The Dominatrix Conversation

A dominatrix teaches power hungry women how to talk down to men.

Targeted Readership: Single men; Men who must deal with domineering women;

Kasia Urbanik June 22-4-2017

Profile of a Russian Dominatrix

The Style Section in the New York Times included an article written by Alice Hines entitled, Here’s How to Deal With Men (Thwack!) (January 20, 2018).  This article was also reviewed in Psychology Today by Dr. Tara Well, A Dominatrix Reveals the Secret to Power Dynamics (January 24, 2018).

These two articles cover the career and ‘professional’ advice of a self-professed Dominatrix, Kasia Urbaniak.  She has her own website, called The Academy, which offers tutorial videos for women seeking power and control over men.

Ms. Urbaniak immigrated from Russia, which is a strong Power vs. Fear (PvF) ethical system, so she obviously sees the world from within a vicious PvF ethical structure.  In a previous post, The Morphing Ethical System in the U.S. (2020 June 26), we looked at how this ethical structure is being coopted and developed in western society by TPTB.  So Ms. Urbaniak is a natural fit.  We should be prepared to see more of her ilk in feminine-centered media outlets.

She also collectively assumes that men and women are opponents in a zero-sum game.  By the way, contrary to her views, Russian society as a whole does not espouse such a cynical or competitive view towards male-female relationships, so NARWALT.

Aside from the obvious fact that her emotional constitution has been damaged beyond all hope of redemption, a psychoanalytical analysis of her viewpoint would suggest that there is some grand mal Psychological Projection going on.


A Feminist Russian Dominatrix Speaks to Wimmin

The headline on her website reads,

“I teach women to profoundly expand their personal power and influence in a world that is screaming for it.”

At first, I found her site to be a grandiloquent, satirical gaffe of the BDSM industry, intended to attract business.  But then she asks the question,

“How does the silencing of women begin?”

This is a loaded question, and one that I find quite offensive, honestly, because she is not a lesbian dominatrix.  It would be snappier, more honest, and more in line with the spirit of her business to instead ask the question,

“How does the silencing of men begin?”

But no, if she were that honest, it would not attract the glorified cover of the NYT and Psych Today.  Her popularity has arisen because, and ONLY because, she is a Feminist mouthpiece, and one who lies through a contorted identity, with the implied aim to ‘save women from their oppression’.

In addition, her question is offensive because not only does she presume to be an itinerant ‘savior’, she also assumes a lot of false contexts that buy into the feminist narrative.  A few are listed as follows.

  • It assumes that women are systemically oppressed.
  • It assumes that women are ‘not allowed’ to speak (freely).
  • It assumes that men are engaged in a conspiracy to subjugate women.
  • It assumes that men have the mass-scale power and the collective will to silence women.
  • It assumes that women need to ‘defend’ themselves by making a collective effort to exert power over men.

These assumptions might be true in other cultures subscribing to the Power vs. Fear (PvF) ethical system (e.g. Sudan), or even the Honor vs. Shame (HvS) ethical system (e.g. Saudi Arabia), but they’re not true in the west.  The west has the opposite problem.  Substitute the words ‘men’ for ‘women’, and ‘feminists’ for ‘men’ in the above statements, to get a true description of the social dynamics in the west.  Hence,

  • Men are systemically oppressed.
  • Men are ‘not allowed’ to speak (freely).
  • Feminists are engaged in a conspiracy to subjugate men.
  • Feminists have the mass-scale power and the collective will to silence men.
  • Men need to ‘defend’ themselves by making a collective effort to counteract the power of Feminist influence.

This seems to fit right into the Dominatrix’s world view, and some men might be able to accept this in the context of sexual playacting.  However, men can’t accept living in a world based on this reality, at least not normal healthy men.  Feminists might agree, but they would never own up to it.  That would constitute waaay too much honesty to be possible.

Singapore Dominatrix

So what is the right way to think of relationships?

I need to interrupt this analysis to point out how the Dominatrix’s attitude toward male-female relations is wrong.  In general, the right mindset is sort of the opposite.

First off, a healthy relationship does not assume that men and women are opponents, unless there is an Adam and Eve type of rebellion happening.  Men and women were meant by God to be companions.

Secondly, a healthy relationship does not engage predominantly in zero sum games.

Thirdly, the Power vs. Fear ethical structure applied within a relationship is troglodyte primitive.

Her viewpoint is wrong, but it’s not because men are purportedly ‘scared’ of suave, harridan sex workers, or the demise of ‘Patriarchy’ (as Feminists mockingly claim).  Neither is it wrong because it devalues and emasculates men, although it does.  It is wrong because it inverts God’s ordained hierarchy, which is the natural order humans must conform to, if they wish to see good days.


The Dominatrix’s Locus of Power is Verbal

Let’s look past the feminist propaganda and presumptive braggadocio and find out the source of her power.  She explains the control dynamic expressly as follows.

“In Academy lexicon, the word “you” is dominant and the word “I” is submissive.  Neither is inherently superior.  “If I’m in control of you, my attention is outward, so precisely fixed on the other person that I almost forget I exist,” Ms. Urbaniak told the audience.  If you’re submissive, “your attention is focused inward, on yourself and your feelings.”

Dominant and submissive are, she said, rhetorical and energetic states, and can be unmoored from the social hierarchies that empower men.  It’s a post-gender outlook, with as much in common with theories of performativity as with women’s empowerment programs like the Makers Conference and Lean In, …”

Towards the end of the article, the focus turns to one of Ms. Urbaniak’s students, Ms. Kubiak, who is an aerospace business developer.  She says,

“Perceiving and fluidly shifting between dominant and submissive roles improves our communication as a species, she said.”

No, it would improve our communication if men and women recognized their dominant and submissive roles respectively, and consistently adhered to them.

“For now, Ms. Kubiak is exploring the nuances of dominance and submission at Starbucks: “One day I might say, ‘I really feel like a white-chocolate mocha.’ The next, ‘You’re going to make me a cappuccino with extra foam, superdry.’”

That’s easy practice.  I’m sure the potbellied soyboys at Starbux would be eager to comply with her demands.

“Practice makes perfect.  “I’d really like to be in the room,” Ms. Kubiak told her boss when he asked her to arrange lunch instead of being present for the signing of the deal she had negotiated.  If she could do it over?  “I’d nail him with a bunch of questions,” she said.”

Note to Ms. Kubiak: Keep it up and see how long he enjoys your company enough to keep you on board.  Remember, employees are not hired to question and test the boss’ decisions, but to help the business achieve certain goals.


Concluding Statements

Ed once offered a useful definition of a curse as anything that presents a barrier to Shalom.  This definition agrees with how lies and inner vows act as an umbrella that blocks God’s showers of blessings.  In this case, the lie is that women should dominate men.

Dominatrices, and feminism in general, attempts to subvert God’s ordained order by appointing women to exercise moral and verbal authority over men.  They will assert that the ordained order is corrupt because of their own psychological projection.  Even so, they will encourage women to exert whatever power they can over men.

A woman who continually makes a man feel self-conscious is explicitly eroding his confidence, and the development of a healthy ego.  A woman who makes a man feel self-conscious is inflicting a double curse on him.  This is a powerful curse because (1) it inverts the structure of authority, and (2) it makes him focused on his own performance and how he is judged by others on his outer appearance.  If a man falls for this ruse and comes to believe this is the right way to think, then he is “under her spell” (in mythical language).  This destroys the natural development of confidence, and leads a man directly into feminine pedestalization, legalism, gyneolatry, or apostasy.  For more on this angle, read Reevaluating the Centrality of the Male Ego (2020 April 15).  Therefore, if a woman does this, it should be taken as a bl00dy red flag.

On a lighter note, it might help a man if he exercised the use of the pronoun “you” in a dominant manner when speaking to women and making demands of them, as Ms. Urbaniak has inadvertently revealed.


Posted in Culture Wars, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Power, Feminism, Holding Frame, Models of Failure, Power, Psychology, Strategy, Vetting Women | Tagged , | 10 Comments

Some like it Hot

Different men get different responses from different women.

Readership: All;

Pease porridge hot, pease porridge cold,
Pease porridge in the pot, nine days old;

Some like it hot, some like it cold,
Some like it in the pot, nine days old.

Have you ever thought that these old folk songs might carry any analogous interpretation of something significant that would not be polite to discuss openly?

In recent years, such topics are not so taboo.  For example, here’s an oldie moldy hit from 1985, Some Like It Hot, by The Power Station — a supergroup featuring Robert Palmer, Tony Thompson from Chic, and John and Andy Taylor from Duran Duran.  It’s something to listen to while reading.

Is Female Attraction Digital or Analog?

Under the previous post, Looking at the Essentials (2020-6-12), Scott and DS discussed whether a woman’s strength of attraction for a man can change significantly.

Scott argues that a women’s attraction is digital, that it’s either on or off, and that there’s nothing in between. DS argues that women’s sense of attraction is analog, that it is subject to variance and context, and can move up or down a sliding scale. I’ve picked out the crucial points of their arguments as follows.

Addendum: Christianity and Masculinity has reviewed these same arguments in his post Jumping back to meet cute scenarios (2020 June 27).  He has reached a few of the same conclusions.  If you’ve been following these arguments and are already familiar with them, then you may want to skip over the next two sections.


The Argument for Digital Attraction

Scott offers an example of how a woman can move up the spectrum from a man’s point of view, and adds that this is how men fall in love.

“I have had several LTRs that developed over time with women for whom I had almost no regard for in the first place. It’s usually a coworker, or someone you see on a regular basis for whatever reason. She could be flashing giant orange flags that read “here I am come and approach. I will say YES” and I just move along with my life as if nothing is happening. Then, one day the thought flashes across your mind “I never noticed how cute her smile is.” And then you are toast. All of the sudden she is all you think about from the time you get up to the time you go to bed. You now have a crush on a girl who up until this point was just somebody you see as part of the scenery at work.”

Scott argued that men can think on a spectrum as described in the previous example, but it’s not women’s nature to be that way.

“At first glance, the idea of a spectrum of attraction (woman—>man) strikes me as wishfully ascribing male thinking processes to women.

In other words, men are projecting their own vectors of attraction onto women. That is to say, men have the mistaken notion that attraction works the same way for women as it does for men. Making this kind of assumption has long been known to be a blind spot for men.

Scott also says that analog attraction is a fiction necessary to monetize Red Pill content.

“I believe that the red-pill content creators (the big ones, Christian or not) are full of crap if they believe that true, visceral attraction can be created in a woman who never had it for you in the first place. Like within the first meeting.

Some of them have a conflict of interest in trying to create this fiction, because they sell books and have monetized YouTube accounts. It is in their best interest to make this seem possible.

In summary, Scott posits that DS is mistaken in assuming that women are analog, that women think and behave like men, and that this is a common type of misperception.

“I have never seen a woman go from being luke warm about a guy and then become [truly] hot for him. She may settle and convince herself that she is attracted to a man who is the best she can get, but hot crazy in love — no.

If you are not getting really obvious IOIs right from the start, move on. If that makes me “black pill” so be it. I want men to find women who cannot keep their hands of them, otherwise they risk terrible destruction later on.”

Scott offered this conclusion.

“I tend to frame this debate as one of a scarcity vs abundance mentality. Why put so much effort into squeezing juice out some prospect (a girl who was aloof to you at the start) instead of just moving on to the next one?”

Note that this argument is indicative of an abundance mindset. That is, there are other prospects to move on to.


The Argument for Analog Attraction

In response, Deep Strength argued,

“There are certainly both men and women who are marrying with varying levels of attraction, but very few have absolutely no attraction. These are probably the ones where you have the wives cringing away from physical contact with their husbands in wedding photos. There are a few, but they’re definitely not even a big minority.

If we’re using a 0-10 scale where no attraction is a 0 and crazy love at first sight is a 10, there’s a big range. The real question isn’t if we can take a 0 to a 10… it’s if we can take a 3-4 to a 7-8 in most cases. The “sort of maybe attractive when I’m ovulating” or “relatively dead bedroom but once were attracted to each other” to “I want to do him at least several nights a week.” You don’t have to be the 10 of “I want to bang like bunny rabbits all the time.”

I think the answer to that is yes in a good amount of cases. The results/field reports of husbands turning around their marriages on MRP (married red pill) and RPChristians speak to this.”

Here, Deep Strength outlines the hierarchy of women’s preferences in attraction.

“There are definitely some reciprocal indications in terms of attraction itself. For instance, women can pick out attractive features on men just like men can pick out various attractive features on women. If they have particular unattractive features that knocks them down. Most people are not models so they have a relative mix of attractive or unattractive features.

In general, male sexuality operates on some lines of physical attractiveness: “would bang but wouldn’t date” to “would bang and date” to “would bang and marry.”

As we know though, female sexual strategy is relatively dualistic: AF/BB. Ideally, a man has both AF (dominant, handsome, charismatic, masculine, high status, successful leader,) and BB (money). Women’s hierarchy is AF + BB > AF > BB > None. Or if they are their own BB with a good job then it’s AF + BB > AF > None > BB.

It’s a spectrum and not a yes or no. Women who can’t marry an AF + BB or AF will try to get a man who has some AF with a lot of BB, and so on down to only BB. But they will be less and less happy about it.”

He offered this example to illustrate how attraction can be analog.

“Lemme give you another example. I’m maybe average attractiveness (not unattractive but not attractive). A couple of my friends have called me a 6. I don’t normally get women to look at me twice. However, I’ve TAed a few classes where there are multiple TAs working together with a large group of students. What usually ends up happening is that a lot of the students (including the women) start to gravitate toward the more attractive men first. However, I know my stuff down pat, and I usually challenge the students and tease the girls. My professor later told me that a large majority of the students told me that I was their favorite TA. I was getting IOIs from the women whereas I had none before and even asked some out later and said yes.

This is the power of being in a position of relative authority and being charismatic with the students. I think it’s also true that first impressions are the most important, and it’s relatively rare(r) that a woman will like you, sans not being attracted at first impression, but it’s been my experience that there are chances to subvert that notion but it has to be in specific circumstances.

YMMV. But I’ve had that happen several times throughout my life like I described in the Meet Cute article on my site [Meet Cutes – Are They Common? (2020 March 13) so] this is not an isolated incident. Some other commenters chimed in saying it was the case for them too.”

Deep Strength’s argument is summarized here.

“From what I’ve seen it depends on fairly specific circumstances to set men up to be successful when there is not a lot of initial attraction. We discussed some way back when here: Understanding the Friend Zone and Escaping it (2015 April 10)”

Both men have a pretty solid case. Both men have experiences to back up their arguments. But how could both men be right?

fireman stripper

Women are always “ON”

In my view of the way it is, women are always “on” sexually. They have an ego investment in being able to receive attention, usually by being attractive. They are always intensely conscious of their sexual value, and they tend to interpret everything through a sexualized lens. But the thing is, women are also genuine virtuosas in hiding their fertility and arousal.

As an example of this, let me say that it is common for a man, while having no motives whatsoever, to speak to a young woman about something benign, and then get an indignantly hot retort of, “Sorry, I have a boyfriend!” In this, she is subtly insinuating that the man is making a sexual advance, which she then decides to reject. Such instances of self-centered solipsism betray their deeper nature.

The challenge that women face is not in masking their sexual instincts, but for them to find a way to express that part of their nature without any negative repercussions. They are finicky in the selection of the man they will express their sexuality to, and they can be extremely particular about the social setting as well.

But once a woman can open herself up fully in the presence of a man, the crazed, animalistic intensity of female’s raw c0ckamania spews forth. (Some men don’t actually want to know how insane this craving can be, because it would disrupt their sense of order and their respect for humanity.)

Now, I’m oversimplifying ten years worth of Red Pill praxeology here, but the idea is that women are sexual beings by nature, and it simply awaits to be revealed. The modus operandi of Pick-Up Artistry is all about understanding and maneuvering the complicated processes required to reveal the feminine sexual nature.

Modern culture has also made it easier for women to abandon agency and express their sexual nature. See Heartiste’s exposition on The 6 Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse (2012 November 2).

In general, women gravitate towards any man or situation that allows them to lower their guard and freely abandon the responsibilities of having any moral agency. Bad girls will even insist on their “right” to exploit this state of being. The aphorism, “girls just wanna have fun”, rings true here. As we already know, women find this easy to do with certain men, and the qualities of such men have been discussed before. (We give these high SMV men convenient labels such as AF’s, chads, studs, and the like.) But one noteworthy characteristic of these men is that they are self-sufficient and so they have many options because they are not beheld to various personal needs.

Some women (too few in my opinion) have additional qualifications about choosing a man for additional purposes, i.e. marriage, and therefore, these women have additional ramifications to consider in their process of opening up.

fire eyes

Different Men Attract Different Women

With these things in mind, we have to consider the visceral appeal of the man in question, and his overall suitability for a given woman’s intended purposes for pairing up with him. Here I’ll use Scott, DS, and myself as examples to illustrate how different women react to a man’s SMV.

  • Scott is (or was) at least a 9 on an SMV scale, so he shines out readily and many hot women are quick to open up to him. Thus, these women’s inherent sexual nature is expressed almost immediately.
  • I would put myself somewhere between 7 to 8 (maybe a 9 at my peak). So my experience resonates with Scott’s, although it is not as scintillating. I drew the frantic attentions of a lot of women who had a lower SMV than I did. But I would never get IOI’s from extremely attractive women (unless they were desperately looking for short term thrills). I still get a very positive reaction from many women, almost daily, but I wouldn’t necessarily interpret this as a meaningful IOI. It just means that some women find it easy and enjoyable to open up to me.
  • DS stated that he is a 6, so we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that fewer women open up to him, and only under certain circumstances that allow his inner qualities to shine forth. DS doesn’t have a lot of frenzied females calling him in the middle of the night to come top her off. But on the other hand, it might be easier for DS to find a deeper, more meaningful relationship, simply because only those women who are attracted to his inner qualities come forth showing interest.
  • We can assume that a man who is not self-sufficient, or less than a theoretical threshold, would not get any attention at all from women. Within a patriarchal society having moralized norms, this threshold would be very low. But as the acceptance and ease of promiscuity increases, so does this threshold. Herein lies the widespread appeal among men for the patriarchal system. It is also one reason why rebellious, promiscuous women despise the patriarchal system.

All of this seems to support the claim that women are opportunistic in the mating game, and that men don’t have a clue, which renders them idealistic.


Different Women are Attracted to Different Men

Going off of the previous section, we can see how there is a vast difference in the kind of women that each man attracts.

  • Scott attracts women who are expressly looking for a handsome man. He obviously knows that “girls just wanna have fun” (i.e. sex), and that they are only open to those men who are conducive to this experience.
  • I can attract a number of women for sex quite easily, but they are not the type of women that would be so gorgeous as to be beyond my threshold of temptation. I can attract women for relationships, but things tend to go slower for me than things go for Scott, which is more like what DS experiences.
  • DS attracts women who are more reserved and self-controlled, and probably more marriage minded too. These women are also those who tend to be more sophisticated in their selection process.

For those girls that DS describes as having no apparent attraction in the beginning, but who slowly “warm up” to the man (given the right social setting), I think one of two events can be safely presumed, and either of these would jive with Scott’s arguments.

  1. The girl always had a soft spot for that man from early on. But the girl has to wait for the relationship and the social setting to develop before they can feel free to express their deeper feelings.
  2. The girl is turned on by the social structure itself. A man exercising authority and displaying competence is what turns them on, and not the man himself.

As I mentioned before, women are extremely skilled in hiding their own feelings of attraction and fertility cycle, and this is “built in” from an evo-psyche perspective. As Rollo says, women have an existential fear of wasting their reproductive potential on a sub-optimal man.  They don’t want to choose poorly, waste time, or look like a fool. In other words, the “gathering” instinct of the woman finds a large number of choices of men whom she is attracted to, or turn her on, and so she has the luxury of choice, making her very relaxed and selective. She waits until one man shines out before opening herself up.

On the outside, it all looks the same to the man. But a discerning man can figure out which of these inner mechanisms is at play if he is aware of it. The difference in the woman’s motivations behind her response is largely determined by her personality. In general, introverted girls follow the first approach listed above, and extroverted girls follow the latter.

man and woman on fence

Concluding Statements

So going back to the debate between Scott and DS, I think they are talking past each other due to their different life experiences caused by their contrasting SMV’s.

The takeaway from this excellent discussion is that…

  • Different kinds of men attract different kinds of women.
  • Different kinds of women are attracted to different kinds of men.
  • Hawt men can easily attract attention from those women seeking hawt men.
  • Women who are more selective, more sophisticated, more demanding in their expectations, or who have the luxury of choice will be more choosy and careful in selecting a man.
  • Both hawt handsome men (like Scott), and men who display authority and competence (like DS) are able to create attraction.
  • The social structure and setting is often what allows each respective man to showcase those unique characteristics of his which can attract those individual women who happen to find those things to be attractive.
  • I should also add that libido and testosterone (T) presents a significant difference among men. Libido causes the sexual interaction to become a significant motivator in determining the preferred relationship structure.  It is also known that women, in general, are highly attracted to high T men.

Some like it hot, some like it cold.


Posted in Attraction, Authenticity, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Discernment, Wisdom, Female Power, Game Theory, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Personal Presentation, Relationships, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Strategy, Vetting Women | Tagged , | 10 Comments

She Needs You

Having an abundance mentality is indisposable to a man.

Readership: Christian men, husband’s, fathers, and those called to be such.

I came across this post in Ed’s archives. It contains a message that needs to be repeated.

Do What’s Right: She Needs You (2012 March 30)

There is no short course in having a shepherd’s heart.

The quintessential man is a shepherd. He doesn’t need the sheep; they need him. There are blessings and rewards for getting involved, for tying yourself to their needs, but you could live without them. In fact, it’s easier to be a predator. But in the grand moral sense of how the universe operates, if you really want the best of what’s available, you’ll take up the often thankless task of shepherding.

Fundamental to the whole thing is your own sense of need. If you are needy, you are a sheep yourself. You’re a little boy who still needs his mommy, still nursing at the breast. You aren’t fulfilling her needs, because you drag on her inner resources too long and the sabbatical rest is denied. These are all symbols conveying a very deep truth beyond clinical discussion. If you haven’t taken responsibility for the things demanded of you, if you haven’t first demanded satisfaction of what you need from yourself, you can’t let go and stand alone.

If you can’t stand alone, you can’t do anything for anyone else which matters. It means you don’t matter. You’re a problem, not the solution. Being a man means having some answers which come from inside you, answers which outweigh and justify your demands. It means doing what only a man can do. Don’t mistake that for simply doing your job, honoring your contracts, etc. Those are fundamental human moral obligations, not manhood itself. Pulling your own weight is just the starting point. There is something unique in taking the responsibility for the welfare of others, but even more rare is feeling the pain of failure. It’s ownership, not of all the outcomes, but of all the losses you can’t possibly prevent. It’s the power to face the weaknesses, failures, sorrows and still willing to try again.

More, it’s the dire need to keep trying because you can not let yourself quit. You’ll always be capable of miscalculating and quitting too soon or not soon enough, but those are incidental to the inner necessity of commitment to a sense of mission you simply can’t abandon. You are saying, “Screw the cost; I have to do this.” If you can really get hold of that, let it get hold of you, then you have whatever it is manhood is supposed to mean.

This is that very something women need. This is what calls to them. It really has precious little to do with measurable accomplishments, though some are silly and shallow enough to think that’s what matters. If so, they don’t matter. Because a real woman is looking for a real man. If you can scrape off the silly Victorian and Germanic-feudal notions of “real man,” just as she must reject the same mythology about herself, you might get somewhere with this. A man does not need a woman, but everything which calls to him is exponentially better with her support. The survival imperative of passing on your genes is a poor shadow of what really matters eternally. Rising above mere instinct means you’ll draw on all of hers.

Your fire of commitment is her warmth in a cold and abusive world.

I can’t justify any of this with pure logic. If there is nothing in a man or woman to find this vision compelling, we have to let them wallow in the lies. Manhood itself includes an ineffable awareness that certain things depend entirely upon him or it all goes to Hell. He has to accept that burden as part of his redemption from the Fall. She has to get behind him, or she has no hope, but he has to be there first. Her taking the lead in deep spiritual matters is why we are fallen in the first place. It’s not her mission, not her place, not her wiring. The pinnacle of her hope is her man’s commitment, and damn the failures. Indeed, for both of them, the only thrill worth having, the only joy possible, comes from embracing this vision.

It is not just doing, because performance scores are deceptive; nor is it fitting some definition (AKA, “being”). It’s living it, something worth dying for. Live it, man.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Having an Attractive Attitude in Serving

Having the right attitude goes a long way towards becoming a recipient of a blessing.

Readership: Christian Men;


In a previous post about Being Attractive in Service (2020 June 24), we discussed how being involved in the church and community could provide a setting in which a man could attract the attention of a female.  It’s not even necessary for a man to serve in a formal manner.  All he has to do is establish a friendly rapport with others, and carry himself with the right attitude about life.

Yes, a man’s attitude is extremely important.  You might be motivated to get involved and serve in order to meet chicks or guy friends, but if you expect those things to just fall out immediately, you’re setting yourself up for frustration, disappointment, and even anger, which will only work against you.  Instead, you need to have a purpose that transcends beyond your own self.  You have to go into it with a posture of humility and service, and if you’re too proud, then this will feel like you’re a “dancing monkey”, as some readers have commented.

To safeguard yourself against having a counterproductive attitude, it helps if you become aware of what God is doing, and what other people want or need done.  If you’re truly serving with the right attitude, then you will feel an internal burden of responsibility to do certain things and act a certain way.  Accepting this sense of responsibility is the hard part for most people.  It’s much easier to just do what you’re asked to do, and remain ignorant about the purposes of the larger enterprise.  If you don’t feel this burden of conviction, then you’re probably only doing those things for your own glory and benefit, and you don’t have the proper mindset to glorify God through your service.

couple painting the wall

Stay focused on the Work, not on the Reward

As a comparison, let’s think about what it is like to work for a company.  It is counterproductive to go into the job with the attitude, “What can I personally get out of this?”  But this is the same common attitude that most 9 to 5 wage slaves at a corporation have, and they too feel like dancing monkeys who suck up to the boss and resent him at the same time.  I don’t have to tell you, those employees who have such an attitude are the last to receive praise or get a promotion.  The “good” employees are those who focus on the work, and try their best to understand what the boss is trying to accomplish, in order to educate themselves about what all needs to be done.  These are the employees that are favored by the boss, and who receive not only wages, but also opportunities for advancement and honor.

When we volunteer our time and energy to serve the church or others in our community, we are working for the Kingdom, and our boss is God.  We have to think about what God wants done in this situation, and then find a way to fulfill this need.  The impact of our attitude is similar to what we would find when working for a company.

sleeping on his own time

So what about finding a Wife?

I know it’s hard for men to get their minds off the bushy bullseye.  AngloSaxon quipped,

“What I’m taking away from this post is find a way of serving which involves walking around shirtless and proceed to Win.”

It is not that simple.  Going shirtless would only be appropriate for the kind of work that would be done alone or with other men.  But if another man’s daughter showed up to the site to serve the working men drinks and food, then your six-pack abs might be noticed by her.  That’s assuming that you have a six-pack, and that she’s the kind of girl who’s into that.

To make this scenario work, she must also have the mindset to serve in like manner.  So this can also act as a filter for the kinds of girls that you prefer to meet.  Remember the story of Rebecca at the well in Genesis 24?  Rebecca had the mind to help a stranger passing through town.  She did not expect to find a husband by doing so.

I believe even today God arranges things like this.  But if you’re not serving in the right place at the right time, then you’re not going to have a “Rebecca at the well” experience.  Of course, you have to be involved in the Lord’s work, and you need to have built up good rapport with the others (i.e. her father) before things like this can happen.  The previous post about Being Attractive in Service is about how to do that.

But remember, there is no guarantee of finding a Grade A wife in all of this.  You can’t expect to do A, B, C, and automatically obtain an obedient Christian wife with cup size D.  But being obedient to God will certainly increase your chances of receiving what you desire.


Blessings come by Surprise

JPF answered the exit question, and adds that you can’t arrange for God to arrange your meeting your future spouse.

“[What are some church or community sponsored activities that you know of, which would offer good opportunities] For establishing marriages within the group?  None.  The successes I saw were few enough that it is reasonable to say they were an accident, rather than the intended and desired result.”

There is no “accident” with God.  It only looks that way to us.  I’ve often had the impression that God wants to surprise people with blessings, but He can’t do that when people are too self-conscious and are expecting specific things, including comfort zone preservation and personal rewards.  “Taking yourself too seriously”, as Ed put it, is another very good way to describe this prideful, self-centered attitude.

Remember those sayings, “Life happens when you’re busy doing something else“, and “You’ll meet someone when you least expect it“?  The idea here is to put yourself into a conducive situation and foster the corresponding attitude and mood in which that something or someone can happen.

JPF adds,

Some “singles” ministries even stated flat out that if you were here to find a spouse, you have the wrong attitude.”

This is only half true.  Focusing on what you can personally get out of serving is the wrong attitude.  But being there to find a spouse?  Pray tell, where else would be a better place for Christian singles to mix and meet?  The Saints and Sinners nightclub on Bourbon St.?  Or maybe Tinder is better???

It is to be expected that young people coming to church, or to functions designed to serve others in the church, may have deeper motivations for doing so.  There’s nothing wrong with having other motivations to get involved.  What matters is how it plays out.

I’ll offer the following true anecdote as an explanation.


Case Study — Wrong Motivations can be Redeemed

Many years ago, there was a college aged man — an unbeliever — who was invited by his friends to visit our church.  After he came to our church, he saw that there were a number of nice girls in the young adult congregation (which had a separate worship service from the adult congregation), and he kept coming back for this reason.  He talked openly about his interests in this girl or that girl.  The other youths were alarmed by his talk and they told the pastor about it.  The pastor asked to talk to him privately and he agreed.  During their meeting, this young man had the balls to tell the pastor that his motivation for coming to church was to meet girls.  The pastor wisely told him that if he wanted to keep coming to our church, then he needed to serve in the church, and he needed to adopt the mindset that he would marry one of the girls in the congregation.  If he was unwilling to accept these two conditions, then he was not welcome to come anymore.  He really liked the girls, so he agreed to these conditions.

He followed through on the agreement, and after a year, he became a professing Christian.  (Of note, the pastor never required him to become a Christian in their agreement, but he apparently had the faith that it would happen.)  After two years, this young man paired up with one of the sweetest and most attractive girls at church.  Everyone agreed that they made a good couple.  After about two more years, they got married.  At the time they married, she was 23, and he was 25.

Today, they are very happily married and have two children.  He is presently one of the church elders.

happy asian family


Men always want to keep looking for the easy silver bullet for bagging a wife (a list of things to do or say that have immediate, tangible results), but this is not the way to get what you want out of God.  In fact, this self-centered approach is characteristic of a poverty mentality.  It is not the right attitude to have in serving God.

God rewards those who love Him, obey Him, and who exercise faith in doing so.  Furthermore, this love should be freely extended to those around us.  This is the best attitude that we can strive for.

“But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” ~ Hebrews 11:6 (NKJV)

Here is a general short list of some hallmark characteristics of spiritual obedience in serving God or man.  You need to…

  • Be where God wants you to be.
  • Do what God wants done.
  • Do the work with a sense of responsibility characteristic of a good steward.
  • Have a sense of personal conviction, but do not take yourself too seriously.
  • See the purpose of the larger enterprise.
  • Do the emotional work of being upbeat, optimistic, and inspiring.
  • Go with the Flow (viz. Csíkszentmihályi Flow).
  • Don’t resort to disappointment if things don’t go smoothly, or work out as planned.
  • Don’t become frustrated if God doesn’t reward you immediately.
  • Have faith that it’s all in God’s hands.

Service is not supposed to be self-gratifying, so don’t expect this.  However, the work itself can be fun and deeply satisfying, especially if it’s something that you’re good at.

Having a specialized knowledge, skill, ability, or qualification can put you way ahead in terms of confidence, spiritual authority, and responsibility, and this holds true whether it is recognized by others in the pecking order or not.


Posted in Attitude, Attraction, Building Wealth, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Confidence, Courtship and Marriage, Faith Community, Game Theory, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Personal Presentation, Purpose, Relationships, SMV/MMV, Stewardship, Strategy, The Power of God, Vetting Women | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

The Morphing Ethical System in the U.S.

A study of how the Righteousness vs. Guilt ethical structure of the West was able to have been undermined and overturned.

Readership: All;

Over the past two years or so, conversations in the sphere have turned from being focused on questions of morality, agency, and motivations, to issues of hierarchies, power structures, and cost/benefit analysis. This is no accident, but is indicative of a reaction to how the ethical structure has changed within the wider culture.

This essay takes a closer look at these changes.


Over two years ago, The Aquila Report reblogged a paywalled article from Christianity Today, Shame, Guilt, and Fear: What 1,000 Americans Avoid Most (2017 May 27) [1]. This article cited a study from LifeWay Research, Americans Want to Avoid Shame, Make Their Loved Ones Proud (2017 May 23), that reported what motivates the social behaviors of Americans.

“Shame has become particularly powerful in American culture in the internet age, said Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay Research. A single mistake or embarrassing moment posted on social media can ruin a person’s life.”

“What’s our biggest cultural fear? Shame,” he said. “What’s surprising is not that personal freedom, ambition, and doing the right thing are valued by Americans. It’s that risk to our reputation is what matters most.”

“Researchers asked 1,000 Americans three questions to discover their feelings about fear, shame, guilt, and other issues.”

“Overall, 38 percent of Americans say they avoid shame the most, while 31 percent say guilt and 30 percent say fear.

Education and age play a role in which feelings Americans avoid. Those with graduate degrees (44%) are more likely to avoid shame than those with high school diplomas or less (34%). Americans ages 25 to 34 avoid guilt (37%) more than those 55 and older (27%). Middle-aged Americans—those 35 to 54—are the most likely age group to worry about shame (44%).

In addition to education (which is a proxy indicator of socio-economic class) and age, religious affiliation makes a difference too.

Nones—those who claim no religious identity—avoid guilt (35%) more than those who are religious (30%). Those who are religious avoid shame (39%) more than nones (33%). Those from non-Christian faiths are most likely to avoid shame (48%).

When it comes to what Americans with evangelical beliefs avoid most, 34 percent say guilt, 34 percent say fear, and 32 percent say shame. For Americans worshiping at least once a month, 37 percent say shame, 32 percent say fear, and 31 percent say guilt. (The findings were not significantly different from non-evangelicals or non-worshipers.)

It is interesting that shame is the biggest concern of church-goers, while shame is the weakest motivator among the general populace. The fact that the consciousness of shame increases with the frequency of church attendance leads us to question the overall effect that participating in organized religion has on a person.

The author notes that shame has not been a significant social motivator since the 1830’s, and I’ll point out that this happened to be a particularly godless age in American history.

Shifting Ethical Structures

The author failed to mention that fear, shame, and guilt are not only social motivators, they are also the three main categorical ethical structures that are manifested within the various cultures of the world.

Western Christianized cultures have adhered predominantly to a Righteousness vs. Guilt (RvG) ethical system. But in recent times, the combined influences of social media, feminist ideology, and globalism have produced a gradual shift away from this ethical structure, while the two other ethical systems, Power vs. Fear (PvF), and Honor vs. Shame (HvS), have made impressive advances into western culture. The report cited above shows that the three systems of cultural ethics are now neck-to-neck in competing with each other in the U.S.A.

I’ve written about ethical systems before in Foundations of Cultural Ethics and Chivalry (2018-2-18). If you’re unfamiliar with cultural ethics, then you may want to read this post before continuing. I’ll reiterate the relevant aspects here within the specific context.


The Primary Concerns of the Different Ethical Structures

Here we’ll take a glance at certain elements of each ethical system, to see how they play against each other.

Righteousness vs. Guilt (RvG)

People who abide in a RvG system are intensely interested in moral agency, because the degree to which a person possesses it, is directly proportional to the appropriate amount of guilt (or innocence) that should be ascribed to the person in question. Thus, the social practice of determining agency is a natural socio-psychological process of those operating within a RvG system in which social status and virtue are assigned on the basis of one’s innocence and righteousness.

Rollo and Donal Graeme have discussed the question of the degree of moral agency that females possess. I doubt that either Rollo or Donal Graeme are aware that their prerogative of ascertaining moral agency directly follows the RvG ethical structure, in which motives and responsibilities are fundamental necessities in establishing the social order. But the implicit purpose of asking this question of female agency is to discern the appropriateness of certain female behaviors, and thus, which behaviors should be considered ‘acceptable’ and which should not. Moreover, in searching out the assignations of agency, they are attempting to rebuild a culture based on the RvG ethical system.

Donal Graeme and Rollo are certainly not alone in their preponderances on agency. The fact that Graeme’s post, Moral Agency in Women – Revisited (2013 March 11) is one of his all-time top-ranked posts, stands as a testament of how important the question of agency is to those in a RvG culture.

However, the answers to these questions concerning agency could never be definitively circumscribed. I might guess that this is because the majority of those living in Western culture no longer adhere to the RvG system. In other words, it’s a false/dead question with no real world application and therefore no discernable true answer. This incoherency also explains the lackluster response that this question has received in the comments sections.

guilt-shame rubric

Honor vs. Shame (HvS)

People living in a HvS system are intensely interested in heritage, titles, positions of authority, wealth, and social status, because the person’s standing indicates the appropriate level of honor or shame that should be ascribed to the person in question. This seems to agree with the findings of the above study that highly educated and religious individuals are more sensitive to shame.

The thing is, the type of shame relevant to the HvS system is an outward, socially perceived shame, and not a true, internal sense of shame. Thus, if Christians buy into the HvS system, they may be more sensitive to public opinion, rather than to their internal convictions. This fully explains why many leading pastors are caught up in social trends and worldly philosophies, instead of remaining faithful to the Word of God. Those of us who have been following the Christian ‘sphere (i.e. Dalrock, et al.) have already noticed this difference a few years ago, and we have come to label such pastors and churches “converged”. It also explains why the age-old practice of s1ut shaming has become a taboo, even when it is well deserved.

In a mixed system, the HvS system tends to dominate the RvG system. Tribal and religious loyalties will be considered the highest natural authority and will, over time, usurp the altruistic trust-based, law-oriented authority of the standing RvG system. Thus, Democratic institutions will ultimately be rendered inept in the competition and will fall hostage to feudal-oriented, tribal-minded political warlords. This explains why democracy is currently breaking down.

As I’m sure readers have already noticed, the vast majority of “refugees” emigrating to North America and Europe over the last two decades come from a HvS culture (i.e. Muslim). Thus, it can be understood why they continue to maintain their feudal identities and refuse to assimilate into their host cultures. This also explains why they fail to revere and conform to law and order, which is a social construct of the RvG system, and is especially emphasized in anglophonic nations.

Moreover, the refusal of these immigrants to submit to customary law has the strong potential to upset the standing order and foment large scale violence, especially as their numbers grow to a critical momentum, which according to scientific studies is approximately 10% of the population. [Note: The overall rate of immigration since the Hart-Cellar act of 1964 has now surpassed 14%.] These groups tend to cluster in urban metropolises, and some of these communities now recently have surpassed 30% or more of the local population. This situation is a powderkeg waiting to blow.

Power vs. Fear (PvF)

People living within a PvF system are intensely interested in the pecking order within any particular group of confederates, because the order of seniority determines the consideration and respect that each person in question should be granted. Furthermore, every social interaction between even two people, one must play the role of the mentor/administrator/leader/alpha, and the other must adopt the role of the student/assistant/follower/beta. No meaningful social interaction can transpire until these social conventions have first been established somehow.

The whole concept of 4th Wave Intersectional Feminism is to construct a different ethical system of social rank based on one’s level of ‘oppression’. It plays on the inherent weaknesses of the larger, RvG society by inferring guilt on race (white) and sex (male) through historical precedence (e.g. discrimination, segregation, slavery, suffrage, etc.). It seems to say, “You owe us, big time!” When feminists brand masculinity as ‘toxic’, they are using a reverse-pseudo-shame tactic (HvS) in order to leverage power over men and society (PvF). It thereby establishes a larger power structure (PvF) for females and minority groups.


Fellow blogger Rant A Tonne is a man of African heritage who (I believe) is living (or has lived) within a western RvG society. As such, I feel he has a more nuanced view of the real situation in western culture – a culture in the death grip of Feminism. In his post, Can Children Be Women? Expecting Female Agency (December 30, 2017), he offers some insights that consider both the RvG and the PvF ethical concerns.

“The feminist movements have advocated for changes in law and social standing that deny the agency of females. They claim that they are particularly subject to suggestion and social pressures, that their decision making can be impaired easier than that of an equally affected male. One of the recent, and most shameful claims, is that what a female says cannot be trusted. They are able to consent to something at the moment then a day later or decades withdraw that consent building on the way females are treated when they prey on students.”

Trust and agency are central pillars of the RvG system, so it is not surprising that trust has been thrown in the trash. The shame of this has not been perceived because it has been displaced by a new standard of honor – namely “oppression” and intersectional stack.

We could think of this takeover as a complex paper-rock-scissors game leading up to a Hegelian maneuver.

  • The HvS system is toxic to the RvG system.
  • The RvG system is toxic to the PvF system.
  • The PvF system is toxic to the HvS system.

The PvF system cannot win the loyalties of a standing RvG system without first weakening and displacing it. So the HvS system is implemented for this purpose. This tactic is totally dependent on the false-guilt inspired compassion and good will of those within the chivalrous RvG society [2]. Once the RvG ethical system ceases to be a plurality within society as a whole, then the power that Intersectional Feminism has over society will also vanish. The new power structure will depend on the predominant ethical structure, as those who hold the real, visceral power of life and death will begin to take control.

In plain language… Welcome to the Jungle~!


  1. Christianity Today (Bob Smietana): Shame, Guilt, and Fear: What 1,000 Americans Avoid Most (May 23, 2017)
  2. “Gautier emphasized that chivalry originated from the Teutonic forests and brought up into civilization by the Catholic Church. Charles Mills used chivalry “to demonstrate that the Regency gentleman was the ethical heir of a great moral estate, and to provide an inventory of its treasure”. Mills also stated that chivalry was a social, not a military phenomenon, with its key features: generosity, fidelity, liberality, and courtesy.”


Posted in Uncategorized | 38 Comments

Being Attractive in Service

Being attractive is more than just what you do.  Rather, the love, joy, and inspiration you bring into the lives of others through your service is what makes you a shining light.

Readership: Christian Men;


Deep Strength wrote an excellent essay on Dread Game in marriage: Revisiting dread in the Bible with an anti-chivalry lens (2020 June 18).

I liked this post, because it makes a distinction that Dread is not unique to PUA-styled game.  In fact, it is a characteristic of a healthy Christian marriage.

It also makes the point that women feel fear and dread when a man is living out his faith, and it thus becomes a quality that makes him attractive to women.  DS describes several ways in which this can happen, so it’s worth a read.

Moreover, when a man gets to a certain point in his spiritual maturity, he realizes that he doesn’t need a woman (or sex) to have a good relationship with God.  This gives him the freedom to break away from the mold of chivalry and dabble in his own best interests.  Overall, this comes off as unpredictability and dread behavior to an interested female.  This is also when he starts to become attractive to many other women, which amplifies his attractiveness due to pre-selection and jealousy.

How is Godliness Attractive?

The idea that godliness is attractive has been suggested in the Christian Manosphere.  However, there have been many arguments to the contrary, and so it is not widely accepted as being true.  Personally, I believe there is some truth to this.  I think it would help Christian men immensely if we could understand just exactly how spiritual maturity figures in to a man’s attractiveness.  I’ve given this a lot of contemplation, but so far, I haven’t been able to flush it out in detailed language.

Deep Strength offered an abridged answer.

“It’s true only when it aligns with the traits that make men attractive.

A pastor or worship band leader living out their calling would be attractive to women.  The Church greeter or parking lot coordinator or janitor are also parts of the body but obviously no women are attracted from those.

Both these groups can be godly and doing their part in the body of Christ, but women are only attracted to one group.”

I don’t agree with DS on this, because this assessment only considers the outward indicators of male SMV.  There is a lot more to attraction than mere proximity and AMOGing, and furthermore, there is nothing uniquely Christian about these traits, so it doesn’t support the argument that Godliness is attractive.

I am still working on figuring this one out, but one trait that I have seen (in addition to dread game) is how a Christian man carries himself around other people.  In a nutshell, he is salt and light.

1,256 House Painter Videos and HD Footage

How to Carry Yourself

A large part of what makes a man attractive is what emanates from his heart.  Remember, Charisma is King!

Actually, you don’t even need to serve or hold any position in the church in order to make a good impression and draw attention to yourself.  All you have to do is show up frequently to different gatherings and prod whoever you happen to meet into light-hearted discussions.

  • Don’t limit yourself to only interacting with your peers.
  • Don’t just talk to young attractive chicks only.
  • Strike up a chat with all kinds of people.
  • Talk to EVERYONE who comes your way!

Exchange simple life stories with the men.  Tell them about your job, or whatever else you’re doing.  Tell them your reaction to the sermon.  Be sure to ask for their advice and opinion.  You don’t have to do everything they tell you, but at least listen to their responses with earnestness and think it over seriously.  You’ll probably find some men that have some skills or hobbies that you’re interested in.  If you show them that you’re interested in those things, many of these men would be happy to invite you to their home or workshop to teach you a few things and hang out.  But not all men would be so proactive as to take the initiative to invite you over.  So don’t be afraid to ask them if you could come by sometime and check out what they’re doing.  Most men will agree, and they will also enjoy the time spent with you.

Play games with the children.  Make funny faces at them, tease them, and give them high-fives.  Some simple practical jokes might also be appropriate and intriguing to them.  This can be fun and easy to do, and it doesn’t take a lot of time.  If you can make them smile, then you’ve done a great job.

Talk to that sweet, kindhearted grandmother who is always doing stuff at church and helping people in her community.  Treat her like your own grandmother.  Flirt with her just for fun.*  Tell her she looks so great in that blue dress.  Give her a friendly hug of endearment.  She will eat it up, and you won’t ever get a #MeToo accusation from her.

“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” ~ James 1:27 (NKJV)

The important thing is to connect with people.  You can’t go to church just to scope out chicks, and ignore everyone else.  That kind of behavior is hardly above the pedestalization of the feminine.

One important thing is to never miss any opportunity to congratulate someone ENTHUSIASTICALLY on an accomplishment, no matter how small or insignificant it is.  Science has shown that this one action of affirmation does more to build rapport than any other social behavior.

* Note: Don’t try the flirting technique on high SMV women, younger women, married women, or basically any woman that has an ego investment in her SMV, because they will probably think you are a creep and respond negatively.  Go for those older widows and grandmothers who have long since outgrown their nubile addiction to impertinent indignation.  Choose those whom you genuinely like, so that you don’t have to be fake.

Pin on Hunks

Which type of service is for you?

In the beginning, I would take whichever opportunity came up that I believed was from God, just to get my foot in the door and build rapport with people.  Over time, I would let people know what I’m interested in doing, and what I’m good at doing.  When you’ve built up a network of people know your skill set, then other opportunities naturally follow.

Commenter Joe said,

“I think any man who is looking for a wife and is asked to volunteer for these [grungy, low profile] jobs [at church] should simply refuse.  There is no reason to make yourself look unattractive to the single women in the congregation.”

I disagree.  There might be some value in performing dismal duties for the church (and for God).  First off, I believe God will reward you for whatever service you offer, and according to Matthew 6, God offers greater rewards for work that does not draw public acclaim.

1 Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them.  Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven.  Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men.  Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.  But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.” ~ Matthew 6:1-4 (NKJV)

Secondly, it makes you appear more trustworthy and dependable to the elders, who may then over time, allow you to have other opportunities that would be more dignified.

Third, it safeguards against anyone who might criticize you for being a “show off”, who selects all the glorious jobs and refuses the common drudgery.

One negative consequence of taking this approach is that it might cause people to presume you are responsible for the yucky stuff, and then they get angry when you don’t.  So YMMV.  Just don’t allow yourself to get stuck indefinitely in a situation where you’re raking all the muck, and never get a chance to shine.

One church job that single Christian guys should volunteer for is driving the van to pick up college aged students to attend church functions.  This job requires responsibility, makes you appear authoritative, and puts you into direct contact with prime women.  I did this for about a year while I was in graduate school.  After a while, some girls would come to church just so they could sit with me in the van.  But after we got to church, they would go do other things in the neighborhood instead of attending the church function.  I quit the job after a couple girls invited me into their apartments (and bedrooms) when I took them back home late at night.  It was just too much temptation for me to handle.  The elders were angry with me for quitting because they didn’t trust the other young guys to do it, and they didn’t want to do this themselves.  Like I said, YMMV.  But this is a good example of how following God can give off the impression of Dread game and being unpredictable.


If a man is living in the spirit, staying busy doing his own thing, and is enjoying his life, then confidence should come naturally, and Charisma can be developed slowly.  When a man keeps himself busy with various interests, and has a schedule filled with work, friends, and other activities of interest, then it is not that hard to pull off what appears to be soft Dread, which might also be described as being aloof.

But at the same time, you have to make your presence known, and you have to create a good impression on others.  So here are ten points to remember.

  1. Go to church more regularly than not, and get involved with a church function.
  2. Be encouraging and optimistic in word and attitude.
  3. Create a charismatic personality for yourself.
  4. What you do at church is not as important as who you be.
  5. Talk regularly with the men. Don’t let them feel like it’s a strange thing that you would talk with them or hang around them.
  6. Focus on getting very well acquainted with just one or two of the men who are well established in the church.
  7. You can be friendly to women who are friendly and open to you, and who do not have a hamster that jumps to defensive conclusions. But be extra careful about the others.  It might be a good idea to avoid or ignore them altogether.
  8. Focus on being upbeat and effervescent around elderly women and children – those who have nothing to offer you in return.
  9. Remember that it’s never easy to serve, but it can be a lot of fun.
  10. Do it for God, not for yourself. God knows the difference and He will reward you accordingly.

I urge Christian men to get this ball rolling ASAP.  Start with anyone you can connect with.  Namely, your Church might be the easiest place to start flexing your Charisma.

Exit question: What are some church or community sponsored activities that you know of, which would offer good opportunities for young people to mix and meet prime members of the opposite sex?


Posted in Attraction, Authenticity, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Confidence, Courtship and Marriage, Game Theory, Glory, Influence, Joy, Love, Male Power, Models of Success, Personal Presentation, Purpose, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Stewardship, Strategy, Vetting Women | Tagged , , , | 14 Comments


The signs in the heavens are foreboding.  Are you prepared?

Readership: The prepared Elect;

Yesterday, June 21, 2020, was Father’s Day in many western countries.  But interestingly, Father’s Day happened to fall on the summer solstice, which is the longest day in the northern hemisphere.  It is therefore an ominous sign that a solar eclipse occurred on this same day.  It appeared as a full annular eclipse across sub-Saharan Africa, northern India, southern China, and Taiwan.

The annular solar eclipse on 21 June 2020, as seen from Taichung, Taiwan.

Click here to see a map showing the path of the eclipse shadow.

Such alignment (syzygy) coincides with a new moon indicating the Moon is closest to the ecliptic plane.  At the new and full moon, the Sun and Moon are in syzygy.  Their tidal forces act to reinforce each other, and the ocean both rises higher and falls lower than the average.  These tidal forces may also trigger earthquakes.

In mythology, solar deities are usually thought of as male while the lunar deity is female, but the opposite case is also seen.  In Germanic mythology the Sun is female and the Moon is male.  The Old High German Sun goddess is Sunna, from which is taken the modern English word for the Sun.

If we were to assume that this eclipse, which also falls on the summer solstice, and Father’s Day, is more than a coincidence, and that it is a sign in the heavens, then what is the mythological interpretation of this solar eclipse?

Read through the following headlines before making a conclusion.

  1. Al Jahom: Bring on the quickie divorce… (2020 June 6)*
  2. Captain Capitalism: The Four Types of Modern American Fathers (2020 June 10)*
  3. The Washington Post: Two-husband strategy may be a remedy for China’s one-child policy, professor posits (2020 June 10)
  4. Spartan Christianity: 7 Reasons Christian Men Get No Sex (2020 June 11)
  5. Wintery Knight: Why Don’t Men Go To Church Anymore?  The Decline of Male Church Attendance (2020 June 18)
  6. Gynocentrism: Self-actualization and the Red Pill (2020 June 20)
  7. Gunner Q: Love Your Father More Than This (2020 June 20)
  8. PA Pundits: Big Tech Censors Flex Their Muscles (2020 June 20)
  9. Whiskey Tango Texas: Prepping: 15 Things That Will Mostly Happen In Cities When The Economy Finally Collapses (2020 June 20)
  10. Overman Warrior’s Wisdom: Racism is not the Problem in America: It’s a lack of good fathers–the truth about “White Privilege” (2020 June 21)
  11. Spawny’s Space: Plead for Forgiveness (2020 June 20)

I dare say, God’s judgment will soon fall!  Something “bad” will happen in the next few months.

Hearken ye elect.  Ye have notice.  Be ye prepared!

* H/T: Dark Brightness: The Week in Reaction (2020 June 10)


Posted in Holding Frame, Moon Day Review, Prophecy | Tagged | 12 Comments

Sanctification and Sexual Compatibility

Are sanctification and sexual compatibility exclusive of each other?

Readership: Christians;

Fapper’s Fear of the Frigid Female

Christian men who are serious about sticking to the Good Book before the Great Clam Bake have a serious challenge on their hands.

Namely, they have the mind to wait to have sex until after they are married.  But naturally, they are afraid to marry a woman without first seeing whether she can perform in bed.  They are afraid of being shackled to a frigid log who recoils at his touch and can’t loosen up.

The risk of making a lifelong commitment in marriage to a woman who turns out to be a cold-tittied shrew is unimaginable, and totally unacceptable to most men, thus making the Test Drive™ option a real temptation.

We discussed this problem before in Sexual Compatibility is dependent on Sanctification (2020-3-2).

“Caterpillar asked a question about how a sexually inexperienced person is supposed to ascertain whether a particular potential partner will be sexually compatible or not.  This is something that is a grave concern of high priority to randy young Christian men who are holding out for marriage, but interestingly, this is not as important to God as it is to young horndogs.  What is important to God is a person’s sanctification, among other things.  But that doesn’t mean that sexual compatibility has to remain a worrisome contemplation.  It is my hope that this post will put the matter to rest.”

My talk about sanctification as an alternative to sexual compatibility was apparently unsatisfying to some of my readers.  (This particular word didn’t receive very much attention in the comments either.)  But at least one reader got the point and responded by writing a private message to me through email.  His message said…

“You are making the assumption that sanctification and sexual compatibility are exclusive.  But one of the messages I’ve picked up from reading your blog is that sanctification is more closely related to sexuality than what most preachers would feel comfortable discussing from the pulpit.”

He’s right in saying that they are innately connected.  They cannot be treated as separate artifacts of one’s spiritual life.  But I think it’s a mistake to focus on the compatibility aspect while overlooking how sanctification is the overall purpose of purity.

The Athenian drachma, a long tradition … from antique coin to euro ...

Are sanctification and sexual compatibility exclusive of each other?

A little later in the same message, the reader posed a vital question.

“What if sanctification and sexual compatibility are one and the same?”

I think in a perfect world, they are.  But especially in these times, many people (especially men) need extra help from God to achieve sanctification without experiencing sexual compatibility.  On the other extreme, many people experience sanctification through mere sexual satisfaction, which is not the same thing as compatibility.  I have no justification for this other than my first-hand observation, but personally, I believe that (some) women have “been there, done that, and have grown tired of it all”, which is another way of saying that they have experienced a form of sanctification from riding the carousel, by God’s grace, of course.

I’m sure that last statement will send some readers into a tailspin.  Maybe I’m not couching my words correctly, but that’s what it appears like to me.  And it’s not just me.  This is what the secular culture is referring to when they say a young man must “sow his wild oats”, or a young woman must “find herself” before he/she is ready to settle down.  The same goes for the Test Drive™ argument for Christians.  They are talking about finding sanctification outside of the marriage covenant.

But the thing is, experiencing sanctification outside of marriage excludes the possibility of subsequently experiencing sanctification within marriage.  Finding sanctification along the path of promiscuity might make one presumably more spiritually obedient to God, and therefore would be a more mature husband or wife, but it also destroys the intimacy and bonding.  Thus, “Sowing wild oats”, or “finding yourself” is not God’s ideal approach because those who pursue this path cannot achieve bonding and a robust satisfaction in marriage.  This harms the fruitfulness of the marriage.  For those few couples who somehow find intimacy in spite of their past sins, then that is an additional dispensation of God’s grace.

Again, God is most interested in our sanctification, and He is going to achieve this, by nook or by crook, no matter which decisions we make in this life, and whether we are married or not.

The Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) Ruins Sanctification

Going back to what I wrote in the aforementioned post,

“One of the negative consequences of sexual promiscuity (including the Test Drive™) is that it reduces one’s capability of achieving a consummate sanctification with any one person.”

Yet, this is the same reason that the Test Drive is considered, namely to have a greater degree of certainty regarding sanctification.

“But for those who enter into marriage in a sexually pure state, sexual compatibility is a non-issue because sanctification is yet to occur.

For those who are seeking a sexual partner after having many other partners, however, sexual compatibility involves finding someone who matches the imprinting received by the most charismatic and memorable previous partners.  The sad fact remains that no one can completely fill the shoes of another lover who made the first imprint in the context of an innocent, romantic, youthful fling.  This sanctification cum defilement is the origin of the Alpha Widow™ syndrome.

In conclusion, it should be clear to the reader by now that the best way to achieve sexual compatibility in marriage is to retain one’s sexual purity before and after marriage.  Purity is all about the completeness of one’s sanctification.”

Now continuing with the reader’s email…

“What if you just happen to be the type of person whose sanctification is dependent on the overall level of satisfaction you can get from the sexual compatibility you have in your marriage?”

Mmm…  In this case, if this is truly a man’s most pressing spiritual need, then sexual purity is all the more important, even to become paramount in achieving satisfaction in marriage, and spiritual peace with God.

Concluding Statements

This post has described how the Test Drive™ is a stupid knee-jerk reaction to the FOMO on sanctification.

I think a lot of men can feel this deep panging need for sanctification within marriage, deep in their bones, but they don’t know how to put it into words.  All they know is that they are tired of the dissatisfaction surrounding lust, they wish pornography wasn’t such an insurmountable temptation, and they mistakenly believe that having a woman to wife up is going to solve these problems.

For those men who have real choices to marry, this longing for sanctification is manifested in their fear of marrying a woman who is dead in bed, who cannot serve as a vehicle of God’s sanctification within marriage, thereby exposing them to a more extreme version of lust and temptation as described in the previous paragraph.

It might help men to know that this is not God’s will for marriage.  But these days, it’s a question of whether women can be convinced to believe the same.

It’s time for men to start discussing the carnal aspects of their spiritual needs.  When they realize how intricately linked the physical is with the spiritual, then they will find the motivation to take the required actions.


Posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Holding Frame, Sanctification & Defilement, SMV/MMV, Stewardship, Vetting Women | Tagged , | 44 Comments

Humility and Defilement

Could humility be equivalent to defilement?

Readership: Christians;

I came across this interesting association between humility and defilement.  I found three passages in the Bible in which the translations are interchangeable.

Here is the passage in Genesis about Shechem and Dinah.

1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.  2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled/humbled her.  3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.” ~ Genesis 34:1-3

The KJV, and NKJV translate as “defiled”.

The ASV, Darby, and RSV translate as “humbled”.

The ESV translates as “humiliated”.

Holman, The Living Bible, NIV, and The Message translate as “raped”.

Here’s a passage about marital fraud.

“And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.” ~ Deuteronomy 21:14 (NKJV)

And here’s one about rape.

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.” ~ Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NKJV)

The KJV and NKJV translate as “humbled”, but most other translations use the word “violated”.

The word translated as “humbled” in all these verses is the same Hebrew word, anah (עָנָה), and it is a verb.

The definition of the original Hebrew word is to be occupied with/by; to be busied with/by; to be bowed down, afflicted; to be lowly, submissive…


Humility is a huge concept in the Christian life.  But we don’t commonly understand humility (or submissiveness) in terms of defilement.  Yet, here it is in the scriptures – and in three passages, no less.  I’m thinking that most Christians don’t have any idea what this means.

“…and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her…”

Here’s a clue.  The reason is because sanctification and defilement share much of the same process.  If a woman is sanctified through having consummate sexual relations with one man, then to all other men, she is defiled.  So she is both sanctified and defiled through the same act.  It all depends on your point of reference.


Posted in Identity, Sanctification & Defilement, SMV/MMV | Tagged | 4 Comments

Satan’s Secret Recipe for a Heretical Purity Movement

Only the Grand Master Bait could concoct such a beautiful disaster!

Readership: Christians, especially those who have experienced the Purity Movement;

There’s a secret recipe for perdition which only our most gloriously evil overlords are privy to.  It remains a highly protected trade secret among the malefide.

As the story goes, back in 1984, the Resistors tuned into dyslectic broadband (66.6 MHz) and picked up this conversation between Lord Sor Deviass and the Grand Master Baiter.

Let’s tune in to their decrepit conversations…

*       *       *       *       *

Master Baiter: The Emperor has given us a new assignment, but it’s not so new actually.  We’ve done stuff like this before.  Too many earthlings have been experiencing sanctification and shalom, and we’ve got to do something to prevent this.

Lord Deviass: [incoherent mumbling]  I know!  First, let’s begin with adolescents who have freshly entered into the raging hormones of puberty, and who are naïve and inexperienced.  It’s so much fun and so easy to throw a monkey branch into their family trees!

Master Baiter: Good idea!  Normally, the Bible prescribes marriage for young’uns such as these.  But our persnickety father below taught us long ago that we have to find some way to hijack the process and destroy anything good that might come out of normal sexual relations within marriage.  Most of all, we must never let the earthlings actually enjoy being obedient to that carpenter’s son of antiquity, Mr. J.

Lord Deviass: It would be even better if we could do so much damage, that the target has little chance of ever finding emotional or sexual satisfaction in marriage.

Master Baiter: Right!  So let’s take those Biblical commandments that they revere so much, and twist them into saying that they can’t have sex until some vague time in the future.  It doesn’t matter what that time might be.  The only thing that matters is that the time is always later, and never now.  Laying the law on them with this command will provoke their sinful natures, and this will make the demolition of their souls all that much easier.

Lord Deviass: But how could we possibly convince them that sex and marriage is evil?

Master Baiter: We could say that extramarital sex is evil, a “sin”, and that they shouldn’t have sex until they’re married.  Make it seem like that is something that would keep them out of sin.  That way, they’ll never suspect that we’ve already cooked them into the batch of cultural sin.  But of course, we can’t allow them to actually marry.

Lord Deviass: Also, we can’t tell them outright that they can’t get married, because that would show our hand.  We need to give them just enough hope to keep them hooked.  Instead, we’ll just give them some reasonable excuses to keep postponing marriage.  It doesn’t matter whether they are true or not, because they are too naïve to know the difference.  Over the last few centuries, our globular think-tank has come up with quite a few prevaricating justifications.

  • Marriage and raising children is too expensive!
  • You don’t have enough money!
  • Don’t marry anyone who isn’t a Christian!
  • This otherwise perfect person isn’t perfect enough for perfect you!
  • Love won’t pay the bills!
  • You should be focused on getting an education and preparing for your career.
  • Marriage will tie you down, so you’d better learn to enjoy your life first.
  • Marriage is such a heavy burden of commitment… and children!  Lawdie!  SMH

Master Baiter: That’s beautiful… pure evil!  I should send you back to the woodpile for this.

Lord Deviass: Oh Master, please don’t mention the woodpile again!  I’ll be so weak in the knees that I’ll screw over this mission for sure.

Master Baiter: Fine.  I’ll catch your @ss unawares after the mission is complete.  Don’t forget YOLO and all that other true lie $ћ!t.

Lord Deviass: As I recall, we do have a few other slicks up our sphincters.

  • Find Yourself™.
  • Season of sexed up
  • Travel the world over, and stop for the grand finale in Carthage!

The good news is that for the men, we can continue to use that old, worn out one-liner.

“Sow your wild peas and carrots before you settle down with a $ћ!tty sack of potatoes!”

Master Baiter: You are so midevil!  Get with the times!  Carthage is so Iron Age-ish!  I believe sin city is now located in Californica in North Slumerica, and the current word is “oats”, as in “sow your wild oats”.

Lord Deviass: I have another idea, your royal sliminess.  We could even try to sour their psychological concept of sex.  To do this, we can twist the scriptural condemnation of fornicators and adulterers, and insinuate that it applies to them before they’ve even had sex.  It would only be one step further to teach them that sex is bad and evil.

Master Baiter: I’ll be d@mned!  This is making me harder!


Lord Deviass: To make this plan work, your lowness, we’ll need to get parents and church leaders on board.  In fact, we don’t need to work so hard if we can somehow get them to do the hard work of educating these randy brats into believing the above heretical doctrines and principles.

Master Baiter: No problem Deviass, we’ve already conquered the educational system and the legal jurispridence.

Lord Deviass: Most rancid $ћ!t and foghorn farts!  You’re giving me a constant craving for that squalid pigsty Earth again!

Master Baiter: Keep a lid on it, tightypants!  [indistinct muttering]  Here we go.  In short form, the Emperor’s secret recipe is comprised of 11 principles and powers as follows.

  1. No sex.  But if they rebel and reject God, then let’s reward them with a spanky smorgasboard!  Better yet, let’s create a dilemma in which they must choose between sex and God!
  2. No marriage.  And if it does manage to happen, let’s make sure it is to the most unsuitable mate possible.
  3. Lots of temptation.  Asmodeus!  Pour it on until their knees quiver!
  4. Bad teaching. No worries here.  We’ve already toppled the church.  Our family man Dobson and that young punk Harris will handle the details with no problem.
  5. No mentoring.  This will be easy to do since the Boomers are at the age of being mentors.  Heh heh…
  6. Conform and Perform.  Lots of pressure to conform, obey, perform. Let’s make them believe that Christ is worthless, and that they have to work to save their skins.
  7. Lay the law on them.  Keep them focused on the ecstasies of the flesh, and how these pleasures are forbidden by our emeny.  Let’s frustrate the ћәll into them.
  8. No accountability.  Cultural forces will clean up any possibility of shame and repentance.
  9. No lurrrvy feewings.  No realistic opportunities to meet a potential marriage-worthy partner. Let’s keep them all busy f*cking around with someone else.
  10. Idolatries galore.  Fill their minds with the glorious Expectations of the Perfect Soul Mate Idolatry!
  11. Waste their time.  Distract them by keeping them busy working towards various goals, e.g. education, career, earning money, earning a feminist merit badge… Hә11, we could even present “purity” as a goal!

Lord Deviass: Absolutely positively pusillanimous!  It’s such a joy to watch those prudes squirm as they grow old with regrets on their conscience!  I cannot help but to feel a raging desire to be rapaciously ribald!

Master Baiter: Yes, my truculent troglodyte!  This secret recipe is finger licking good!  Now pass the word on to Carbuncle Cracker and his gang of miscreants.  They’ll squeeze them into situations where they’ll be so frustrated and desperate that they’ll be willing to compromise whatever vestiges of conscience they might have, or better yet, aspotasize!

Lord Deviass: I swear by the love of bondage porn, Master Baiter, this plan is even better than that time we ransacked the Polish aristocracy~!

Master Baiter: Ahh, no…  Nothing is better than the pole position!


Posted in Conspiracy Theories, Courtship and Marriage, Discerning Lies and Deception, Education, Models of Failure, Purity Culture, Satire, Uncategorized | Tagged | 27 Comments