s, which the man either takes notice of, or misses. If he can read them, then he either accepts or rejects the further development of the relationship. If he accepts, then the relationship proceeds. Dalrock suggests that the Biblical examples of Ruth and Esther fit this model.

With the Tingly Respect model, it is assumed that the woman naturally chooses a man who consumes her with the Tingles, and is thus more open and pliable to his wishes. Since the man holds the veto power in this case, then he is the one who is ‘in charge’, and she is blissfully wrapped around his finger.

Conservative feminists and complementarians have attempted to blend certain aspects of these two models into a hamsterbating hybrid, appealing to large numbers of females with a glutton for wealthy, masculine, chiseled-torso, servant boys who deliver Tingles, and who willingly overlook any obvious shortcomings, such as disrespect, on the female’s part. Manospherians know that this fantasy doesn’t work because it poses real world contradictions. Notably, high SMV men will never submit to a woman’s’ preferences, and that’s partly what makes them tingle-inducing, high SMV men. Also, high SMV men (as rated by women) are exceedingly rare (i.e. the 80/20 rule), so the probability of capturing one in marriage is slim indeed. Sorry ladies, you can’t have the best of both worlds!

The next two sections will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both the Courtly Love model, and the Tingly Respect model.


6. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Courtly Love Model

The strengths of the Courtly Love model, in which the man vies for the attention and favor of the woman, include the following.

  • The woman is more likely to attract men who possess an equitable SMV/MMV with hers, and therefore present a proper and willing matrimonial match for her.
  • The vast majority of men who engage in the Courtly Love model are likely to have sincere convictions about committing to a LTR or marriage. Such men, typically referred to as White Knights, are not likely to be Alpha Chads, who are merely looking for a pump-and-dump.
  • Within this model, the man’s honor is assumed and taken for granted, and this setup allows the woman to call the shots. Therefore, the woman need not fear getting burned in love by being rejected by a man, no matter how immature, contentious, and disrespectful she may be. It is left to the man to ‘prove his manhood’ by doing whatever backflips are necessary to deal with the problems she creates. (This male behavior is defined as ‘love’ within this model.)
  • The Courtly Love model has been very popular for the past few decades in western societies, so you may enjoy the immoral support from your friends and family, and need not risk being ostracized or labeled ‘too conservative’.

The weaknesses in the Courtly Love model include the following.

  • The hierarchical structure is an inversion of the Biblical analogy of a marriage between a man and a woman, and therefore fails to resemble the relationship between Christ and the church.
  • Marriages in which the woman is the dominant player have been shown in many studies to be less happy, and at greater risk of divorce.
  • Men who have serious intentions of marriage when engaging in the Courtly Love model are not likely to be top quality men who have the ability to instill the blessed Tingles, known to yield life-long loyalty and admiration (or pining alpha widowhood) on the part of the woman.
  • This model presents frustrations concerning the feral inclinations of the flesh. That is, the woman can have her ego stroked, but not her Tingles. Her desire for Tingles remains as a continual temptation to engage in extramarital affairs. Meanwhile, the man gets to binge on lust, but cannot fully enjoy the consummation of a female rapture within his reduced domain of power and authority. Both of these situations weaken the marital bond.
  • Women who hold more power and authority than the man tend to be less passionate and satisfied with marital lovemaking. Over time, this condition leads to the dead bedroom syndrome. Women who get their orgasms from power trips usually have no problem with this situation, but the men suffer greatly.
  • Steadily increasing dissatisfaction on behalf of the male tends to erode the power and authority of the female’s dominance. Men learn to be more resilient to female dominance over time, usually by ignoring her demands, or simply disappearing for a few hours, or days. Some men learn game techniques, or they might even venture into an extramarital affair, just in order to get a taste of sexual satisfaction, normalcy, and respect.
  • Female belligerence and kick-@ssery tends to grow more pronounced with each recurring success in embarrassing the male, especially after an Alpha enwidowment.
  • Children growing up in this environment experience less of the power and Kingdom of God within the family environment, inhibiting confidence, and developing into less well-adjusted adults.

Concerning the Courtly Love model, the strengths largely encompass the indulgence of fantasy, thereby feeding male lust and catering to female insecurities, while the weaknesses of the model penalize the male and weaken the marital bond.


7. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Tingly Respect Model

The strengths of the Tingly Respect model of courtship, in which the woman presents herself to be ‘taken’ by the man, include the following.

  • The hierarchical structure conforms to the Biblical analogy of a marriage between a man and a woman, resembling the relationship between Christ and the church.
  • This model accounts for the feral inclinations of the flesh. That is, the woman can have her Tingles stroked, while the man gets to enjoy the power and authority.
  • Children growing up in this environment tend to become happier, more wholesome, more Godly, and better adjusted adults.

The weaknesses in the Tingly Respect model include the following.

  • The woman may foolishly choose a man who far outranks her on the SMV/MMV scale, and thereby does not present a proper and willing matrimonial match for her.
  • The man may have no deep seated conviction to man up and marry that feverishly Tingulated Christian gal, and may very well use the opportunity to simply sow his wild oats, and prance off to the next future.
  • OTOH, the woman may be so contentious and disrespectful, that she essentially invites a rejection from the man, regardless of the man’s honor or the model chosen. In truth, a woman who does this is begging to switch to the Courtly Love model, in which she can call the shots. This hang-up tends to grow more ostensible with each recurring round, especially after an Alpha enwidowment.
  • If the above conditions hold true, then one high SMV man is likely to spin off a series of Alpha Widows using this model, which we know from modern clinical studies to be very unlikely to form successful, Godly marital unions. Rather, unions with Alpha widows tend to regress into a dark bitter chocolate semblance of the Courtly Love model, complete with furry mammal accomplices.
  • The successful application of the Tingly Respect model strongly depends on the propriety, respectability, and honor of the sought after male. Simply put, with power (high SMV) comes responsibility.

The strengths and weaknesses of the Tingly Respect model are both very significant. It should be noted that the weaknesses of this model are most paramount in the courtship selection process, while the strengths come out in the LTR.


8. Courtship Models vs. Marriage Models

As discussed before, the power game takes the form of selecting who defines the structure of the relationship. In this view, Dalrock et al. got it right, en large, but they have overlooked a major point in the application. That is, when courtship is first instigated, the participants may or may not know which power structure model they currently adhere to, or actually prefer to develop. You know the reasons: blue balls, thinking with the little head, Satan’s deceptions, blindness, ignorance, generational curses, etc. As a consequence, most young people instinctively, and blindly, follow the type of power structure they are most familiar with, which is most likely the one they experienced while growing up in their family of origin.

This is an important distinction, because if this power structure is not settled early in the relationship, then as the relationship continues over time, a battle to determine the power structure will develop. I would guess that this is the root contention of the vast majority of marital conflict. But if a person’s preferred power structure could be clearly determined from the outset, then a lot fewer mismatches would be made in the heat of the moment, and a great deal of marital conflict, affairs, divorces, and unhappy childhoods, could be avoided later on.

9. The Transition from Courtship to Marriage

Following the courtship, no matter which model of courtship is employed, and upon the establishment of a formal marriage, there remains the task of working out the power structure that will be habitually used in the relationship.

A previous post discussed three general avenues of finding a partner. These three methods included,

  1. “Love” – Passionate, blind, feral instincts: e.g. Jacob and RachelDavid and BathshebaAmnon and Tamar. Also, ONS’s, hook-ups, etc. which develop into LTR’s might fall into this category.
  2. Arranged – The union is proscribed by parents, family, authorities, a decree, or by social customs, such as Judaic law: e.g. Jacob and LeahRuth, and Esther, Chinese filial piety, Indian match maker, etc.
  3. Contrived – God plays a direct or indirect part in bringing two people together. e.g. Isaac and Rebecca,

Upon reflection, it should become intuitively clear that the third method, Contrived by God, is uniquely based on a higher authority, reminiscent of the Tingly Respect model. Although an Arranged marriage also depends on a higher authority, there is no guarantee that this authority is masculine in nature. So unless one finds a partner through the third method of trusting God, starting a relationship may be somewhat different from maintaining a relationship.

Concerning the first model of courtship, feral attraction (AKA “Love”), it appears difficult to transition into the Tingly Respect structure of power, unless the attraction first began on that foot, and the male possessed the honor and foresight to take the necessary responsibility for the relationship in the form of a commitment. However, in the second and third models of courtship, a male dominant power structure is more likely to prevail.

Of course, certain exceptions may apply within any arrangement. One onerously common example is when the family of origin is a defacto matriarchy, and the mother-in-law continues to exert the dominant hand in the marriage. However, a strict adherence to a Patriarchal structure of power will slowly erode this influence, as Dalrock describes in his post, A wife’s best defense against a troublesome mother-in-law. (March 13, 2013)

10. Which Type of Courtship Model is More God Honoring?

“Godly” or “God honoring” is a Christian buzz-term which is meant to convey an idealized image of a large number of preferred conditions. These conditions in a marital setting include qualities such as emotional openness and intimacy, honesty, confidence, faithfulness, and sexual passion, as well as longitudinal security and stability. Overall, members of a God honoring family should happily have their individual needs met, experience joy, healing and spiritual growth, while the family enjoys a sense of unity, belonging, harmony, and purpose. Granted, this is a tall bill of sale, especially in this day and age, but the goal here is clearly to achieve a solid nuclear family which offers a home environment free from harmful or dysfunctional interactions and inordinate amounts of confusion, which are especially harmful to the healthy development of the children’s psychology and spiritual well-being.

Dalrock, et al. have established that the Courtly Love model is not a robust Christian model. Dalrock implicitly assumes that the Tingly Respect model is the “Biblical” or most God fearing model. Deep Strength has several posts that describe the Biblical structure of authority in a male-female union, which parallels the Tingly Respect model. However, it is evident that many males are not fully convinced as to whether the Tingly Respect model is truly God’s best model for courtship or marriage. This post has offered the reader some helpful guidelines in making this decision. It is hoped that this might clear up any confusion of the matter, and encourage the reader to come to their own conclusions on how to best approach courtship and marriage.

Since the focus is on building a God honoring marriage and family, this article has not explored the dynamics of non-heterosexual relationships.

11. Conclusions

It should be clear to the reader by now, that the most “Biblical”, God glorifying power structure typifying a Christian marriage would be the Tingly Respect model, as suggested by Christianity and Masculinity, Dalrock, and Snapper. Most Christians should agree that within a long term Christian marital relationship, the Tingly Respect model delineates the preferred power structure.

The courtship model doesn’t seem to matter quite as significantly as the power structure shown in the relationship, although there is typically some degree of correlation or causation between the two.

Being aware of which courtship model you are engaging in, and which type of power structure you wish to achieve in your relationship, should significantly enhance your success in achieving the type of relationship you desire, minimizing marital conflict, and reducing the chance of marital catastrophe in the future.


Posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Female Power, Game Theory, Male Power, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Relationships, Self-Concept | Tagged , , | 14 Comments

“Biblical” Models of Courtship

Cutting through the hype and fluff, there is not much to be enjoyed about the prospect of courtship and marriage, unless you are holding out for the moment when you can trust God to catch you.

Readership: All


Tangled and Jaded in Lies

The overly revered line of the marriage vow, “Until death do us part”, is now cliché, and has lost its meaning, but the commitment is truly meant to be an indissolvable bond reaching to the pall of the grave. Moreover, one’s conduct in a marriage has eternal consequences. It is, “for better or for worse”, and NOT, “only for MY best”, as modern society has grown to accept.

In an effort to correct this moral lapse, Cane Caldo, Dalrock (Category: Death of Courtship), Deep Strength, Donal Graeme, and Free Northerner, have written about Biblical Models of Courtship. Dalrock has addressed Chivalry and the model of Courtly Love, and has argued that this model is not Christian, nor is it Biblical. Deep Strength has written extensively on the Biblically based expectations of Marriage and Divorce. Very few other Manosphere authors have undertaken a serious approach towards marriage.

So far, these authors have placed a primary focus on debunking the false teachings of Feminist-influenced Churchianity, such as Dobsonism, Wilsonism, Chandlerism, and other variations of the same antique gynocentric lies. The destruction caused by these lies are as subtle as they are magnificent. Not only are women less happy than they were two decades ago, but the rise of MRA and MGTOW over the past decade, indicates that men are losing control of their relationships, and suffering as well.

While the admissibility of these author’s arguments, and the present day applicability of their conclusions, might stand in variance with the beliefs of many readers, I believe everyone should agree that the institution of marriage should be taken as a gravely serious matter.

Getting Back to the Basics

While sharpening our wits to discern heresy and error is indeed very important, we must not overlook, or fail to emphasize, the most important point of the matter, which would be the proper approach to courtship and marriage. It is noteworthy to review this again, because of the pandemic perpetuation of ideological and spiritual corruption, which has been made obvious by the decline of marriage as a revered institution.

Sex and Marriage is a matter to be considered with all seriousness. Jesus gave it to us pretty straight.

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” ~ Matthew 19:9-10

It is known that the contents of the scriptures are largely condensed accounts of the events which inspired them. With that in mind, I have often suspected that Jesus’ full length, unabridged sermon describing wimminz and marriage, which is only alluded to in the disciples’ conclusion given in verse 10, probably included much of the standard RP fare, including hypergamy and the 80/20 rule in excruciating detail. If true, this would fully support the disciples’ reactionary statements.

Given all the hassle and risk surrounding any relationship with a woman, under what circumstances would it be advisable or beneficial for a person to marry?

But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain [single] even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. ~ 1st Corinthians 7:8-9

So basically, if I’m understanding this right, you’re ready for marriage when you just can’t keep your pants on any longer, no matter how hard you try to resist the temptation – and that is the key point. It’s when your will power (to honor God by remaining pure) becomes overruled by your passions (or libido).

So how might this situation come about?

“Biblical” Models of Courtship

Being aware of the general dynamics of the courtship model one is engaging in should significantly enhance one’s successes in achieving the type of relationship desired, minimizing marital conflict, and reducing the chances of marital catastrophe in the future.

According to my reading of the Bible, “courtship” (a term I’ll use loosely here) comes in basically three brands.

  1. “Love” – Passionate, blind, feral instincts: e.g. Jacob and Rachel, David and Bathsheba, Amnon and Tamar. Also, ONS’s, hook-ups, etc. which develop into LTR’s might fall into this category.
  2. Arranged – The union is proscribed by parents, family, authorities, a decree, or by social customs, such as Judaic law: e.g. Jacob and Leah, Ruth, and Esther, Chinese filial piety, Indian match maker, etc.
  3. Contrived – God plays a direct or indirect part in bringing two people together. e.g. Isaac and Rebecca,

These three courtship styles are discussed in the following three sections.

“Love” – The Passionate Hope and Deceptive Ruin of Humanity

I hesitate to label the first type, “Love”, because the word is so clichéd and abused in meaning, and so it becomes difficult to think about this model objectively. Also, the word “Love” can be interpreted in a variety of ways, which further compounds the confusion.

Anyway, the “Love” approach is fairly well known to have intensive thrills, but also catastrophic, or at least, problem-laden consequences. But I know that for certain people, this method has been shown to work, merely because they have a combination of the following personal qualities or social skills.

  • They have a sufficient degree of maturity.
  • They have good social skills.
  • They are confident, and willing to accept responsibility for their actions.
  • They have a good sense of discernment, and they trust their senses.
  • They have a good intuitive knowledge of what is going to work for them.
  • They know exactly what they want and how to get it.
  • They know how to handle themselves in a relationship, so that they can make it come out the way they want.

Now in order to be successful with this model, one needs to have a strong command of the above qualities. To gain these qualities, one needs to have a long history of practice in honing and refining their spiritual maturity and social skills. This is not easy. The lack of personal integrity and fortitude, as well as not being well grounded in reality, is where spoiled princesses and idealistic white knights fail in Love.

Although mature, well developed people can find success and even contentment through this approach, this is not to say that this is the most God-honoring stratagem for finding a mate. It would be better to say that any longitudinal success achieved through this venue comes only by the grace of God. If one were to study the Biblical examples cited above, one would find ample support for such a conclusion.

Arranged – A Traditional, Time Honored Path to Marital Stability

Concerning the second model of Courtship, Arranged, please consider the graph below depicting Rubin’s Love scale versus Love and Arranged Marriages, taken from a study done on couples in India, where arranged marriages are commonplace. Here, a Love Marriage may correspond to the first type of courtship listed above.

Love vs Arranged Marriage Success

In this figure, it is evident that the 2-5 year mark is a significant milestone in a marriage, because both types of marriages show a change in the reported attitudes. The satisfaction of a Love Marriage drops off precipitously at the 2-5 year period, whereas, that of the Arranged Marriage levels off.

Although I loathe to admit it, it appears as though an Arranged Marriage promises a better marital outcome than natural attraction, AKA “Love”.

Arranged Cook ATM

Contrived – An ancient, yet novel, approach towards Love

In the third style of courtship, the relationship is Contrived by God when the movement of the Holy Spirit brings two people together. A person can recognize this when they feel spiritually alive and empowered by the glory of God whenever they are together.

Speaking of marital success, the Contrived nuptial would probably be a fail safe bet, provided that one had the discernment to recognize it as sent by God, and the discipline to stick it through. But most people don’t even know what this looks like.

My readers should not jump to the conclusion that this is the same as “waiting for the ONE”, but rather more akin to “becoming the ONE” that someone could possibly fall in love with. This is done by developing both your external and internal potential. Maximize your SMV. Preserve your MMV. Honor, love, and obey God, and trust God to develop you into His image, and have faith that He will work your life circumstances to your advantage.

Isaac and Rebecca is actually a combination of models two and three. Abraham arranged for Isaac to marry a non-specific distant cousin within his family, but God chose the specific woman by answering the servant’s prayer.

Rebecca Well

I know some of my readers are tempted to become cynical about my description of a courtship Contrived by God, so I’ll go further here.

In my osmotic experience of finding “love”, which has been fraught with many heartaches and disappointments, I have come to regard one passage in scripture which (to me) really concatenates the experience of “falling in love”, with that of trusting in Divine providence. In essence, this juxtaposes the first and third model in the original list. I have also come to believe that this same approach works in modern times, just as well as ancient.

Men and women could best depend on God to find a Love relationship partner by obeying Solomon’s injunction to the virgins of ancient Israel:

“I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, Do not stir up nor awaken love Until it pleases.”

Remarkably, this charge is repeated three times in the Song of Solomon, 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4. In my formal studies of the Bible, one thing I learned is that if something is repeated three times in scripture, it is of the gravest importance!

Note that Solomon’s injunction was directed at young women, not older women or men. Think, those college-aged girls at the peak of their SMV. Apparently, young, nubile females are in control of this game, and that’s where this game will be won or lost. Young ladies must therefore get their act together. Furthermore, parents and teachers also need to nurture young ladies to be marriage minded, and discourage them from attending college, where they would surely only defile themselves with premarital adulteries, and lose every characteristic that a potential husband would find attractive in them.

In the Bible Gateway footnotes for the above verses, the word ‘charge’ has an alternate translation of ‘adjure’. The word adjure really manifests the importance of this verse, as it means, to entreat, request, charge, bind, or command earnestly and solemnly, often under oath or the threat of a penalty (Merriam Webster).

Western society is now witnessing the ‘penalties’ referred to here, in the form of large scale sexual immorality, marital fraud, frivorce, divorce theft, premarital and extramarital cuckolding, children growing up in broken homes, as well as the increased level of unhappiness of both males and females, no matter whether they are single or in relationships.

The Real Problem

Commenters might engage in endless arguments about how one model is better, or more “Godly”, or more preferable than another for whatever reasons. But if we zoom out to the larger Frame, we find that our individual preferences and expectations are the real problem. That is to say, the root of the real problem in accepting and implementing any of these three models of courtship, is the general desire to hold expectations about how things ‘ought’ to be, according to one’s own belief system or personal liking.

When young people get notions of “love” into their heads, along with any of the common tropes of courtship offered by Hollywood, media, or even well-meaning “Christian romance” authors, they get lost in fantasy land, and thereby miss the everyday opportunities to suffer for the sake of righteousness, build Godly character in the crucible of life, stoke their spiritual passions, and prepare themselves for the real thing.

Perhaps arranged marriages are so fruitful simply because it removes the mysterious elements of ambitious fantasies and astronomical anticipations, and allows individuals to be more authentic.

It should be noted that the third type of courtship, Contrived, is extremely rare, and I think that it’s not because of God’s inaction, but rather people’s unwillingness to walk the razor thin line between resisting lustful fantasies, and controlling themselves over the period of time they have to wait for God to move. Most people can’t do it. Honestly, how many people can say that they waited to have sex until they totally cracked? How many people have been so passionate, and tempted so severely, that they lost control of themselves and were forced to trust God with their sex life and their choice of a partner?

Many people who arrive at this state, who truly cannot keep a lid on their sexual passion, are usually not in the mindset to get married at that point. Instead, they are only looking to maximize their carousel or plate spinning expertise. The prideful ego, the shamefully open SMP, and the high risk, low opportunity MMP, are mostly to blame for this strong reticence towards making a commitment.

Even among those who can honestly say that they waited with determination not to have sex as aforementioned, how many of them actually chose and stayed with the man or woman who was ‘God’s first choice’ of a Contrived partner for them? Or were they even aware of it?

For many, accepting God’s choice can be a hard and bitter pill to swallow. Some people find it easier if they are propelled by youthful ignorance and a healthy libido, while others find God’s will to be more acceptable to their tastes after they have lost the strength of libido present in their youth. Different strokes for different folks.

But either way, those who are jaded and dissipated from years of sexual promiscuity will invariably find it very difficult and challenging, if not impossible, to achieve a joyfully rapturous consummation in marriage.

Libido = 1 / Sexual Promiscuity
“More the promiscuity lesser the libido, lesser the promiscuity more the libido.” ~ Wayne

[Eds. note: On an interesting side, a high libido in women is extremely attractive to men, whereas, a high libido in men is a turn off to most women. I suspect this is the main reason why Roissy argues that promiscuity damages women’s MMV a lot more than it hurts men.]

On the other side of the fence are the people who are not yet capable of making the most of their faith and their SMV to spill their load with reckless abandon. They will come up with a plethora of objections before they arrive at that state. These individuals have a lot of red flags pop into their minds, characterized by heated objections starting with, “But that’s not… (fill in the blank with your carefully rationalized objection)!” Or alarming questions starting with, “What if… (fill in the blank with your worst case scenario)?”

Either of these two types of people need to take another step back in the reframe, and recognize that this hesitancy and doubt is caused by a fear of trusting God with an unknown variable in an equation for which the result is of the utmost importance to them, which they are not willing to put up for stakes in a gamble on the grace of God. Yet, they might still choose to believe that they can engineer their life better than God can, and they can be deeply offended when anyone should point out how vain and ridiculous such a claim is.

Ego = 1 / Knowledge
“More the knowledge lesser the ego, lesser the knowledge more the ego.” ~ Albert Einstein


Compare the pursuit of ego gratification to Solomon’s command – the direct opposite stance.

“Do not stir up nor awaken love Until it pleases.”

In other words, stoke up your libido by resisting sexual temptations. Increase your spiritual worth by swallowing your pride and submitting to God. Enhance your desirability by developing your SMV (men) and preserving your MMV (women). Do this until Love comes knocking at your door. It might even turn out to be God’s choice of a partner for you!

Just take a few moments and think about what that means, and whether it might be worth the effort to explore the truth behind it, and possibly discover a transformation of your spiritual-socio-sexual experience for the better.

I pray it’s not too late for you to discover authentic joy through finding God’s will realized in your life.

God bless!


Posted in Determination, Enduring Suffering, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Perseverance, Purpose, Relationships, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Strategy, The Power of God | Tagged , | 5 Comments

The Three Step Path to God

Feeling desperate, frustrated, lost, or confused? This flowchart might help you find your way through the mess.

Readership: All

I had an engaging talk with my Pastor on the morning of Monday, July 9, 2018. We put together the flowchart below, which illustrates three phases of growth concerning how people typically find their way to God.

3 Step Path to God

The flowchart is described as follows.

Step 1: Experiencing a desperate need or a passionate desire

For the first step, there’s something that you desperately need in your life. There’s something driving you. There is a deep need that you’re trying to get from others. For some people, this need takes the form of exasperation and desperation. For others, this need is manifested as a passionate desire for a particular thing or state of being. It might even be strong enough to be considered an obsession.

Part of Step 1 is sorting out your spiritual needs, meaning, to fully understand exactly what it is that you are seeking. For most people, this something needed is usually love and attention. People need love, and they try to get this love from other people. But it might also be other things, like a sense of belonging or acceptance, dignity, emotional thrills, honor, hypergamic selection, money, personal freedom, the contentment of popularity, power, respect, sex, social status, etc. This list may not be all inclusive.

It could be generally assumed, that whatever it is that you didn’t get enough of in your life, especially during your formative years, is probably the thing that you’re missing in your heart, the thing that you are desperately trying to find in your life.

Step 2: Facing the fact that this need can never be satisfied through conventional human effort

The second step is for you to realize that no other human being can truly, fully satisfy this need for love (etc.) in you. You must come to understand that trying to fulfill this need for love, etc. is a frustrating exercise in futility. This is a difficult step for most people. They want to try different things to attract love and attention, because they want to be able to get other people’s love (etc.) on their own merit. They have an ego investment in this endeavor, which motivates them to work harder at extracting love (etc.) from other people. So they try desperately to make this work somehow.

For most people, Step 2 is the big stumbling block. They cannot face the fact that their need for love (etc.) can only be satisfied through God. So instead of turning to God they continue to try all kinds of devices and manipulations, all done in an effort to control other people, and to attract people’s love (or whatever else it is that they are seeking). For some, it might take a long time to face the fact that no human being, and no human effort, can fully satisfy this need in their heart.

Step 3: Making the choice to seek having their needs met through God (or not)

The third phase in this process is when the person has faced the fact behind step number 2 and they understand that no one can satisfy this need that they have. Now, there are two possible responses that a person could have upon realizing that they cannot have their needs met in a conventional manner. These two possible responses are,

  1. The “F*ck it all to h*ll!” (FIATH) response, which is filled with cynicism, anger, coldness, and stoicism. This person denies the provision of God through Christ Jesus, and turns to a godless lifestyle. Their purpose in life then becomes one of seeking to maximize their own happiness and contentment, often at other people’s expense. Meanwhile, their mind continues to wrestle with the problem of why there is pain in the world.
  2. The “Forsaking all, I trust Him” (FAITH) response, which is accepting God’s provision and understanding that only God can satisfy the needs in your heart. This is when the person says to himself, “I’m going to pursue God, and let Him satisfy my needs, let Him satisfy my heart. So then the person grows in their relationship with God, and learns to have their needs met through God.

So that’s the three step process. Perhaps there are some theological purists who would be dissatisfied with its’ simplicity, or its’ focus on desire as a motivating factor, but we have found that the step-process perspective, and the subjective approach are the strengths of this insightful illustration. It brings the basic processes of salvation to the conscious awareness of those whom we are trying to council. Once they get the idea, the counseling process becomes smoother, because we are then able to discuss the classical religious concepts (e.g. sin, repentance, redemption, salvation…) within a context that they can readily understand.

Feel free to share this with a friend or coworker who is looking for a life map.


Posted in Communications, Decision Making, Enduring Suffering, Fundamental Frame, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Organization and Structure, Strategy | Tagged | 2 Comments

A cord of many strands is not easily broken, but here’s how to do it.

In order to destroy your chances of future marital happiness and success, there are a number of procedures you must perform. A must read for all chronic sufferers of “one-itis”, and Feminists who “don’t need no man”.

Targeted Readership: Branch Swingers, Churchinas, Feminists, Gold Diggers, Hookers with die-hard fans, hopeful soon-to-be divorcees, and those with various types of personality disorders.

Two are better than one,
Because they have a good reward for their labor.
10 For if they fall, one will lift up his companion.
But woe to him who is alone when he falls,
For he has no one to help him up.
11 Again, if two lie down together, they will keep warm;
But how can one be warm alone?
12 Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him.
And a threefold cord is not quickly broken. ~ Ecclesiastes 4:9-12

How a Woman Forms a Relationship with a Man

To form a strong bond between a man and a woman who are together in an intimate relationship, there need to be a number of ‘strands’ in the ‘cord’ that keeps them together. These things, roughly listed in order of their bonding power, include…

  1. Blood Covenant (formed by a virginal sexual union) A blood covenant can only be dissolved through the death of one partner.
  2. Sexual passion and desire (A cyclical, periodic, simple harmonic motion that is used as a sacrament or “maintenance” of the Blood Covenants and Soul Ties.)
  3. Soul Ties (For more information, see What is a Soul Tie? and Introduction to Soul Ties.)
  4. Spiritual maturity and obedience to God in one’s dealings with the other.
  5. A long history of interaction, which has built up good memories, and an appreciation for the other person, as well as trust and respect.
  6. Social ties, traditions, and expectations (pressure from family, friends, societal order, laws…)
  7. Emotional attachments (e.g. such as feelings of love, kindness, compassion, and natural affection.)
  8. Shared values, interests, and goals in life. (Adds depth to the relationship, and takes the trajectory of the relationship into the future.)
  9. Mind mates (having the same mind, and/or an intellectual connection.)
  10. Mindful and Willful commitment to remain faithful.

After entering into matrimony, it is even more important to keep one’s self on top of maintaining these bonds, than it is before marriage – that is, if you care about the marriage. Many people talk as though it’s very difficult and challenging to develop and maintain these bonds. But the next section will explore how the opposite is closer to the truth.

Many women ‘let themselves go’ after tying the knot. ‘Letting themselves go’ is generally and easily interpreted as ‘not caring about this marriage’. This is often accompanied by the rationalization that the regular humdrum of marriage life (a code word for ‘dead bedroom’) can be too enervating.

now i can get fat

‘Letting themselves go’ usually means to become hideously obese. But if gaining weight is not an option because she wants to retain her SMV for ordering a side dish of cad, or if she is looking to attract the hawt rich man of her fantasies, then there are many other ways of viscerally informing her partner that she no longer values this relationship, and that she is passively-agressively working to bring about its’ demise. Some of these other methods have an even greater effectiveness!

How a Woman Can Easily Get Rid of a Man

Just as a person might sever a rope by cutting each strand one by one, a person can cut off their relationship with a partner by destroying, corrupting, or sabotaging each type of bond listed above. Here are a few of the most common and easiest ways that this can be done, with respect to each type of bond.

  1. Blood Covenant – The woman can sacrifice her virginity on a dildo, a ONS, or a cad whom she knows will never marry her. If the covenant has already been formed, then adultery will really throw a monkey wench across the branch. Fortunately, dildos die after a few uses.
  2. Sexual Passion and Desire – The woman could spend a decade frittering away the most passionate and powerful MMV period of her life, such that no “stickiness” is left to maintain a marriage properly.
  3. Soul Ties – The woman can engage in witchcraft and sexual promiscuity, so that the unhealthy soul ties formed from these activities would displace any healthy soul ties that she might form with God, or any man who might match her for a proper marriage. Also, it’s ego stroking easy to make ungodly inner vows and resolutions, such as, “I don’t need no man (or woman)”, or “If it feels good, then just do it!” or “I’ll never marry a man like so and so!”
  4. Spiritual Maturity – The woman could totally neglect her spiritual vitality and growth, such that she would never develop any form of virtue or inner beauty that would inspire a man to love her in a LTR.
  5. History – Burn all existing photographs of you two doing happy things together. Rip up those cards and mementos that were sent to you from years ago. Defecate on your marriage certificate. Be sure he sees you doing it, while calling him derogatory names laced with profanity. Replace them with photos of you and your boss (or secretary) at the company New Year’s gala.
  6. Social Ties can be bypassed by going off to college, making friends with the lefty INN-crowd who will support any lifestyle you choose, joining a sorority, and partying with hawt F-boys. Alternatively, you could get a job in a distant city where no one knows you, and you could work the local meat markets and social media to build a new lief, one centered around your own wants and needs. Expectations can be rescinded by firmly announcing that you never want to be married or have a family. This image can be reinforced by getting several large tattoos and a butch-dyke buzz cut. Start a new tradition by broadcasting your race to the bottom, trusting in the pseudo-virtue of being a strong, independent, helpless victim. The societal order and laws are on your side.
  7. Emotional Attachments can be sabotaged by being bitter, unhappy, and contentious on a regular basis. Identify his love language, and turn it into his hate language. Call him a lazy loser, and talk disparagingly about his work. Identify all his weaknesses and demand that he change them according to your liking. Use sex as a weapon and make explicitly sure he knows that you’re stooping whenever you bend over. Make every interaction with him a repertoire of shame, ridicule and embarrassment, so that he can develop a d@mning library of horrible memories, which will force him to withdraw his trust and respect, and curse your name. If these habits are continued in a regular, consistent manner, then it’s only a matter of time until he will suddenly realize his efforts are futile, that he would be better off without you, and then permanently exile you from his heart and mind forever.
  8. Shared Values are easy to overturn. Just change your value system by becoming an irrational Feminazi. If you have any shared interests, you’ll have to abandon these for a while, and talk about them like they are stupid, immoral, or a waste of time. Cancel any previous goals that the two of you had, and make new goals with other men (or women) in your life.
  9. Mind Mates – Stay current on Feminism’s new philosophical developments. Vehemently disagree with anything he might say. Interrupt him by questioning his identity when he’s talking passionately about something. Walk out of the room whenever he asks you for your thoughts. Put in extra effort to present yourself as an arrogant braggart.
  10. His mindful and willful Commitment to remain faithful is difficult to control, but it can be eroded over time, especially when all other bonding mechanisms have failed.

In summary, if a woman wants to end the relationship with a man, the quickest and easiest way for her to do that, is to sleep with other men early and often, be a dead fish in bed, avoid sexual intimacy, condemn his sexual desire, and ridicule his sexual performance with a condescending attitude.

The only reason that a man would stay in a sexual relationship with such a woman, is if they were married, and he had a strong conviction to be faithful to his wedding vows.

Ideally, a wimminz should leave her partner with no other viable bond except 10, so that there is no motivation or reason for him to stay loyal to her, except through his own willing choice to remain committed to her out of sheer obedience to God. Worminz don’t need to worry about whether his commitment might be too strong or not, because she can always jerk off the other 9 broken strands until he cuts the last strand himself. One bond is not strong enough to get him to withstand all her verbal, physical, and emotional abuse, cuckoldry, police reports, court cases, social condemnation, ostracization, and rejection.

However, if he happens to be younger and has a strong libido, has an SMV greater than about 5 or so, and he has too much dignity to be fapping everyday, then his willpower will be much easier to break. Provided that the various forms of bonding in the above list are in sufficiently decadent condition, sooner or later, another woman will steal his heart and his desire, and he will automatically nexit the cold varmint in his life.

It would be especially advantageous to the shrew if she can force him into having an affair, because then she can have hard evidence against him for breaking the marital agreement, as well as sufficient plausibility of her perceived innocence within her social group. No one will notice, or even care, that she broke the other 9 bonds herself.


Ladles, don’t be so cruel as to allow your chivalrous, chauvinistic, toxic, male baggage to suffer the ignominy and pain of a poorly drawn out execution. Instead, gain the skill to inflict a lightning speed check-mate. He will thank you later.

Wimminz must not forget his greatest weakness – that cursed piece of meat dangling from his groin. He’s got to wash it, feed it, and drain it every day. He’s such a slave to it, that he’ll never be able to endure all the temptation that he faces each day. There’s no way he’ll be able to keep that thing tucked and folded neatly in his pants until the day he kicks the bukket. He’ll go off the deep end first. Wise witches will work this to their advantage.

The femme fatale should make sure she consistently conveys this same brand of contempt for his sexuality, as well as for her own. Even God Himself wouldn’t hold him guilty if he could not remain faithful to a controlling, lying, cheating, frivorce thieving, branch swinging, hoez. No worries! He’ll be out in no time.

If she’s struggling with a guilty conscience, and worried about how this will make her feel, possibly wondering if she could have done better (with Chad), then she can always rev up the hamster cage by telling herself that the Churchian God of the Tingle Tantrum won’t hold her guilty either, because, “everybody else is doing it”, and “it feelz sooo good”, so “just do it”.

Moreover, she should never feel guilty about breaking these bonds and destroying his life, because she’s a Strong Independent Woman™, and she has only but one peak fertility to exploit to the fullest!

Upon reflection, the reader may discover that most wimminz are already in the habit of abusing all of the above techniques to destroy their relationships and marriages – and they don’t even know it, or else, they don’t really care.



Posted in Female Power, Models of Failure, Relationships, Satire | Tagged , | 16 Comments