I have been counseling young women not to follow that strategy. One of the big problems I’m running into though, is this. Men say they are only engaging in the hook-up culture because they are responding to what women want and that if women want traditional marriage, then they shouldn’t engage in premarital/hook-up sex, which would force men back into the commitment-for-sex role. Fair enough, but then girls are telling us that if they don’t put out, if they don’t work a slutty vibe, they can’t get men (even most Christian men) interested in them because they are competing with girls who do. That means it doesn’t work very well (socially, not morally) for just some women to avoid premarital/hook-up sex; it has to be almost all of us who avoid it. But when secular women start trying to tell women to close their legs and stop giving away the milk for free, they are accused of trying to run a sex cartel. And maybe they are accused of that because they slept around first, but how surprising is that really, given the fact that the alpha mares in the female herd strongly encourage young women to do so, and women only learn (and accept) the folly of this strategy when they’ve gotten older?
SSM, and a few other manosphere-related women keep perpetuating the same false argument. Please stop.
While there is no easy solution for society, there is an easy solution for individual young women.
Young women should go for young men who are willing to wait until marriage.
“Most” might not be willing to wait, I’ll even accept that “most” ‘Christian’ men might not be willing to wait but there are many young Christian men who are planning to wait until marriage.
If a woman is serious about it, she can find one. It may mean choosing a young man who’s not as hot as the one’s demanding immediate sex, who’s a bit nerdy or socially awkward, but them’s the breaks.
If young women would rather fornicate and hope for a relationship born in sin than choose a less attractive young man willing to wait, that’s their choice, but they should stop complaining about there being no option but spreading their legs.
If a young woman has high standards for hotness, then she should accept that she might be single forever. The higher her standards the more likely she is to be single and the more likely she is to waste her prime attractive years.
The complaints of women on this issue ring hollow.
Young women have far more options than the vast majority of men could possibly dream of. Stop trying for perfect and then complaining you can’t get perfect without fornicating. Instead, either: 1) Accept being a fornicating sinner and the consequences of such, 2) accept that your high standards will leave you single, or 3) go for a less attractive man who is willing to wait.
That’s the simple reality of the situation created by women’s own demands.
The worn complaint of “I can’t find a man without fornicating” is both tiresome and false, please stop perpetuating it.
Either that or express it in its proper form: “I can’t find a hot man without fornicating, so I’d rather sin with a hot man than be chaste and/or marry a moral, but less hot, man.”
That’s an opinion I can respect. It’s immoral, but at least it’s true.
Those perpetuating the “I can’t find a man without fornicating” argument are excusing sin and leading other young women to sin. (Not to mention that it’s making it harder for us awkward men waiting for marriage).
Anyway, for women not looking to justify fornication to themselves, here’s a link to some advice I’ve given in the past for building your own attractive man from less attractive materials.
EDIT (2014/03/24):: After thinking about this, I believe I went farther than is prudent here and was inaccurate to the point of error, and have withdrawn the redacted lines. I expressed what I was trying to say more accurately but less readably below.
****
EDIT (2014/03/23): SSM, and potentially others, have misunderstood what I said, so maybe my writing was insufficiently clear. Therefore, here is my response in the comments to SSM clarifying what exactly I am criticizing.
SSM,
I do not believe I have misrepresented you; instead I think you misunderstand my position.
I have not said you have counciled fornication because, as far as I know, you have not.
I did not read the comments on the Picky, Picky piece at Donal’s, so I don’t know what you said there. (If you have particularly called out the pernicious myth I outline in my post and below I apologize for misrepresentation).
My problem is with this:
Fair enough, but then girls are telling us that if they don’t put out, if they don’t work a slutty vibe, they can’t get men (even most Christian men) interested in them because they are competing with girls who do. That means it doesn’t work very well (socially, not morally) for just some women to avoid premarital/hook-up sex; it has to be almost all of us who avoid it.
The repeated stating of “women can’t get men without fornicating” is incorrect. It may be true that women can’t get some men [typically the hots ones] without putting out, but it is not true that women can’t get men without fornicating.
There is a difference between “men” and “some men” or “particular men” or “attractive men”.
I highly doubt any but the obese (who should improve themselves) or the deformedly ugly (who I have much empathy for) can not get men.
In fact, whenever I have heard women saying I can’t find a man, or there are no good men, they have always had both many men and good men available to them. In some cases, I was a good man who had asked them out previous to them saying this.
Instead of perpetuating the myth that women can’t get men without fornicating, you, and others in the sphere who perpetuate this myth, should instead tell the women complaining to look towards the good men around them who they have been ignoring (ie. the awkward or unattractive men) or to shut up and accept that their high standards may leave them single.
Because every time I (and likely most good Christian men) hear a Christian woman say there are no good men, or I can’t find a man, or I can only get a man through fornicating, I (we) become that much more bitter towards your whole sex.
You have no idea just how discouraging, how dispiriting, how emasculating, how embittering this “I can’t find a man (without fornicating)” is to Christian men.
If you want any good men to still be looking in the church, this shit has got to stop. Because every time I hear it, I am pushed that much closer to saying “fuck marriage” and that will be one less bachelor available for Christian women.
I fundamentally don’t get the Christian community. Every other religion actively marries their young women off and often men as well as soon as possible. Christians explicitly expect children to make the right choices when it comes to selecting a mate instead of using their superior experience, wisdom, and perspective to get the hitched before they have a chance to fuck around. How can anyone expect stupid teenagers to make the right choices when it comes to the most important event that most people ever experience.
“I can’t find a hot man without fornicating, so I’d rather have sex with a hot man than be chaste and/or marry a moral, but less hot, man.”
This. Right. Here.
Traditional/religious men need to realize that young women of marriage age DO care about a man’s looks. In many cases, women care A LOT. Men may be more visual than women, but women are still visual creatures. It needs to be said over and over again. A young man’s looks are important when trying to attract a woman.
I believe that the entire ‘rape culture’ narrative is really just a distorted, funhouse mirror manifestation of suppressed (innate) female demand for commitment.
Essentially a psychedelic (how appropriate) version of “You gave away the milk so now he won’t buy the cow, stupid!”
Unable to quite pin down what’s the trouble they start to see rapists everywhere.
And the ‘patriarchy theory’ they learn in college becomes a template.
I’m sure St. Deti would approve of this message.
I note carefully that two well known female bloggers in these parts both have men who really melt their butter, and it is no surprise that they did not come to be with these men through the traditionally accepted Church method.
Cause? Correlation? Not sure I care anymore.
I admire the younger versions of myself among you, who are still holding the line. I think that given the right circumstances, I’m not sure I even give a rip about sexual morality anymore.
Sexual morality is for the young, for whom it still might produce some benefit in their lives.
I’ll tell you all something that I have come to realize, that might be heresy for some.
I don’t think the number of cocks a woman has ridden damages her near as much as the number of “relatively” alpha cocks.
In other words, a regular gal who has been banged by 10 doughy boring boyfriends is nowhere near as damaged as the former virgin who has ridden but a single alpha dick.
The emotional and spiritual “damage” that we imagine occurs to women is wrong. The damage comes not from intimacy but from their frustrated delusions of grandeur. Now, you probably can’t GET to 10 dicks without an alpha one being in there somewhere, so that accounts for higher N = bad bet for commitment.
But the dick(s) have nothing to do with it. It’s all her ego. The broken heart of a college slut comes not from the poor little princess being “used”, it comes from an egotistical, entitled 9and stupid) princess wanting to play in the big leagues and prove herself equal to the truly hot girls.
It is the defeat in the eyes of other women that grinds her soul to dust, not the poundings on the sofa from McFratboy.
It is just a different kind of butthurt.
So for those of you not of a Christian persuasion, bang away, because you are providing a useful service – that is to say you providing lesson after lesson to these arrogant women.
Women don’t get broken hearts. They get broken PRIDE.
It might help if churches attacked the issue head on, and regularly. I usually only here the issue brought up in passing and only for a few minutes. I have never heard a sermon about the honor of chastity and the importance of remaining a virgin. If Jesus was never married and never sinned then he must have died a 33 years old virgin. How often do you hear that. It would help if men could lead on this subject, but I don’t thinks its practical to expect that. Today a man would be mocked(or thought less of especially by women, including christian women) if he proclaimed himself a 33 years old virgin, even within the church. If there is no safe place in society for a man to practice sexual morality, then its unlikely that he would. As in the case of defining marriage, when it comes to sexually morality, the church abdicated its responsibility a long time. Now our teachers on these subjects are the heathens and the damned.
One suggestion I would make is that for Lent churches ask for married voluntaries to openly remain chaste for a short while as an example to younger members that sex is something one can sacrifice for the Lord.
Great as always Free but as you mentioned it requires a woman to settle and being content with her choice. Not going to happen in the current legal/ social environment. If it ever did. I am pert near certain physical correction is why women thought they married an alpha in the past. Now the pimp hand is illegal/ frowned on so every beta is an actual beta
I have a similar idea that has been swirling around in my mind for a blogpost, though it has not coagulated yet beyond the initial premise: Women are the final arbiters of society.
That is, women set the course and the standards of what is acceptable/valued in society. Men may have created civilization, and following men would ensure its longevity, but at its essence, men created and perpetuate civilization for one purpose: ensuring that his children and mate are safe from barbarism, ie. for women.
We can rationalise and craft completely logical arguments as to why men did not create civilisation for women, but in essence most men would emulate and perpetuate behaviours that attract women, and thus ensure that his family line continues. If the women decides that a strong fighter is beneficial, men would create a culture where strength is the main basis for culture. The same goes with provider traits and etc.
We have seen how women’s baser instincts, unshackled by feminism, have eventually debased society by rewarding ‘Alphas’ and criminals, but it was the Patriarchy that handed the keys. Whining and complaining about Feminism and its fruits ala MRA is non-constructive, mainly since there is a lack of introspection.
Heartiste’s theory of Game and Alpha/Beta behaviour neatly demonstrates the futility of the MRA approach: Feminists protested for what they wanted, and they only got it because Men granted it. And since we recognize that Feminists and women tend to dislike Beta behaviour, what are the chances of MRA getting their demands granted?
We can’t whine our way into a position of power. As men, we have to do what we do best: Adapt, overcome and when the time comes, rebuild. We have to prepare for that time, and more importantly we have to know how things came to be, since feminism and societal degeneracy did not sprout overnight, we have to learn how we can detect and cauterize the seeds. There is no guarantee that our future descendants may not face a similar situation, and it is our responsibility that the mistakes of the previous generation are not passed to the next.
@jack – That is a very good breakdown of mandrosphere concepts like the ‘Alpha widow’ and the eventual disenchantment of carousel riders. Narcissism of the women leads them to believe that they deserve better than anyone else, leading them to chase that alpha, that ‘lifestyle’, that status etc. Thus, when they age and have to settle down with that loathsome Beta, all they can think of is envy that they did not get better.
Very enlightening.
Proverbs 14:30 – A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones.
Kind Regards
NK
Begging your pardon, but when I said “There are no easy solutions here,” I was referring to the society-wide scale. So please clarify in what way what I am saying is false. We don’t exist as islands; we live in a culture, and what happens here affects all of us.
You might also notice that I directly counseled young women as individuals to do exactly the same as what you said. What exactly is your argument with me? I have never, ever once recommended that a young woman engage in fornication, ever. I have strongly counseled them never to do so, even if it means staying single for life.
Have you read the post which I was referring to, which was published at Donal Graeme’s? In it, several women discussed getting dumped because the men they were with were not interested in being with women who would not have sex with them. I never said that this was the case for all women, but it was true for these women. And they chose to give up the men they were dating rather than engage in fornication, and I applauded them for it. The point of my post was that not only men, but also some young women, are having a tough time in the current libertine sexual market place.
You have entirely misrepresented my position. Why?
Well done, FN.
Let’s be honest here. Women have many, many more options than they see or believe. What’s going on here is that many women are turning up their noses at those options. Many women simply do not want to select one of those less attractive men when those women are at their most attractive, and then be content. Many women don’t want to make the hard choice.
And, many women don’t want to do the hard work of going out and finding one of the men who will wait for marriage And many women do not want to so the work of marrying a lieutenant and helping make him into a general.
If a woman is serious about it, she can find one. It may mean choosing a young man who’s not as hot as the one’s demanding immediate sex, who’s a bit nerdy or socially awkward, but them’s the breaks.
I agree with this. I do believe a woman who is serious about finding a man who will wait for marriage and who she finds attractive can do this. I don’t for a minute doubt that it is difficult. But that’s why I and others keep saying that such a woman has to make it a priority and actually DO THE WORK.
SSM.
Here’s the thing. Most young women at their attractiveness peak don’t want the men who fit FN’s description, because they are less attractive than the men they can get through fornicating.
A woman in today’s SMP and MMP can get a man without fornicating. But, she cannot get an attractive man. That’s the rub. When most Christian women complain about not being able to find a man without fornicating, they are in truth saying they cannot find an ATTRACTIVE man without fornicating.
SSM,
I do not believe I have misrepresented you; instead I think you misunderstand my position.
I have not said you have counciled fornication because, as far as I know, you have not.
I did not read the comments on the Picky, Picky piece at Donal’s, so I don’t know what you said there. (If you have particularly called out the pernicious myth I outline in my post and below I apologize for misrepresentation).
My problem is with this:
The repeated stating of “women can’t get men without fornicating” is incorrect. It may be true that women can’t get some men [typically the hots ones] without putting out, but it is not true that women can’t get men without fornicating.
There is a difference between “men” and “some men” or “particular men” or “attractive men”.
I highly doubt any but the obese (who should improve themselves) or the deformedly ugly (who I have much empathy for) can not get men.
In fact, whenever I have heard women saying I can’t find a man, or there are no good men, they have always had both many men and good men available to them. In some cases, I was a good man who had asked them out previous to them saying this.
Instead of perpetuating the myth that women can’t get men without fornicating, you, and others in the sphere who perpetuate this myth, should instead tell the women complaining to look towards the good men around them who they have been ignoring (ie. the awkward or unattractive men) or to shut up and accept that their high standards may leave them single.
Because every time I (and likely most good Christian men) hear a Christian woman say there are no good men, or I can’t find a man, or I can only get a man through fornicating, I (we) become that much more bitter towards your whole sex.
You have no idea just how discouraging, how dispiriting, how emasculating, how embittering this “I can’t find a man (without fornicating)” is to Christian men.
If you want any good men to still be looking in the church, this shit has got to stop. Because every time I hear it, I am pushed that much closer to saying “fuck marriage” and that will be one less bachelor available for Christian women.
Good post. As it always seems to be with feminists, the women are absolved of blame and the men are always the ones to blame. Like deti said, it’s not that a Christian woman can find a good Christian man without fornicating (she very well can), it’s that she can’t get an ATTRACTIVE man without fornicating. Remember, women are punching above their weight so-to-speak in terms of their attraction floors, and they don’t see the men that are below that.
+1000. As most have seen me write, I’ve had a certain “life” before I undertook the serious walk with Christ. It wasn’t filled with debauchery and sin, but I have a N-Count (it’s 2, non-adjusted), and the first thing I gave up as a repentant disciple was going after women like that.
But it seems I read more and more these kinds of things like SSM and the others write, it just pisses me off more and more. I’m here now with 12 years of virginity behind me, and I keep hearing from the women that no good men exist because the men keep wanting to fornicate, yet I’m seeing absolutely zero interest. I think it pisses me off ever the more because I gave up chasing exactly that for Christ.
Is that your final answer, SSM, that women can’t find good men? If that’s the case, that either makes me a bad marriage candidate no one should consider or I made a mistake giving up trying to fornicate with women that interest me. Like I said in the other thread, women need to start owning their own mistakes instead of the feminists giving them cover to blame those evil evil menz.
And yes, if I seem MGTOWish at times, that’s one of the big reasons. The lie that Christian women actually want good Christian men.
SSM, I realize a potential area of miscommunication. O should’ve been clearer. I wasn’t trying to say you particularly were excusing and encouraging sin directly, it that by accepting the frame of the previous comment you indirectly encourage ithe excusing of sin by allowing the rationalization of those who’d would use it as a rationalization. On rereading the last few paragraphs I realize I did bot male that distinction as clearly as I should have.
And as I pointed out in commenting on it in one of my link posts, I found this by experience to be a feminist post simply because it doesn’t account that supposedly “good” Christian women pressure men for sex. If I complied with every woman that pressured me, my N would be 7 right now. And 3 of those were “Christian women” who decided to test me in whether I gave that up or not.
@ FN
Brilliant.
And the difference is that most of the Christian men in the manosphere have accepted the fact that we may be eternal bachelors even with enough God inspired self improvement.
I have done so repeatedly. Multiple times. However, it is more difficult for women who are obedient and want to remain chaste to find husbands than for girls who aren’t obedient and don’t remain chaste. That’s just a sad fact of the modern SMP/MMP.
The male solipsism in response to that fact is surprising. I understand men have it worse. I have made that point many times myself over the three years I’ve been writing about these issues. But my post wasn’t about men. It was about women. And it is simply true that there are women who are having a much harder time than the rest of womankind finding husbands because of their commitment to chastity. You keep saying these women don’t exist, but there are real, live women saying this very thing. Maybe they’re all lying, but I don’t think so.
The problem here is you are imagining that my post was written to men, but it isn’t. You seem to feel that I am criticizing men, but I am not and did not. My post was geared solely at women, and like many of my posts, and the very small number of Christian women who really want to do the right thing – stay chaste, marry a serious Christian man, and obey the Bible’s outline for marriage. These women need support and encouragement when the going gets tough. It’s really not very helpful to them to say, “No, sorry. Your problem isn’t real. The fact that a Christian man broke off his engagement with you because you wouldn’t sleep with him isn’t a real problem. You are the real problem.”
One more time: my post was comparing women who have sex before marriage and women who don’t have sex before marriage. Which one has the harder time finding a spouse?
My post was NOT comparing: women who don’t have sex before marriage and men who don’t have sex before marriage. Which one has the harder time finding a spouse?
I won’t comment here further. But I have sent you an email, FN.
And…she doubles-down on her feminism…
Her problem is in the mirror. Just like my problem is in my mirror. This provides cover for the actions of women, and excuses them from them. This is the classic “Women Good, Men Bad” thing that’s all over the place. It’s not your fault, it’s those evil evil menz! It’s not very helpful to anyone for the feminist answer as dictated on that post. The only “help” it’s giving women is to help them feel good and like the moral superior.
Anyhow, I’ll leave these for reading/discussion. Haven’t decided if they’ll go in my next links post or in my next regular post since it’s covering pretty much this self-same topic of it not being acceptable for women to have failings and passing the buck off to those evil vile men.
http://www.upgradereality.com/stop-blaming-others-your-life-sucks-because-of-you/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-would-aristotle-do/201207/stop-playing-the-blame-game
http://www.searchquotes.com/search/Stop_Blaming_Others_For_Your_Mistakes/
I can’t control what women do or anyone else do in my life (I can awareness blog though), but all I can do is control me.
Jack wrote:
>I’ll tell you all something that I have come to realize, that might be heresy for some.
>I don’t think the number of cocks a woman has ridden damages her near as much as the number of “relatively” alpha cocks.
>In other words, a regular gal who has been banged by 10 doughy boring boyfriends is nowhere near as damaged as the former virgin who has ridden but a single alpha dick.
That is a very disturbing idea and I recoil at the suggestion.
However, reality doesn’t care about what disturbs me; you might be correct.
I still disagree with your conclusion – “bang away.”
That aside, I think violence and bureaucracy need to be considered in the equation.
The carousel has arisen in a globalized society where violence is very rare and government bureaucracy is very pervasive.
Small lapses of government control, e.g. Hurricane Katrina – do not alter the paradigm.
Extrapolating from ancient Roman population decline, I would guess that the civilized West will have to depopulate itself for many decades. The “reasonable” people will have to stop having babies, and the fanatical cultists will have to keep having babies, in order for the current carousel-and-government system to end.
Ideally, there would be some class of educated, rational, self-starting men who could lead a revolt. 200 years ago there were men like Tom Paine, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin. Nowadays such men are few and far between – but no doubt someone will mention Snowden, Binney, Tice etc.
I don’t see any group of modern Western men who are capable of rationally planned violence on their own initiative. I see soldiers who are brainwashed to follow poltroons; I see pajama boys who can only dial 911; I see gangbangers who are slaves to their infantile impulses.
I do see one class of Western men who appear to be survivors, but not conquerors; these men are Mormon missionaries. They’re not my good buddies, but they appear to be rational, self-starting survivors. The question is whether they will manage to resist politically correct rot and also overcome their own inefficiencies.
See also Tainter _Collapse of Complex Civilizations_.
@ Ballista,
Let’s look at this in a different light.
Cane is one of the more highly regarded anti-game proponents.
His advice to women is for her to give a man her phone number if she is interested in him. Among other things.
How many women in the manosphere say that advice is good, but then never tell women to do that on their own blogs when their self professed blogs are directed to women?
I’ve never even heard of any woman on the manosphere and related blogs even remotely trying to employ this advice at all.
It’s clear that the manosphere is based around men finding out reality and looking at themselves in the mirror as you said and then growing to become masculine men, both in the secular and Christian manosphere. And secular feminine counterpart has a good start. In fact, RPW on reddit is excellent at rooting out the fact that women are the source of their own problems. But the Christian women associated are lagging behind.
April at Peacefulwife/Peacefuilsinglegirl is getting there, but I think she still fluffs it too much in my opinion. There is failure to call out women some of the bad attitudes and bad habits. It seems SSM is loath to do the same.
It hurts to say “You are the real problem.” But then again, the truth always hurts. We’re broken people who need a savior. Why not just admit that it’s going to be painful and do something about it rather than brushing it under the rug.
We’re not the cult of nice here. That’s churchianity.
SSM, haven’t checked your email yet, but did want to publicly respond. My post and my comment were not about who has it harder or a poor me competition. It also had nothing to do with the sex it was aimed at.
It was primarily about one pernicious attitude (and it’s variations). “I can’t find a man without fornicating”, “there are no good men”, “where are all the men”etc.
This attitude is wrong and harmful to both sexes. The blanket dismissal of “invisible” men needs to be continually attacked because it is everywhere.
A proper attitude would be the the acknowledge that there are men and that there is a trade-off between standards and risk of perpetual singledom.
Other problems of both men and women are irrelevant in regards to this.
@deep strength
I’d say the root of all those problems is that the real gospel ain’t preached. Hence repentance and spiritual birth does not occur. Since sin as a result is just a caged animal. We see the results of the devastation when it finally breaks out.
“And she doubles down on her feminism”
It isn’t feminism. It is the simply the reality for a certain number of young Christian women.
“look towards the good men around them who they have been ignoring(ie the awkward or unattractive men)
Physical attractiveness is a part of what a woman looks for in a man. That’s just human nature. You think that a woman is going to choose a man that is physically unattractive? This type of complaint sounds like fat women complaining that the men around them aren’t attracted to them. Too many men in the USA don’t take their physical attractiveness level serious enough(including me). A man’s looks matter to women. Young men, especially young Christian men, need to lift weights, eat correctly, dress well, and take care of their skin and teeth. If more young Christian men actually did all of this, these type of complaints from Christian women would reduce. It is a two way street/problem.
Not sure if I should comment as you guys seem rather upset. But I’ll try clear something up. (Btw thank you Sunshinemary and Elspeth for your understanding and comments defending us.)
If my comments on Donal’s post appeared to only blame men for my lack of dates, then I should be more clear – as that wasn’t my intention. I understand that part of the problem is my introversion and shyness. I accept that those are things I need to work on. Years ago those very things would not of posed such a problem. And my grandmothers didn’t have to deal with as much competition from sluts and feminists. The sluts and feminists are where I place a lot of the blame for the current situation. Some of you seem to be getting all bent out of shape without even understanding what was originally being discussed. And I’m not ignorant of the difficulties men face as I have a few brothers. I look out at their options and it isn’t pretty at all.
I don’t think I ever said “where have all the good guys gone” I know there are chaste guys looking for chaste girls. They are so far and few between that it makes finding each difficult. They just don’t seem to be in the social circles I’m in. I guess that’s my fault and I should expand then.
You guys complain about how feminism has made your lives difficult. But the second a female agrees and says it has made her life difficult too you jump on her and basically tell her she is being a whiny b*tch and ALL her problems are her own making. Even if she isn’t a feminist. I have been reading manoshere blogs for several years and I’ve seen it so many times. Should us chaste girls not comment anymore?
(Thank you to all the bloggers/commenters who have been kind and helpful. You know who you are.)
In every part of the world, throughout all of human history, men have done what they have to do to reproduce, to mate, to get laid. This means becoming the kinds of men that women choose to sleep with.
If that means being a good man of virtue who waits til marriage, that’s what men will do. If it means being cocky-funny-aloof and running push-pull game on girls at college keg parties, that’s what men will do. If it means hitting the weights and taking creatine and roids to get ripped like Lex Luger, that’s what men will do.
Whatever women choose to sleep with is what men will become, or try to become. Women get exactly the kind of man they choose to sleep with. No more, no less, no else.
@Marietta
I understand your distress, the manosphere guys do tend to get a little butt-hurt.
@Retrenced
“Whatever women choose to sleep with is what men will become, or try to become. Women get exactly the kind of man they choose to sleep with. No more, no less, no else.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Ditto on what Marietta said.
Also, just because we find a good chaste christian man, there’s no guarantee that he will choose us, even after doing our part. If you don’t believe me, go read the first comment I made on Donal Graeme’s post “picking on me” (it’s a password protected post so you would have to contact Donal first). I explained in great detail a situation where I tried my best but it didn’t work out, by HIS choice, not mine. And it was a good christian man from the manosphere who would agree with this post. It’s not always so cut and dry.
I’m not saying we don’t have to do our part. We do. I’m saying it is no guarantee that it will work.
If the point is that a woman will have a harder time finding men because she is chaste, that is generally true.
But that is because it is probably hard to see the shy guys. This is why the Joseph of Jackson guys and the like are so correct.
We gotta get the quiet guys some masculine presence so they are not afraid to approach.
The girls, however, need to be realistic,
To everybody, thanks for the discussion, keep it up. There’s far to much to answer y’all, but everything ya’ll have said has been read.
I would like to point out the FN above is me.
I should also note I have not read the comments on Picky, Picky and am only now reading Picking on Me for the first time. So nothing I posted so far has anything to do with either of those threads.
I would like to make two points, because I see a fair amount of the same two mistakes:
@ Patri: As I said, if women want attractive Christian men, they should say, “I want a good, attractive Christian man” and “I can’t find a hot Christian man.” Those are perfectly valid and reasonable points. It is the use of “there are no good men” or “I can’t find a man” that is the problem, as there are usually good men and men.
@ Marietta: I encourage you to keep commenting. I speak for no one but myself, but I am not attacking women for having dating problems. I am also not saying I am attacking one particular idea/attitude/excuse that I see far more than I like from Christian women.
@jack ” I don’t think the number of cocks a woman has ridden damages her near as much as the number of “relatively” alpha cocks.
In other words, a regular gal who has been banged by 10 doughy boring boyfriends is nowhere near as damaged as the former virgin who has ridden but a single alpha dick. ”
I think you the gist of it right on the money, however i would put that 10 doughy boring boyfriend number to 3 or 4, after the 3rd one, its all a blur. The first 2 boyfriend not a lot to compare to, you burn through the 3rd one and now you have set a routine/habit and it’s impossible to not compare and to be psychologically centered and balanced.
@Neitherkelter ” I have a similar idea that has been swirling around in my mind for a blogpost, though it has not coagulated yet beyond the initial premise: Women are the final arbiters of society.
That is, women set the course and the standards of what is acceptable/valued in society. Men may have created civilization, and following men would ensure its longevity, but at its essence, men created and perpetuate civilization for one purpose: ensuring that his children and mate are safe from barbarism, ie. for women. ”
Absolutely wrong, men set the zeitgeist, women merely perpetuate said zeitgeist, they reinforce and nurture it down the generations. Different zeitgeist, different female behavior. And all prevailing zeitgeist is the work of men, ( maybe not even all men in society but very influential men definitely ).
@red
” I fundamentally don’t get the Christian community. Every other religion actively marries their young women off and often men as well as soon as possible. Christians explicitly expect children to make the right choices when it comes to selecting a mate instead of using their superior experience, wisdom, and perspective to get the hitched before they have a chance to fuck around. How can anyone expect stupid teenagers to make the right choices when it comes to the most important event that most people ever experience. ”
cause of their high iq and good r/k strategy.
@elsid
Can you elaborate on your point further?
If the world is as you have said, ie. men create the zeitgeist and women perpetuate it for the next generation, how did we get to this situation where men are disadvantaged compared to women even though they are the ones who ‘created’ the zeitgeist?
@Marietta
“But the second a female agrees and says it has made her life difficult too you jump on her and basically tell her she is being a whiny b*tch and ALL her problems are her own making. ”
Really? Show us.
@Marinetta
Learn to discern between constructive criticism and just attempts to tear you down. The last thing we want to do is to make things safe for women and hence to censor ourselves. Expect honest unfiltered opinion.
The only exception is an ad hominem. But even then poor behavior will not be tolerated. If someone has done some shit, he will be called out. As the case of Susan Walsh demonstrates.
And the difference is that most of the Christian men in the manosphere have accepted the fact that we may be eternal bachelors even with enough God inspired self improvement.
I have a daughter who is just shy of 20. She has actually accepted that she may be forever single. She knows that she’s still young enough that her resolve may be premature but she’s wrapped her mind around it with chocking grace and faith.
Young people of strong faith who can see the landscape clearly understand that high standards on issues of character and faith particularly may mean they will have to be content with their lot in life, whatever that is.
There seems to be a conflation here of the nominally Christian women of dubious chastity and serious women such as the ones who left comment here. And that is an unfair conflation.
That should have read “shocking grace and faith”.
Oh, and I take exception to the assertion that there are “many” Christian men who are willing to wait for marriage. I’ve been out of the game a while, but that wasn’t my experience at all. My experience was admittedly limited by a very strict father, but I have talked to numerous Christian women who have said the same.
As usual, the self-selected group of men who comment here are operating on a faulty premise. And if a Christian man presses for sex or indicates he is willing to have sex before the wedding, that is a problem. Even if he ultimately says he’ll wait, that is a problem, a sign of a faith/character defect.
You’re either a man of obedient faith, or you’re not. Same with women. She’s either a woman of obedient faith, or she’s not.
I want to apologize publically to anyone reading if they mistook any of my arguments to be publically trashing SSM perceived or not, especially if I misrepresented a particular position. My arguments are always against other arguments and not any sort of ad hominem.
Remember that men tend to speak in generalizations. Therefore, even if we are addressing a post directed at an individual and even name you in a post, an overall argument may not necessarily be aimed specifically to you.
I believe that all of us who are Christians in the manosphere and related blogs are on the same side regardless of how heated arguments become.
The thing about the hookup culture is that its self-reinforcing once it’s established. When women put out so quickly for ‘alphas’, then men have no reason to seriously invest in women, and when men don’t want to seriously invest in women, then women have no reason not to put out for ‘alphas’.
This makes things pretty hard on the guys and girls who don’t want to play by this script – guys who want Christian wives and don’t want to pursue pre-marital sex, and girls who want to save themselves for marriage.
Ideally, the ‘good guys’ and ‘good girls’ would find each other, pair off, get married, have kids and live happily ever after. Sometimes this happens, but quite often it does not.
For one thing, the good guy who wants a good girl has to compete with the not-so-good guys, who have much more experience with women, which gives them better knowledge of women, better seduction skills, and so on.
Also, the ‘good girl’ tends to not be all that attracted to the ‘good guy’ – or at least, not the ‘good guy’ who is still available for her, ie, not the one who married the prettiest girl in church right after graduation. She, like the sluttier girls, tends to want the pre-selected, and often quite promiscuous ‘alpha’ type that the other girls want. It’s just that she wants to tame him and make a good husband out of him, rather than put out for him at a keg party. When frustrated Christian girls talk about how they can’t get a man without fornicating, these are the men they’re talking about.
And all the while, the good guys and good girls are hearing stories from their ‘not-so-good’ friends about the wild sexy fun times they’re having at parties and hooking up, while the good guys and girls have only their right hands for company. This is a very tempting message, and especially so for the girls, who really only need to show up and say ‘yes’, as opposed to the guys who often must put in a good deal of work to get good enough at seduction to get in on some of that action.
I reject the notion that Christian nice guys are good guys. Good implies they were on the right track for being a man of God. Being nice is not Christian. It signifies that a man pedestals women (or women’s feelings) above God. This is an idol and a very subtle sin.
The problem for men is that they first must realize that they are not good by being a nice guy. They are living in sin by being nice.
It is when they are able to admit they were in sin by being nice (the idol of woman or their feelings) and repent of it that they can start to become a man of God.
The change in a man comes from within himself admitting he is flawed and asking God for help — taking off the old and putting on the new. This is the whole context of faith and becoming a new creation through God/self improvement.
Likewise, this is the same process that must occur within women.
Deep :
I agree with you on the issue of “good guys” and “Christian nice guys”. Yes, “nice guys” are idolaters because they make women and their feelings their gods. But we both know that they do this because everyone around them told them to do this. The issue is getting them to unlearn it and to learn the correct way.
Retrenched summarized the entire problem for Christian”good guys” and “Good girls” very well. That is one of the best, most succinct summaries of the problem I’ve read in a long time. ”
Elspeth-
Perhaps you were too busy getting tummy butterflies at all the guys who were high-SMV and therefore requiring sex from the girls?
I think that we can probably just realize that most women (even the ones on our ‘side) are – just like most other women – absolutely unable to see the type of guy who is not looking to engage in premarital sex.
They don’t see them because they can’t see them. It is an innate filter in the female, and one that is nurtured by our culture to an even greater degree.
The one thing that finally gets some of these women to see the truth is if and when they have a son that gets ground up by the system. Of course, with the alpha fux beta bux strategy, this likelihood is lower.
Hence the reason for them clamoring for alpha seed in the first place.
So don’t blame women for riding alpha dick – they’re just trying to kill the beta, like the rest of us.
The answer is for good men to stop white knighting, and to give no help or attention to any female unless they are family or a friend who has proven herself.
Yes, that is an issue.
I believe I recently wrote in a post about the blind leading the blind. There is a different degree of punishment for those that lead someone into a pit.
But those that fall into the pit following the blind (the Christian nice guys) still have to repent of it too.
Repentence is the first step towards unlearning because you admit that you need God’s help and His grace.
@Jack:
You can save the whole “the church is full of men who love God so much that they would never fornicate or press a woman for sex.” Save it for someone who hasn’t spent her whole life in and around the church.
Most of the Christian “nice guys” are nice because they think they can leverage their niceness for sex. They’re after what Empathologism calls “the lift.”
I stand by what I said. This is a self-selected group. As for those tummy butterflies? Only ever felt that once, and I married him.
“Most of the Christian “nice guys” are nice because they think they can leverage their niceness for sex.”
Yep. Because they are specfically told to do this. They’re specifically told that Christian girls find “niceguys” sexually attractive.
Men wouldn’t do this if they weren’t being specifically trained to do this.
“You can save the whole “the church is full of men who love God so much that they would never fornicate or press a woman for sex.” Save it for someone who hasn’t spent her whole life in and around the church.”
And while we’re at it, we can all spare one another the “The Church is full of nice, good, kind-hearted, Christian girls who have been specifically trained to be wives and mothers, and who are just dying to meet and marry and get pregmant by good, nice, kind Christian men” sales pitch. Save that for someone who hasn’t spent a lifetime in and around the church.
That knife cuts both ways, Elspeth.
And while we’re at it, we can all spare one another the “The Church is full of nice, good, kind-hearted, Christian girls who have been specifically trained to be wives and mothers, and who are just dying to meet and marry and get pregmant by good, nice, kind Christian men” sales pitch. Save that for someone who hasn’t spent a lifetime in and around the church.
I’ve never said that, Deti. In fact I’ve said the exact opposite. Over and over and over again. I have not been kind to the average church girl/wife in my writings. If you need links, email me.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. When I commented here and at Donal’s, I was specifically referring to that self-selected group of faithful women who are actively preparing for and desirous of marriage. I would include my daughter in that group as well.
Why do you guys keep insisting that I (or Sunshine for that matter) have ever claimed that the average Jane sitting in the pews is wife material? I’ve done no such thing. I have simply pointed out that the same can be said for the average Joe.
Are you sure they are trying to leverage “niceness” for sex, or for dating, eventual marriage, and then sex?
Sometimes I think that some church girls (not necessarily you gals) have a grudging attitude toward the male sex drive, even if we are willing to marry in order to get it.
Honestly, without sex, I’m not sure most men would bother with marriage. Just saying.
@Deep strength
Women should stop taking things so personally. If it is valid criticism then change is in order. If it is not it should be disregarded and ignored and laughed off.
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/18/learn-how-to-take-criticism-or-be-prepared-to-fail-at-life/
Infowarrior,
I accepted the constructive criticism that was given to me concerning my shy personality. And yes, I do tend to take things rather personal. I can’t help it, especially when it is something I consider a serious matter. My personal view on who has it easier or harder in the marketplace is:
promiscuous women -easiest
promiscuous men-easy
chaste women-hard
chaste men-hardest
It is very difficult to just sit back and remain calm while people just lump the chaste girls in the same category as the promiscuous.
My internet usage is almost up for the month, so I’m not going to go searching through dozens of blogs to find specific examples for you.
The Christian portion of the manosphere has generally been much more understanding and compassionate on this matter compared to… say…Return of Kings for example. They tend to think that EVERY GIRL who is a 6 and above has dozens of guys lining up and asking for dates constantly. That just isn’t so. RoK has some interesting articles, but I don’t think it is in my best interest to continue reading there.
@ Info
Agreed. Also because it’s the manosphere… about issues on men. We’re going to be blunt about things.
That said it is still good to be considerate to sisters in Christ.
@Marietta:
“promiscuous women -easiest
promiscuous men-easy
chaste women-hard
chaste men-hardest”
“Chaste” women still have it easy. They don’t get the tons of “dating advice” and “admonishments” thrown at them from the pulpit about having to be “chaste”, “nice” and that “a good Christian man should be committed to serving as many ministries as possible in Church”.The margins for error in approaching Christian girls/women in Church are fine and the consequences are dire. (“Gee, he asked me out for a drink. Is that a date? He’s creepy.”) All single Christian males, young or old, are deemed sexually hungry; thanks to the incessant warnings from the pulpit and churchian leadership. There would be no shortage of Christian men taking the initiative if a Christian woman (chaste or otherwise) were to express (or even subtly hint) her desire to marry.
In the Churchianity I experienced, all Christian women are considered chaste, “higher spiritual beings”, almost without sexual blemish and angelic.
Conversely, all Christian men are considered sexually hungry beasts, “lesser spiritual beings”, and sinful to the nth degree (“You have sin in you when you look at her cleavage” Never mind if it’s the first time he sees it).
And it is clear that the content over at ROK are not catered for the womenfolk.
Go get ’em, “Free Northerner”
Chokingonredpills absolutely crystallized the thought for me:
Most Christian women, possibly including Elspeth and SMM cannot truly distinguish between a man who can’t have premarital sex, and one who won’t have premarital sex.
Aye, there’s the rub…
It’s the preselection circuit that all girls have.
Here’s the big difference:
The Christian girls can only assume that most of the “nice guys” are actually trying to hook up or get laid before marriage.
But us guys have the fact that slutty church girls have the empirical evidence of their participation in the forni-lympics.
I am thinking of a certain unmarried single mother I know who has some very churchian snotty things to say about the male sex drive.
However, she is the one raising a child in a low income neighborhood, and with a father that is a not only a jerk to her, but to the child as well. Way to f–k over you kid there, miss holier-than-thou.
Anyway. I think that is the whole issue right there. To most women, men are either guys who can get laid or can’t get laid. And in their minds, if a guy won’t it means he can’t.
Hence, he is automatically a preselection-fail butthurt not-so-niceguy.
Honestly, gals, it makes me think I should go ahead and bang the next willing slut that comes my way. Like I said, the church is full of fornicators, what’s one more?
I find it devilshly telling that women can actually make a known virtue in a man somehow more ugly than a known sin in a woman.
The churchian hamster makes the secular one look like a cripple.
@Deep Strength
“That said it is still good to be considerate to sisters in Christ”
The bible does not sanitize sin, neither should we. Having said that, we should do this not out of personal vendetta but to build up the other person. Our attitude does make a difference.
It is very easy to either become obsessed with the letter of the law or become lawless. We must watch ourselves and not allow ourselves to lose the spirit of the law.
@Marietta
Well I will take your statement with a grain of salt for the time being. I do take accusations of any kind or should with a grain of salt until adequate proof is provided. Since anyone can claim anything or plain makes things up. I will suspend judgement on your statement for now.
Anyway. I think that is the whole issue right there. To most women, men are either guys who can get laid or can’t get laid. And in their minds, if a guy won’t it means he can’t.
Actually I do know the difference, Jack. I wasn’t just making crap up based on assumptions.
Chokingonredpill,
I don’t think you understood my comment on who has it the easiest/hardest. It had NOTHING to do with churchianity. It was about the difficulty levels in finding a mate in the marketplace.
A simple solution is to stop attending these churches. Read the Bible at home. Pray on your own. Join a small group of other men to worship. Honor the Lord in a manner pleasing to Him.
If the churches are so messed up, why are you going? If it is for the women, that is not a good reason.
The Shadowed Knight
I’ve noticed something over at this post in the comments; but especially over at donal’s place in the comments there.
When men are “picky”, they’re told to get reasonable, get realistic, and lower their standards. Men are constantly told to “settle” for the plainer women, the less “hot” women, the “just” cute or “Just” pretty women; or even the homely women. We’re told to remain chaste.
And the men say “OK. We’re willing to compromise. We’re willing to date, marry, have sex with, and make babies with, less attractive women. We just want them to look their best, don’t get fat, and treat us well. We are willing to compromise and sacrifice to make this work.”
When women are told more or less the same thing after THEIR relationship failures, there is enormous pushback. “We CAN’T compromise!!! We are NOT going to settle!! You told us we have to marry men we’re head over heels for, and we just CANNOT be head over heels for these Christian men who no one wants to have sex with. These guys just DO NOT push our buttons.”
And honestly, women have a point when they say that.
But it’s when they keep going with the further argument I always see, that it goes off the rails.
“And don’t ask me to try. I don’t want to do things like put myself out there to meet guys. I don’t want to take the initiative, and I shouldn’t have to. I don’t want to give my phone number to guys. I don’t want to call guys to make dates. I should not have to demonstrate my wife credentials, because I just don’t wanna and I don’t think it’s Christian-like. I should not have to demonstrate anything to a guy. I don’t want to change anything about myself. I shouldn’t have to make an effort to try to find men.”
It’s just so interesting to me how men are always the ones who are supposed to do all the compromising, all the settling, all the work to make a relationship congeal and function. It’s just so interesting to me how men are told “do this and this and this” and they say “OK”. But when women are told to “do that and that and the other thing”, then the pushback rears its head and says “Nope, can’t do that, too hard, too much work, too forward, too ‘unChristian’, too time-consuming, shouldn’t have to do that because that’s not the way men and women are supposed to meet each other.”
That anonymous post at 1055 am is me.
I stopped going to church several years ago for this (and many other) reasons. It’s difficult to watch the Churchian women saunter proudly into the auditorium dressed like the women of the world (sluts) and be shamed for being “too picky” by nearly all. At least I’m left alone to be single and alone by the pagans.
When men are “picky”, they’re told to get reasonable, get realistic, and lower their standards. Men are constantly told to “settle” for the plainer women, the less “hot” women, the “just” cute or “Just” pretty women; or even the homely women. We’re told to remain chaste.
Fitness testing. “Do you have standards and are you firm on them?”
And the men say “OK. We’re willing to compromise. We’re willing to date, marry, have sex with, and make babies with, less attractive women.
And failure. “No, I will give in for the promise of sex, maybe.”
Also, implicit in this is the point that none of these women can be trusted. They, by their own admission, have to be attracted to be loyal, and cannot accept responsibility. I do not want a woman like that, and I will not provide for such a woman.
The Shadowed Knight
Shadowed Knight:
Yes, that’s a good point with regard to some women (even MOST women) must be attracted to be loyal. But that’s not exactly what I was driving at.
We’ve exchanged our prior SMP/MMP in which commitment and sticking to commitment is the driving force. We’ve changed it out. We now have an SMP/MMP in which hedonic relationships and hedonic marriage are the standards. In other words, they are based on mutual attraction to bring the two together and keep them together.
I think women could be attracted to many more men than they believe, if they look for them. If they do things to try to locate them. But what I’m hearing is that a lot of women do not want to put in the work to find these men, and then help those men along. They don’t want to find a lieutenant on his way up. There are some around them, but they don’t want a lieutenant. They want a four star general.
And what’s more, I’m hearing that they don’t want to do anything; and believe they shouldn’t have to. They don’t want to give out their phone numbers or grow out their hair. They don’t want to throw out IOIs to men they’re interested in. They don’t want to do light kino. They don’t want to display wife credentials or do wifely things.
That’s where the problem is. Men are told to compromise and they do it. Women are told to compromise and we get all manner of song and dance why they can’t or won’t do it.
Deti, my point is that it looks like it might be a fitness test. They are checking to see if men will give in and compromise their standards. If so, then the proper answer is to tell them to go away, not argue with them.
If a woman asks for something for nothing, the only acceptable response is mirth and ridicule. It works to control their behavior and stop the otherwise incessant demands.
“I want a husband, but I do not want to do…”
“Hahaha, here is the pet store number, get yourself some cats.”
Or,
“You do not want to be a wife, and you cannot find a husband. Hmmm… wonder what could be causing that, huh?
My second point was not so much covering the way women rationalize thing, as the specific rationalizations at hand. Every time I hear a woman say, “Oh, I have to marry an alpha or I just cannot be trusted,” I hear, “Oh, *blah blah blah,* I just cannot be trusted.” In which case, the proper answer is indeed telling them to go away. No sense binding yourself to an inferior woman. It is for the children, after all.
The Shadowed Knight
Shadowed Knight:
I suppose it could be a fitness test. That’s one explanation.
But I don’t think it is.
I think women who say these things (“I don’t want to do _______ and I shouldn’t have to”) really do believe it. I think they have preconceived notions of how this is supposed to work. They are supposed to just hang back and let it happen. They should be able to have alpha males come to them and display/perform for them, and they can simply select the most attractive alpha males for marriage.
“What Women Think” Heh. A woman’s thought process is like navigating the Labyrinth on acid.
They should be able to have alpha males come to them and display/perform for them, and they can simply select the most attractive alpha males for marriage.
They might think that they think that, but I doubt it. Most women are not stupid, after all. That is not how an alpha male does his thing. If they do think that way, oh well; no great loss. Any woman who honesty believes that is not too bright and would probably make a terrible wife, anyway.
The Shadowed Knight
Deti your comment @ 11:35
3rd paragraph:
I told you what my standards were for a guy. And you even said they were reasonable. I don’t go after the super handsome guys, because I’m attractive but not THAT attractive. I understand that in the age range I’m looking in that most guys aren’t going to be generals automatically. And that it would be wise to seek guys who aren’t quite there but have potential.
4th paragraph:
You’re right. I don’t really want to do those things. I’m shy and those are scary. But I TOTALLY understand your point on why I need to get over my shyness as it is holding me back. I gave you examples on how I’m addressing that problem. And I have given my phone number to a guy in the past because I knew he was too shy to ask. If he does nothing with it then what am I to do? Those lieutenants have to step up at some point too.
My hair reaches the middle of my back. Girls who complain about having to grow out their hair are truly pathetic and lazy. It is literally one of the simplest things to do that makes a girl more attractive to guys. ( I know that black girls experience more difficultly with their hair so my little rant is not directed at them.)
I gave you examples on how I give IOI to guys. And I mentioned that I was working on being more of a touchy person. Again I’m shy so I’m working up to it slowly. It won’t happen overnight. And I believe FBNF said she naturally is a touchy person and doesn’t have a problem here. So I don’t know why you brought that particular item up.
Actually my job makes displaying wifely credentials easier. The old guys, married/unavailable guys, and women make comments on how I’d be a good wife. The single guys don’t seem to notice or they do but don’t really care.
5th paragraph: “guys are told to compromise and they do it” not to sound snotty- but how has that worked out for them? Are the guys here getting married? Or are things a little bit more complicated than “improve yourself and the opposite sex will be knocking down your door” as you seem to think happens when a girl improves herself.
Improving yourself and becoming strong in your faith is excellent advice. Even if things don’t work out as we hope.
@ Deti,
Interesting point there. I think I can take that concept a bit further:
From what we know of the natural masculine men (or “made” masculine men such as the gamers and JoJ) in the manosphere, we know that all of their women say their man chose them.
However, for all of those not chosen by masculine men (or alphas if you will) as is the greater percentage of women getting married in today’s culture it seems to be the women choosing the men. If they are smart, they will be a respectful and submitted wife and will build their man up into a masculine man. If not, they will tear him down and ultimately be headed on the road to divorce.
Thus, we should be telling women that if they weren’t chosen by an (attractive) masculine man in their late teens or early 20s they may have to go out and initiate more than they think they should if they want a husband.
OK, after exchanging a few (hundred) emails with some of the commenters here, I sort of had an Ah-ha! moment. I could not understand why the men were so angry about that one line in my post, but I think Deep Strength has helped me to see what the problem was. He has given me permission to quote from our email exchange.
Deep Strength:
Sunshine Mary:
Deep Strength:
I realize that DS only speaks for himself, but if the objection is that I didn’t use the post to call out women for saying that they can’t get men (as in any men) interested in them without fornicating like the girls they are competing with do, then I understand the objection and I accept that correction. I’ll try to do a better job next time.
The reason I may have had trouble catching that is because of how FN phrased it:
Because I was reporting the argument, not making the argument, I didn’t understand why I was catching so much heat for this. But if the objection truly is that I should have immediately refuted this to the women, then I understand and accept that.
Anonymous at 10:15:
The only answer is to starve them of all male attention.
I was one of those e-mailers, and I apologized to SSM as I did overreact in my response. This is basically what I was saying here. I probably took personal offense to it because I’m here trying to purposefully not pressure women to fornicate and in her post it seemed like she was saying that women can’t get any men interested in them without fornicating. I could take that one of two ways, and both really were pretty bothering to me, especially since the women pressure me for sex, historically, and not the other way around.
Off topic.
Deti, in one of the other comment threads you mentioned that I don’t seem to be “hot” for guys. I said that that was because it wasn’t the topic being discussed so I never talked about what I found hot about men. I want to elaborate a little more. According to the Myers Briggs test I’m an INTJ. I’m generally not an openly mushy person. I keep things bottled up. One exception would be if I see a cute little puppy. I know guys shouldn’t take advice from girls so they can ignore this if they want.
Guys- girls love cute dogs. If you have the time, and are able to take care of one, I suggest getting a dog. Bring it with you while shopping at the pet store (if allowed), go to puppy classes, take it for walks, go to the dog park. Not only is your new little friend getting socialized but so are you! It can be such a big help as you deal with people from all walks of life. Dogs are an innocent looking conversation opener. Like I said – girls love dogs. Doesn’t have to be any specific breed…. it could be a lab, a chihuahua, a pug, a rottweiler, or a big drooling st. bernard. Ok maybe not the st. bernard, some people might find them gross.
A while ago I saw a picture of a military man feeding baby rabbits in his kitchen. I can’t even describe how attractive us girls find that. He could have just strangled someone in the most gruesome way possible right in front of us…..but awww look he’s feeding little bunnies now…. We are willing to overlook a lot of things (including shyness) if a guy shows affection towards an animal.
(P.S. please only get one if you can take care of it.)
They might think that they think that, but I doubt it. Most women are not stupid, after all.
No, they don’t. When a woman is very actively pursuing marriage or even just a relationship, she makes sure to (at the very least) keep her weight down and look nice when she leaves the house.
When she has her sights set on a particular man, she does that and more. I know I did, once I had decided I wanted to be so bothered with a man like mine. Contrary to conventional manosphere wisdom, I did not come to that decision lightly at all. But when I did, I pulled out all the stops, everything in my very limited playbook and stuff I figured out as I went along.
And I was introverted, not all that *hot*, and more than a little fearful. I will acknowledge that having grown up in a mostly male household probably gave me something of a leg up.
But The Shadowed Knight is right. Most women are not that stupid. I do think most women raised in conservative Christian households are probably more reticent when they meet a man they could be interested in.
Elspeth:
So if what you’re saying is correct, then the women who are NOT actively pursuing marriage or seeking marriage are doing so primarily because they aren’t attracted to any of the men around them. (That would explain their general standoffishness and all around condescending, nasty behavior toward most men. )
Couldn’t part of the responsibility for this be on women, for not trying to find men they’re attracted to? But somehow I don’t get that sense. It seems that once again, it’s the men’s fault, for not being attractive. “Be handsome, be attractive, don’t be unattractive. “ “Just get it. Just figure it out for yourself.”
But when I did, I pulled out all the stops, everything in my very limited playbook and stuff I figured out as I went along.
This is what a woman does when she is attracted to a man. That woman will do anything and everything she can in order to get him. She is going to be twirling the hair she is growing out, smiling and giggling, finding excuses to talk to him and touch him, and being near him as much as possible.
One of the women at work does this to me. Given, if I called her out, she would honestly believe that she was not doing it to get me interested. It would be her trying to be friendly, or welcome me to the job. She might even be offended that I would think that, because I ruined the “just happened” part and she wants a man to ‘just get it” and not spoil it. That does not change that she follows me around and acts like a silly little girl around me.
The Shadowed Knight
So if what you’re saying is correct, then the women who are NOT actively pursuing marriage or seeking marriage are doing so primarily because they aren’t attracted to any of the men around them.
Correct. None of these men are attractive, so where are all the good men?
Couldn’t part of the responsibility for this be on women, for not trying to find men they’re attracted to?
The responsibility is all theirs. If they have no attractive men around them, they had better lower their standards. Once women actually look, they notice a lot more attractive men. They are being too picky.
But somehow I don’t get that sense. It seems that once again, it’s the men’s fault, for not being attractive. “Be handsome, be attractive, don’t be unattractive.“ “Just get it. Just figure it out for yourself.”
If she wants it, she will go to any lengths to make sure that it “just happens.” All the low cunning and deceit that women exhibit in a divorce will be used to get that marriage in the first place. The emotional front women have is only a front. Behind it is a coldly calculating rational actor, with her own motivations and valuations. She will never even know what happened, and it may seem like it “just happened,” but deep down, she knows exactly what she did. It is very effective.
The Shadowed Knight
I don’t know Deti. I wasn’t really trying to *get* SAM interested. I already knew he was interested. I was just trying to make sure that when I gave in he’d be too smitten to go anywhere. It was a dangerous game I played, and the fact that it seems to have “worked” doesn’t in any way make me believe that I was special. I certainly wouldn’t suggest any other woman try it.
I was different from Christian girls who are serious about their faith and who don’t want to appear too forward and/or loose. I was nominally Christian, churchian. These gals may genuinely find some of the men around them attractive enough to marry (see FN’s newest post). They may not be so drawn to them that they act like a silly girl around them, but as Dalrock repeatedly points out, marriage is the place to explore romance, not vice versa.
But I will concede this much: if they are sufficiently attracted and think they have a real shot, then yes. They will make it abundantly clear and the gentleman won’t have to guess.
Shadowed Knight:
Agree with your last comment. I will be the first to concede there are a lot of unattractive men out there. But I think if a woman looks hard enough and tries hard and puts in effort, she can find attractive men or men she COULD be attracted to if she gives the men half a chance. But that would require her to accept reality and lower her standards. It would require her to accept that she’s not going to get George Clooney or Brad Pitt with a Bible. It’s going to be more like Ray Romano with a Bible. Or Kevin James. Or Gene Hackman.
I think most women do not want to do the work. I think most women do not want to put in the effort or expend the time. Most women think they should not HAVE to do any of these things.
I think we should also accept that most women in the Sphere are extreme outliers. SSM and Elspeth who married extremely attractive alphas. FBNF and Marietta who are serious about remaining virgins until marriage. Truth be told, most of their Christian sisters are having sex, and are unapologetic about it.
FBNF and Marietta are outliers because they are serious about their faith and want to save it until marriage.
I cannot know this without seeing their photos. But assuming physical attractiveness, these two women are the flip side of the attractive alpha male. Very desirable, exceedingly rare, not nearly enough to go around to all who want one; and can afford to be very selective. The odds are that most men will not be able to secure commitment from an FBNF or a Marietta.
Most men I know have accepted that, with varying degrees of reluctance.
The thing is – and this is crucial – most women are NOT WILLING to accept the counterpart, i.e, that Brad Pitt with a Bible is NOT in their future.
I’m glad DS was able to explain it, because I was having a hard time. It’s good this misunderstanding was cleared up.
Thank you deti :-)
Though honestly, I’m thinking I can’t really afford to be very picky. Maybe Marietta can, IF she pays close attention to what is being said by the guys around here and strives to put herself out there, despite her being introverted and shy. She is still very young and has a better chance if she learns from what she reads and also strives the be what a good woman should be.
Perhaps if I had learned my lessons earlier I could be pickier. The thing is, I barely have a year before I turn 30, and a year goes by quickly. From what I can tell, very few, if any, christian men around here will consider someone that is 30. And it’s not like my standards are unreasonable. I just have a thing or two that I want that is very hard to find (such as him waiting until he gets married before he’s willing to have sex). Time is not on my side and is running out fast.
Marietta,
What’s the difference between finding a mate in the marketplace and in church?
Regarding giving out phone number as an IOI, none of the women I dated gave me their phone number without my asking. All they did was to turn up for the date, look pretty, gobble down the food and drinks, and ask questions about how much I earn while I have to do all the work of entertaining them. And when I ask for the bill, none of them insisted on paying and only a handful thanked me for it (in a low soft voice as though someone’s pet dog died).
Regarding touching as an IOI, not all men like to be touched. And Christian men have been warned many times, albeit less often than the evils of masturbation, about touching women anywhere on our first dates. And isn’t it more dangerous for a woman to start touching a man than giving him her number?
And if I get a dollar each time a married / unavailable / older woman tell me how much of a “good catch” I am, I’d have enough money to pay for my next 100 dates.
FBNF,
I’m 39 this year. Except for one (age 29), all other women I dated were over 30. I gave most of them a chance and was all for working things out with them. Only two made it past the two-month mark before slinking away, like the rest of the lot. It does not give me the impression that they believe time is running out for them.
deti said:
“So if what you’re saying is correct, then the women who are NOT actively pursuing marriage or seeking marriage are doing so primarily because they aren’t attracted to any of the men around them. (That would explain their general standoffishness and all around condescending, nasty behavior toward most men. )
Couldn’t part of the responsibility for this be on women, for not trying to find men they’re attracted to? But somehow I don’t get that sense. It seems that once again, it’s the men’s fault, for not being attractive. “Be handsome, be attractive, don’t be unattractive. “ “Just get it. Just figure it out for yourself.””
I can take nasty behaviour and basic lack of manners from them, but don’t keep me in their orbit or take advantage of me when they are clearly not interested.
When an innocent question about how her weekend:
– Took the woman at least a day to respond (and without answering it at all), and
– Led her to share the screenshot(s) of our conversation with someone else (she sent it to me on Whatsapp by accident),
I can’t say I’m not disgusted.
Based on my dealings and experience with Christian women in the “dating” marketplace, I can unequivocally say that they have absolutely no right to declare, “Where have all the good men gone?”
Yeah, I’ve been taken for a ride more than once by a girl like that.
@ Choking
“- Took the woman at least a day to respond (and without answering it at all), and
– Led her to share the screenshot(s) of our conversation with someone else (she sent it to me on Whatsapp by accident),”
Call her out on her gossip and/or bad manners.
If you do nothing then you’re basically admitting that you deserve that treatment from her.
If you don’t want to do it then just keep in mind that it is the right thing to do as a Christian even if you don’t care for her yourself.
I find too often that I’m too passive in these situations, and if you really liked this girl this is a good chance to stand up to her and build respect/attraction. Even if you’re not interested you shouldn’t tolerate this kind of bad behavior anyway.
Don’t have the time to read all the comments, but…
The Christian SMP deals with the same issues that the worldly SMP deals with – a woman, Christian or not, will only want a man with options, but.. a man with options, Christian or not, will often choose one of those other options, instead of her. Or perhaps, choose her for a little while, and then choose another option.
TL, DR – the reliable men are not attractive to women, for the most part, and the men who are attractive to women are not reliable, for the most part.
Chokingonredpills,
I don’t understand how you keep misreading my comments. I thought I was very clear. I feel like you are just trolling me now. I wrote on who has it the easiest and the hardest time finding a spouse and you start complaining about the sermons at church. As if I said chaste guys had is easy. I corrected you and now you think I was making a distinction between the marketplace in and out of church. I used the word marketplace. Not specifically Christian or heathen. Go read the comments again. I’m not going repeat myself.
Your 2nd paragraph:
The guys here like Deti and Cane have instructed me to find a guy I’m interested in and do almost the opposite of what those girls are doing. I’m still suppose to eat the food and look pretty.
3rd paragraph:
I’m not going to go up to a guy I like and give him a random back massage. Just a light tap on the shoulder/arm to say hi or whatever. That shows him I like him and that I don’t think he is repulsive or has cooties. I know some people don’t like to be touched. I have to proceed with caution. Why did you bring up guys touching girls on first dates? Deti and Cane gave that advice for me to do because I may have appeared to be standoffish towards guys liked. You keep flipping the subject and it is getting a bit irritating.
One more thing chokingonredpills,
If I tap a guy on the shoulder and he recoils in disgust then I think it is safe to assume he is not attracted to me. Why would I want to be with a guy who doesn’t like my touch? It would make for a weird cold marriage wouldn’t it? Then I should probably weed those guys out.
Same thing could be said of a guy touching a girl.
@ Marietta,
Same here on the physical touch thing. I’m a bigtime physical touch equals affection person, so I would need to be able to hug/snuggle/hold hands with/etc with my husband. It’s a big enough deal to me as to be a deal breaker even.
@Marietta
A lot of the instruction in church on male-female interaction is pretty poor. They do it (especially all the stuff under the umbrella of “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”) in the mind of “guarding a woman’s heart” and trying to prevent fornication. There really is an irrational fear of men (especially) getting women to spontaneously fornicate. There’s almost no trust there at all.
That said, I know I’ve said elsewhere that I can’t cotton the idea of not being physically affectionate with my (future) wife. The idea of not doing it is repulsive, and even more so there’s churches (and popular bloggers) teaching that the whole concept is wrong. It makes me wary, simply because the idea is out there. In a lot of ways, I know I’m very fortunate to not have been raised in the church or things would be more messed up for me with respect to women than they already are. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of Christian guys working under that assumption that’s been drilled in their heads their whole lives, that you don’t touch a woman, and much more so you don’t pressure her in that regard, and you don’t even so much as look at a woman lustfully (i.e. desire her or show her physical affection).
And yes, there’s a lot of resentment in men regarding it. Not trying to stir any trouble, just pointing this out in hopes of some understanding.
Yep Ballista,
I grew up in a Christian household that attended church off and on. I’ve never read any of those Christian dating books. I understand that guys have been taught those things you listed. The wariness of guys is understandable, especially these days. I think this is also one of the reasons Deti and Cane instructed me to be the one that initiates touch.
@Ballista
Coming from a background of that kind of teaching, (and having read many of the books and blogs promoting courtship, betrothal, dating with a purpose, etc.) I can honestly say IMO the ideas of protecting purity in those movements started as a good thing. I have noticed a trend, though, for those kinds of teachings to become increasingly more rule oriented. They miss the spirit of it in creating so many rules. So much so that there has been a noticeable lack of marriage amongst young people in those conservative evangelical movements. I have read a lot of “blogger fire” as different bloggers address this issue. I don’t think the whole idea of seeking to maintain purity and getting to know the opposite sex with marriage in mind is such a bad thing. I just think the ideas have been misapplied and don’t take into account the fact that real human beings, and not robots, are involved. I have heard direct testimony from guys, like you, who feel kind of hamstrung by the whole thing. And there is an issue of the girls (and their fathers) maybe being too picky at times.
@Amanda
Agreed, you have to define purity in a good way and be accurate about it. Kind of like the old Bill Clinton “what are sexual relations?” stuff. Then you have to recognize that a certain amount of moderation in that venue is a good thing or no attraction/desire happens. You have figures barking at you to not do so much with women in such a strident tone that you get young men fearful of getting anywhere near women at all. Then they wonder why young men aren’t getting anywhere near women and shame them because they aren’t. Sin if you do, sin if you don’t.
Kind of like the attitude with prohibition of alcohol. Scripture clearly portrays moderation in it as a good thing and something that cheers both God and man (Judges 9:13) and gladdens the hearts of men (Psalm 104:15), yet sin in lack of moderation. The problem that the believers of the time had in their activism was exactly that, getting anywhere near it was a bad thing just because of the *possibility* of overdoing it. So partaking in alcohol *at all* became a sin, when much Scripture clearly says the opposite.
Fear of the sin of overdoing these things will take the blessings of these things in moderation out of the hands of men and women both.
Personally, I want the blessing of God on the marriage I will have (speaking in faith there that He will provide that someday), so I worry like that even given the sober knowledge I have of what Scripture does say. Especially, when the conditions of moderation are attained (marriage), I almost want to hear Him say “go crazy on each other…with my blessing”. Just how I am…LOL
Ballista
Good comment. I like your alcohol analogy!
Deep Strength:
She didn’t say a word after she sent the screenshot until I said (on Whatsapp), “Nice wallpaper.” She apologised and I left it as that. Anyway, she told the dating agency that she wasn’t interested in me, so there’s not much I can do with her.
And as for calling out women’s behaviour, I agree with you in principle, but I am still trying to figure out where I should draw the line in “discipling” women that are not under my authority.
Marietta:
“Go read the comments again. I’m not going repeat myself.”
To me, this was disrespectful and snarky.
For my second para, I was stating the fact that I had to do more of the work on all of my first dates. This includes entertaining the women and paying the bill. The least they could do is to give me their phone number without my asking and show their appreciation when I paid for the food/drinks. A bonus would be to not ask me about my job or anything that can relate to how much I earn in a month. Giving me her phone number would be a good enough IOI.
As for physical touch, Ballista74 explained clearly the dilenma some Christian men face. If a woman were to touch me on our first date, I would have no freaking idea how to respond without offending her AND violating the warnings from the Chrurchian pulpit. Your comment is, IMO, a classic example of apex fallacy because, as much as you claim to understand, you do not know what the reality is like for the Christian man in a feminist world/society.
And until you do (which, with all due respect, I doubt), your claims about how hard it is for chaste men in the dating marketplace are moot.
FBNF said:
“Same here on the physical touch thing. I’m a bigtime physical touch equals affection person, so I would need to be able to hug/snuggle/hold hands with/etc with my husband. It’s a big enough deal to me as to be a deal breaker even.”
How many times were Christian women taught, warned, admonished and badgered about it being sinful to touch or even look at men lustfully from the pulpit or by the Churchian leadership?
Chokingonredpills,
I’m sorry for being disrespectful. I probably shouldn’t be commenting when it is the time of the month that I’m short on patience.
2nd paragraph:
Ok yes, I agree. I don’t get how girls think it is any of their business what a guy’s salary is. Especially when they first start dating. It’s more important to figure out if he is responsible with his money. A girl can casually mention that she prefers to save her money and observe his reaction. If he volunteers his opinion…great, if he doesn’t she should drop the subject.
3rd paragraph:
This is probably just a misunderstanding between us. I’m not going to go snuggling with a guy on a first date to send an IOI. That would be awkward for both parties. But is a handshake ok? Or for example, if I saw you at church and wanted to talk to you but your back was turned would it be acceptable for me to tap you on the shoulder? Little things like that.
Just in case you’re unaware, this conversation between Deti and I (and several others) started a couple threads ago at Donal’s blog. And since you may not have known the history you jumped in and went into what appeared to me as a “woe is me” rant. And nothing I said could convince you that- yes, I agree that chaste Christian men have it the hardest for many reasons.
Marietta:
The main reason I encouraged girls to lightly touch a man they’re interested in, touching on the hand or shoulder, or whatever, is because it’s just about as clear an IOI as can be. A guy who gets one of these should know he’s dealing with a girl who’s interested in him and at least he knows he won’t get blown out of the water.
But also, I can see CORP’s response that men, especially Christian men, got a lot of conflicting messages about how to deal with and address women. Marietta, just know that many, many men you’re dealing with are taught they are never, ever to touch a woman unless they get express permission to do so first. Many men are taught their sexual urges are evil and criminal. They have been taught that “being nice” is sexually attractive. Then when they try these tactics and fail miserably, they gnash their teeth and cannot figure out why everything everyone around them is telling them to do is failing. After all, the people they know and trust the most tell them to do these things and all will be well; and they absolutely cannot figure it out when it fails.
This is a world in which men are deeply, deeply confused about sex and sexuality. It’s what we’re stuck with for now, I’m afraid. Men have to unlearn the bad stuff; and women will have to be patient while that process is going on.
Light physical contact anywhere from the hand, forearm, upper arm, to shoulder tends to be socially acceptable and platonic.
It will also help build a connection between you and the other person as well.
@Marietta What I think people are talking about as an IOI is just getting a little intimate. People have their normal personal space and distances. To use a room full of people as an example, I would consider it as interest from a woman in public if she gets closer to me (e.g. enters into my personal space), lowers her voice so others around don’t hear, maybe touches my arm or holds my hand while she looks in my eyes speaking. Escalation from there would be leading him away somewhere more private. The touching part is an escalation if the touch is continuous.
People can dense, so these things can be hard to register in the minds of people, but at least that’s what I’m looking for out of women, and especially what I wasn’t seeing out of the blonde woman I referred to elsewhere.
@Marietta I only restricted my analysis to touch/contact cues since you asked along those lines. And this kind of behavior is literally taught as wrong to Christian men and women both, so this is probably where most of the attraction/desire gets shut down.
Of course, a man can accept or reject these things (same as if a woman receives these). The first thing is usually breaching his personal space. If he backs off to maintain it, you know he’s not that interested in you…or fidgety about being seen around women in “that way” if he’s fearful of being seen as a sinner….hard to know someone’s thoughts and heart.
I found this post via Phineas (who I found via Donalgrame).
Speaking as an outlier (i.e. A Christian woman in this part of the blogosphere who was raised a devout Christian, waited until marriage, and married a chaste “Good Christian man”). I’ll share my thoughts on this topic.
(Note: this is not a personal attack – I am making a general statement about the state of American Christianity). The majority of Christian women these days, are not interested in Christian men. Christian values are NEGATIVE attraction triggers. Physical attractiveness is irrelevant – the “Good Christian” behavior itself repels women.
My husband isn’t ugly. In fact, he is quite hot. Yet; he was not the sort-of man Christian women considered hot, because his behavior was too “Christian”. (Oh well, their loss :) ) I don’t mean my husband was some passive supplementing nice guy – I mean, his Christian values made him a loser. For example, an ex-girlfriend of my husband’s dumped him and called him gay, when he turned down her offer for premarital sex. He was called a “pig” by a 30-something single woman at church, for expressing interest in women in their early 20’s. (I feel lucky, that my husband didn’t abandon the faith due to his experiences. I had decoverted around the time we began dating, and it was hubby who led me back to Christ).
Honestly, gals, it makes me think I should go ahead and bang the next willing slut that comes my way. Like I said, the church is full of fornicators, what’s one more?
Wow! I felt the exact same way (well, substitute sluts with manwhores) before I began dating my husband. I was made fun of for being a virgin. Only weirdo loser girls are virgins. You’re only a virgin because hot guys don’t want to have sex with you. I felt ashamed for turning down offers from jerks, and wanting to wait until marriage. To the point where I actually pursued only Japanese guys, because I assumed American men wouldn’t have been interested in a virgin (in hindsight; I shouldn’t have conflated the views of American women, with the views of American men).
I realize now, I shouldn’t have been ashamed of my values. Following Christ isn’t something to be ashamed of. I shouldn’t have to excuse following the Bible. Especially when the people questioning my behavior are (alledged) fellow Christians!
Long story short: I don’t think there’s a shortage of “Good Marriageable Christian guys” I think there’s just a shortage of Good Christians who actually value, well, Biblical values. The shortage goes both ways, but I find women are more likely to be Churchians. (I wonder if it has to do with women who doubt, being pressure more to stay? When I deconverted, I was pressured to go back a lot more, than guys I knew who deconverted).
I’m not all that and a bag of chips, but when I was single I could’ve just put on a blindfold, spun around, and married the first single (non-Churchian) Christian guy I crashed into. I mean, the random single Christian guy would’ve been willing to marry me (despite spinning around blindfolded in public, lol). I’ve yet to encounter a (Non-Churchian) single Christian guy who isn’t serious about marriage.
I think single Christian women could be more, well, assertive when it comes to pursuing marriage. If they’re interested in marriage, they should verbally express said interest to men. If interested in a guy, tell him. Also, pursue men who seem like they’d want to get married. Be nice to Christian guys. I mean, its not rocket science.
When I was 19, after being told I might not live ’till I’m 30 (doctors discovered my RA attacks my organs during severe flares. Transplants would be risky due to the severity of my condition, so whatever organ damage I may develop in the near future may not be treatable). I decided to live my life to the fullest. The whole “you might suddenly die” thing made me re-evaluate my priorities, as well as give me the surge of confidence I needed to get married young, because, well, I always wanted to get married young – screw anyone who tried to me otherwise.
Long story short: I found (and by found I mean had a crush on for awhile but never said anything) a nice single young Christian man who seemed serious about his faith, began dating him, fell in love with him, and than expressed my interests in marriage. A few months later we got married. We’ve been happily married ever since (almost 2 years, exactly).
Nothing worth having ever comes to you easily; if you want to get married you have to put in some effort beside praying to God for a soulmate, or expecting the cute guy you’re crushing on to ask you out. I crushed on my husband for a long time – it turns out he thought I was just being a cruel flirt and teasing him for the kicks! (I really really liked him and would’ve never done that!) If I had been honest about my feelings from the start, instead of trying to manipulate him into asking him out, than he wouldn’t have thought such things.
I apologize for my post being long and rambling. I also apologize if it offends anyone (although my intention wasn’t to offend anyone. As a woman its hard to state red pill truths without being accused of making a personal attack…)
I think women could be attracted to many more men than they believe, if they look for them. If they do things to try to locate them. But what I’m hearing is that a lot of women do not want to put in the work to find these men, and then help those men along. They don’t want to find a lieutenant on his way up. There are some around them, but they don’t want a lieutenant. They want a four star general.
I found this comment very interesting and have thought about it some bit.
In the Japanese concept of femininity; a woman is expected to encourage her man, give him the confidence and drive to achieve (note: I don’t mean to imply all men are hopeless charity cases until a woman fixes ’em.)
I think, an Alpha* can’t exist, without a real feminine woman there, supporting him. (*Well, the Japanese concept of an Alpha)
You can always tell when a man is in love with a woman. There’s a spring in his step, a glint in his eye, a drive in his work that wasn’t there before. A man in love want to achieve, to build a legacy, to make his woman proud. Men work hard when they feel their efforts are appreciated.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many women turn down a “diamond in the rough” because they aren’t interested in the effort required to maintain such a relationship (A guy climbing the career ladder can be a bit grumpy when he gets home from a stressful day at the office).
Very nice comment, Butterfly.
See how the foul, fallen, carouseling women almost led her astray?
I hope this helps explain to the others why my mission is to discourage white knights and to absolutely CRUSH the will and rebellion of church sluts.
The church sluts are very wily, and devilshly clever at making other people’s VIRTUES into defects.
If church sluts will not respond to loving correction (always the first step), then they need to be introduced to humilating, soul-crushing judgment.
“You’ve used up your youth and beauty, and destroyed your innocence. Like a relatively new car that has been part of a rental fleet; driven hard and reeking of cigarette smoke. I’m not going to buy what so many others have rented.”
Until we can turn the tables against the smirking sluts in the pews, they will work their social-shaming magic against the less-condifent but more virtuous girls.
I, for one, am unafraid to call such a girl out on her sin, and call her a whore – right to her face. If men will not grow a sack and use words for the purpose they were created, then we deserve the delusional sluts we get.
I, for one, am unafraid to call such a girl out on her sin, and call her a whore – right to her face. If men will not grow a sack and use words for the purpose they were created, then we deserve the delusional sluts we get.
I know a lot of guys who do that. But they aren’t Christians. In non-Christian circles Christian behavior doesn’t exactly have the best reputation. (For example, the Applebee’s “I give God 100%” tipping fiasco)
To be honest, I do wonder if the widespread blatant hypocrisy will slowly erode Christianity from within. But that’s another topic entirely.
See how the foul, fallen, carouseling women almost led her astray?
It wasn’t always single women. It was married women, as well. I’ve noticed if an American Christian woman is over ten years older than me (and not my relative), than she probably wishes ill to me (Late Gen X/early Millennials women sure are a grumpy lot!).
Back in the day, I asked my shrink about my predicament and he gave me the book [*] “Snow White Syndrome: All About Envy” by Betsey Cohen. The book explored how unhappy middle aged career women irrationally project their anger onto younger women and try to sabotage their happiness and success. My shrink implied Christian women heavily involved in church (i.e. micromanaging Church ladies of Dana Carvey fame) are probably no different.
[*]The book “Snow White Syndrome” was interesting, from a psychological perspective, I recommend it highly. Although the book was directed at women, one could argue that it promoted the “Red Pill”. It argued that although men are physically more violent than women, women are inherently more sadistic than men, and will emotionally torment. Women in positions of power need to be prudent and not use their position for some capricious personal crusade. If the Evil Queen from Snow White had focused on governing her Kingdom instead of jealously murdering her stepdaughter, than maybe she would’ve remained Queen.
A agree with the female cruelty thing. Although, I would say this is adaptive, because they lack the physical ability to dominate via violence.
This is borne out by looking at guys like Bill Maher or Steven Colbert, who are very wimpy men, and therefore adopt the tools of the “mean girls” as their only way to exercise power.
“You have no idea just how discouraging, how dispiriting, how emasculating, how embittering this ‘I can’t find a man (without fornicating)’ is to Christian men.”
It’s quite a kick in the dick for non-religious non-leftist men, too.
It iis thhe best time to make some plans for the long run and it is time to bee happy.
I’ve learn tgis put up and if I may just I desire
to suggest you some interesting things or suggestions. Maybe you can write next articles relating to this article.
I wish to read even more things about it!