Should Christians be concerned about generating sexual attraction?

I once jokingly told my husband, “I could never withhold sex from you.  Sometimes sex is what keeps me from hating you.”  And because he gives as good as he gets, he replied, “Yep, ditto, except for the part about sometimes.”  *wink*

He’s kind of a jerk, which is probably why I’m still hot for him after all these years.

Actually, we really like each other a lot, but the point is that living with another person who gets to have some say over your life is hard sometimes.  No matter how much you like them, sometimes you have those moments when you think, “Maybe if we just bought a duplex and each lived in one unit…”

Yet after you come together with your spouse, those minor annoyances and complaints sort of fade away.  It’s like hitting “reset” on your “grace for your spouse” switch.  So, regular marital relations for the unitive purpose are a good thing.  And can we all agree that we’re more likely to engage in relations if there is sexual attraction present?  So it seems to me that maintaining/generating sexual attraction would be a perfectly acceptable thing for Christians to be concerned about.

To that end, I’ve been interested in learning about what truly attracts men and women to each other, which is why I originally asked Donal Graeme to write an essay on the Five Vectors of Female Attraction to Men on my old blog.  In that essay, Donal connected some of his ideas to biblical concepts, but the main focus of the essay was attraction, not a Bible lesson.

On his site, Donal elaborated on the 5 Vectors, (referred to as LAMPS for short):

Looks: This includes physical attractiveness, such as facial symmetry and strong masculine features in a man’s face. It can also include healthy skin, healthy and good looking hair, and other external features. Youthfulness is featured here as well, but it is valued far less by women than men, probably because age doesn’t impact male fertility as much as it affects female fertility. In my opinion this tends to be the least important vector for women.

Athleticism: Here we have the overall physical attributes of a man. His strength, muscle tone, endurance, dexterity and general athletic ability. I tend to view this as being in the middle of the pack in terms of importance to most women.

Money: This attribute includes both the amount of resources that a man can call upon in the present, as well as what he might be able to make or create in the future. This doesn’t necessarily mean just money; real property and other assets can be included as well. I view this as the second weakest attribute in terms of importance.

Power: This is a short-hand for masculine power, or masculinity. Although in my view masculinity is power when it comes to attraction and relationships.  As an attribute, Power includes a lot of Alpha traits which are commonly discussed on Game sites. Things such as confidence, assertiveness, self-mastery, a commanding presence and indomitability would fall here. It does not include the power one has from any position of authority; that falls under status. When a woman fitness tests a man, she is trying to assess his masculinity. Rubbing against his manhood, as it were (I always liked this analogy; I just wish I could remember who thought it up). If the man can’t stand up to a woman, then he clearly can’t stand up to other men, so his Power value will diminish in her eyes. Power is entirely personal to the man; it is based on his own unique characteristics and charisma. In my opinion this is the most important attribute when it comes to female attraction. If a man fails here, then ultimately attraction cannot be sustained.

Status: The social position of the man is what is meant by status and is principally based on where he is on the social ladder. It includes how well respected he is by those around him, whether they are above him or below him in station. Any authority that a man can exercise in the community based on his position would fall under here. Think Big Fish or Small Fish; the bigger the fish, the more attractive a man is. Fitness testing also falls under here to a degree as well, because a man who fails a test is probably low status and used to being bossed around. “Social Proof” or “Pre-Selection” doesn’t exactly fall under here. Rather, that idea serves as a short-cut or proxy for women to try and determine if the man has status or money or power. To sum Status up, it is based not on anything inherent to the man, but rather his general position in society. This is probably the second most important attribute.

I didn’t see anything objectionable in Donal’s ideas from a Christian point of view, so I was surprised to see this comment from Cane Caldo recently on another blog:

…sorry, but Donal’s LAMPS vector stuff ain’t scriptural. Nor is “generating attraction” in general.

He didn’t elaborate on why.  I wouldn’t have thought twice about it, but I have a lot of respect for Mr. Caldo, so when he says something I don’t agree with, I generally stop and think about it again to reconsider if I’m on the wrong path with my thinking.  But I’m not sure where in the Bible we are disallowed from considering and acting upon that which attracts the opposite sex (presuming we want to attract them for marital relations, not fornication).

There are no commands for us to pursue sexual attractiveness, but consider some of Solomon’s characteristics which awakened love and sexual desire in the woman in Song of Songs.  She says:

Looks – Song 5:10-16

10 My beloved is radiant and ruddy,
outstanding among ten thousand.
11 His head is purest gold;
his hair is wavy
and black as a raven.
12 His eyes are like doves
by the water streams,
washed in milk,
mounted like jewels.
13 His cheeks are like beds of spice
yielding perfume.
His lips are like lilies
dripping with myrrh.
14 His arms are rods of gold
set with topaz.
His body is like polished ivory
decorated with lapis lazuli.
15 His legs are pillars of marble
set on bases of pure gold.
His appearance is like Lebanon,
choice as its cedars.
16 His mouth is sweetness itself;
he is altogether lovely.
This is my beloved, this is my friend,
daughters of Jerusalem.

Athleticism  – song 2:8-9

The voice of my beloved!
Behold, he comes,
leaping over the mountains,
bounding over the hills.
9 My beloved is like a gazelle
or a young stag…

Money – Song 3:9-10

9 King Solomon made himself a carriage
from the wood of Lebanon.
10 He made its posts of silver,
its back of gold, its seat of purple;
its interior was inlaid with love
by the daughters of Jerusalem.

PowerSong 3:7-8

7 Behold, it is the carriage of Solomon!
Around it are sixty mighty men,
some of the mighty men of Israel,
8 all of them wearing swords
and expert in war,
each with his sword at his thigh,
against terror by night.

StatusSong 3:11

11 Go out, O daughters of Zion,
and look upon King Solomon,
with the crown with which his mother crowned him
on the day of his wedding,
on the day of the gladness of his heart.

So interestingly, the Bible confirms Donal’s thoughts on what sexually attracts a woman to a man.  Notice that the aroused woman never praises Solomon because he:

However, just because the Bible describes a reality doesn’t mean it is something we are actually supposed to do.  The Bible describes all kinds of things that people did that were sinful.  So this is where I am uncertain.

Should Christians be concerned with generating sexual attraction?

276 thoughts on “Should Christians be concerned about generating sexual attraction?

  1. laidnyc

    the answer to the title question is yes.

    Sex being so important to maintaining a healthy marriage, I think it is unchristian to NOT try generate sexual attraction.

  2. deti

    “Should Christians be concerned with generating sexual attraction?”

    The short answer is yes.

    If you’ll let me parse for a minute, I wonder if the proper phraseology is “generating sexual attraction” and if it shouldn’t be

    “Should Christians be concerned with being sexually attracted to (and sexually attractive to) their mates?”

    The reason for this is that I wonder if it is possible to “generate” sexual attraction where there isn’t any. I’m not sure it is possible to try to create sexual attraction where there really isn’t any to begin with.

    The second thing I want to say – and frankly SSM I’d recommend that you edit this into the OP – is Novaseeker’s keen observation about you fringe manosphere women bloggers. Every one of you, without exception, is married to a man to whom you’re strongly sexually attracted.

    That attraction is viscerally sexual in nature. It is not so much “I want him to be my babies’ daddy” or “I want to live with him for the rest of my life because I love him so much” or “I love him with his dishpan hands”.

    It is “I want him to f*ck me” attraction. It is “I want him to put his hard penis in me and ejaculate inside me and impregnate me” attraction. It is “I want to feel him touching me and holding me and feeling me and his body weight on top of me grinding into me” attraction.

    I’m going to see if I can find Nova’s quote because he says it better than I ever could. Back if and when I can find it.

  3. Jeff

    Using the Internet isn’t Biblical but he’s doing a good job of using it.

    What a unrepentant jackass.

    [ssm: Right about the internet – lots of stuff that isn’t specifically commanded in the Bible is okay to do. But is concerning ourselves with sexual attractiveness one of them?]

  4. Frank

    The inverse of this presumes women should be wearing burqas in public in order to suppress their attraction. Maybe flaunting attraction rather than merely exhibiting it is what Cane was getting at?

    [ssm: I think the idea is that we are considering what is honestly sexually attractive to the opposite sex and considering whether to do those things or not. So a man might, for example, consider LAMPS and decide that he’s going to go to the gym and try to improve his financial situation because he wants to be more attractive in order to get a wife or in order to maintain/increase his wife’s attraction. And a woman might do the same – lose ten pounds, get her hair colored, or whatever. Are those things unScriptural to do?]

  5. deti

    And I would add:

    With regard to the female manosphere bloggers, that strong sexual attraction is what makes your marriages succeed and is the glue that holds you together. It’s what got you with your husbands; and it’s what keeps you together.

    I continue to believe the number one problem with divorce in this country is that women are marrying men they aren’t attracted to.

  6. sunshinemary Post author

    Deti:

    The reason for this is that I wonder if it is possible to “generate” sexual attraction where there isn’t any. I’m not sure it is possible to try to create sexual attraction where there really isn’t any to begin with.

    You’re being a little more specific that I was being. I’m just considering the general topic – is it licit for us even to concern ourselves with what the opposite sex finds sexually appealing? Is it okay for us to act on that information?

    But if it is impossible to generate sexual attraction, Deti, then pray tell: why learn game?

    Every one of you, without exception, is married to a man to whom you’re strongly sexually attracted.

    True, but not relevant to this post.

    I continue to believe the number one problem with divorce in this country is that women are marrying men they aren’t attracted to.

    Could be.

    It might also be relevant that men have received so much misinformation about what women find attractive that they’ve inadvertently made themselves very unattractive en masse.

    The point is, is it okay for Christian men now to consider what really is attractive to females and then do those things? Or should they just keep being as they are? Or is is sinful for us even to consider and discuss such things?

  7. sunshinemary Post author

    the number one problem with divorce in this country is that women are marrying men they aren’t attracted to.

    The number one problem with divorce among Christians in this country is that women (and to a lesser extent, men) refuse to obey God and keep their vows.

    In terms of the Christian man and woman:

    Obeying God > sexual attraction issues

  8. deti

    Here’s the start of the exchange.

    TL;DR: The marriages that work best are based on strong, hard sexual attraction between the spouses. Men need to be more attractive to have any hope of a successful marriage, The conundrum is: should women seek attractive nonChristian men and “love them into the Kingdom”; or try to alpha up Christian betas as possible mates for daughters? Either way, attraction is key.

    Here’s the money quote from Nova:
    “But maybe that criterion (coming from a Christian family) is not a good idea. It seems like the marriages that work best in this era, Christian or not, are between couples who are VERY physically/sexually attracted to each other, especially from the female perspective (given that women are generally the party to walk away), and that this is the fundamental glue that really holds the marriage together — much more than Christianity of either of the spouses.”

    Deti:
    “A man’s Christian faith in no way, shape, manner or form drives female sexual attraction. It is not a male “attractive” trait. It’s one that a Christian woman might genuinely desire. She might even call it a dealbreaker for marriage.
    His faith is completely irrelevant to attraction. Faith and Christian reverence are desirable traits. They are NOT attractive traits.
    The point is that there are no differences between attraction triggers in Christian women and nonChristian women.
    This dovetails with Nova’s developing point that successful manosphere marriages, at least those of the women who run blogs and comment in and around these parts, are driven by hard sexual attraction and not by other factors.
    Query though: How well does this bode for marriages, even among Christians, since we know that most men are not attractive; and there aren’t nearly enough desirable hot alpha studs to go around for marriage to all the women who want them?
    And Nova responded to my query:
    “Men need to become more attractive. That isn’t a Marcottianism, but rather just a statement that men need to bring to market what the market demands.”
    Donalgraeme asked:

    “Perhaps my personal bias is blurring my objectivity here, but I think that their strategy can work. I know that men can turn themselves around with the proper knowledge, because that is what happened with me.”
    Nova again:

    “Open to question. Yes, men can be changed, but the idea of making a Christian beta whom you want your daughter to marry into a more alpha through coaching is brand new, and has no track record. Could work, could not work. It seems to be a surer thing if the guy is already that because of himself and/or his family of origin, but trying to find guys like that in Christian settings in any numbers is just not realistic. If you ARE trying to do that and you have daughters, you need to make sure they are very high on the HB scale because those marriages that tend to be already Christians at the time with alpha qualities tend to marry the hottest girls in the church. From my perspective, as someone who only has a son, my task is much clearer, because it is simply working on him so that he is not a beta — there is no room for betas any longer (there may be at some future point per the doom porn crowd, but that isn’t now), it’s all alpha now, so that’s the focus.”

  9. deti

    Deti: “Every one of you, without exception, is married to a man to whom you’re strongly sexually attracted.”

    SSM: “True, but not relevant to this post.”

    Fair enough as far as it goes. But respectfully, what IS relevant is the overarching theme in the comments and colloquy from you, Elspeth, Stingray, Sarah’s Daughter, and other women in and around these parts is that you’re all hot hot hot for your husbands. It’s not just “he’s a great guy and I love him”, or “He’s such a good dad” stuff.

    That’s not what I read at all.

    If you’ll pardon the bluntness of what I’m about to say, what I read from all of you is how horny you are for your husbands. The attraction is SEXUAL. It’s “get naked and have sex” attraction. It’s “I want him so bad my loins ache” attraction.

    That IS relevant to this post, and it’s why men need to be concerned about whether their wives feel this for them.

  10. deti

    “In terms of the Christian man and woman:

    Obeying God > sexual attraction issues”

    You’re right SSM. And I’m not really meaning to pick a fight here. But obeying God trumps sexual attraction issues is quite easy to say when the sexual attraction isn’t an issue because it was taken care of when you married a man that not only you, but seemingly half the women in your city, is hot for. Most women aren’t in your position; and most men can’t seem to hold the sexual interest of even one woman. So yes, Christians should be concerned about sexual attraction, whether it exists or can be generated.

  11. theshadowedknight

    Does Scripture prohibit sexual attractiveness? Is it pointed to as an example of what not to do? If not, then it is acceptable.

    What he might have meant is not that it is forbidden, but that it is not endorsed. It might not be scriptural in the sense that it is not part of or included in Scripture. That does not mean that you cannot use it.

    Doctors and electricians are not mentioned in Scripture, but if you break your arm or the power goes out, you call them.

    So a better question to ask yourselves is this: is concern for sexual attractiveness repugnant to God?

    The Shadowed Knight

  12. empathologism

    To say something is not scriptural suggests that it is UN-scriptural. Cane will have to unpack each and every one of the LAMPS and explain it, in addition to explaining how “generating attraction” is UN-scriptural. To simply suggest that something not mentioned in scripture is UN-scriptural is not something cane would do, so there is more to it than that, I just cannot imagine what it is. We are not, I hope, using the negativity of the converse to make the point. In other words to suggest that should the spouse become unattractive we’ve no scriptural endorsed recourse, that’s all true, but irrelevant.

    Attracts, I am not taking to mean it as operative in the permanence of the relationship. I mean something that CAN attract in the moment, that sets that moment apart from others. On the general attraction as in what attracted the wife in the first place, must I say? Big eyes, a great fit petite body, and a smile that screamed nice disposition. Luckily those are all still there as we celebrate 23 years this weekend!

    OF COURSE we should try and generate attraction. Scripture would limit how we do so, and would limit the primacy the one seeing the attraction places on it. Other than that….have at it. Make the moments, make the days.

    [ssm: Congratulations on your anniversary!]

  13. donalgraeme

    TSK is on the right track, I think. We actually face several different but related questions here.

    1) Should Christians, in general, be concerned with generating sexual attraction?
    which leads to…
    2) Should married Christians be concerned with generating sexual attraction with their spouses?
    which is closely related to…
    3) Should a non-married Christian who wants to be married be concerned with generating sexual attraction?
    all of which is preceded by…
    4) Is generating sexual attraction sinful in and of itself?

    [ssm: Good summary of the questions I was trying to get at in this post.]

  14. deti

    “is it licit for us even to concern ourselves with what the opposite sex finds sexually appealing? Is it okay for us to act on that information?”

    Hell yes. If I may use you and Elspeth as examples: You certainly did when you married HHG. You certainly did when you rejected the creepy guy. Elspeth certainly did when she broke up with her geekazoid BF and started dating her (at the time) nonChristian man, who later became her husband. And the reasons for your getting with those men and staying with them is hard, visceral sexual attraction. If it weren’t, Elspeth might have stayed with supergeek because, even though she didn’t turn him on, he was a good, nice boy. But we all know that good, nice and Christian don’t trip women’s triggers.

    “But if it is impossible to generate sexual attraction, Deti, then pray tell: why learn game?”

    My point is there might be a little sexual attraction that can germinate and grow if the man doesn’t mess it up. But if there’s none at all – NONE – to begin with, I question whether it can be generated out of nothing. This is based on my experience, really. In most of my successful relationships there was hard sexual attraction, which was instantaneous and unmistakable. It didn’t take a lot of time to see it, either. Girls are microwave ovens, not slow cookers.

    [ssm: I understand your point. So, would you then say that considering sexual attractiveness, and how to be more sexually attractive, is pleasing (or at least, not displeasing) to God?]

  15. donalgraeme

    The easiest to answer is Question 2:

    Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    (1 Cor 7:1-5)

    Since the wife’s body belongs to her husband, and the husband’s body belongs to his wife, I think that they owe each other a duty to be attractive for one another. As for how far that goes, I would think anything which is not outright a sin would be appropriate (this raises the question of whether plastic surgery is sinful or not).

  16. DrTorch

    I’d agree w/ laidnyc.

    As for deti’s observation, I think it is relevant. VERY relevant. Because you both reach the conclusion that it’s easier to obey God when it’s something we want to do. So why wouldn’t we put ourselves in a position to do just that? In fact we’re commanded to in James 4:7.

    Here we’re told to “resist the Devil”. Most people interpret that as some sort of white knuckle experience. Just hold out until the temptation passes. Nonsense. Think of the French _Resistance_ in WWII. They were active and purposeful in their efforts to resist German rule. They took measures to put themselves in a position to win.

    So, Christians should put themselves in a position to win over the Devil’s tempations…that means finding a spouse that’s sexually attractive. This also fits w/ Psalm 37:4.

    Now, why would Christians not do that? I believe it’s because the Church has explicitly taught them that it’s not important, that they should look for other things. Other things may exist, but that doesn’t diminish the importance of attraction. Church leaders have done this for two reasons:

    They still want to teach sex is a sin.

    Wives who are attracted to their husbands will submit to them, and won’t be as available to the Pastor. Pastors have been quite effective in mobilizing the women of the church to do their bidding, often at the cost of their husbands and families. Dalrock didn’t list this as one of the things Churches should repent for, but I believe it’s high on the list.

  17. The Ringmistress

    SSM, I’ll throw this out as a consideration in counterpoint to Novaseeker’s idea if looking outside the fold.

    Strong sexual attraction may be a good foundation for a strong marriage. But given the tendency of a woman (and not a few men) to seek to please the beloved, is there not a huge risk that the unbeliever will draw the believer away from God as often add the opposite. You end up with a strong marriage on its way to Hell.

    Look at Solomon. He fell away from right worship and incorporated the practices of his pagan wives. We still honor him as a wise man and saint, so he hit it right in the end, but what if we don’t have the wisdom if Solomon?

    When I met my husband, he had been apostate for 10 years and was a practicing neo-pagan. It was a huge risk on my part to date him, and only worth it because he accepted that sex was not on the table until marriage. His detox from hedonism gave him the space to make his peace with God, but there was no guarantee that that would happen, and the pull to “support” him was nearly as strong as the Faith I had been raised with.

    Tangential, I know, but worth throwing in there.

    [ssm: These are important points, and I agree with you. We would never permit our daughters to marry non-Christian men, regardless of how attracted to them they are, for exactly the reason you just explained.]

  18. sunshinemary Post author

    I wonder if two Christians would be right to marry, even if their attraction to one another was only lukewarm, if they found that they were compatible in other areas and intended to keep their vows for life? I don’t think there is any problem with that, provided they don’t later divorce due to the low attraction.

    I wouldn’t cheat on or divorce my husband if I ceased to be sexually attracted to him. We would still have a valid marriage, and I am capable of keeping my vows. I expect other people to be able to do the same. But why make life so hard? Why not try to stay attractive to your spouse if you are able to do so?

  19. donalgraeme

    @ The Ringmistress

    “But given the tendency of a woman (and not a few men) to seek to please the beloved, is there not a huge risk that the unbeliever will draw the believer away from God as often add the opposite. You end up with a strong marriage on its way to Hell.”

    That was my belief, and why I argued against what Novaseeker was advancing. The exhortations in scripture to not marry a non-believer are solid, especially for women, who by their nature are aligned to follow men.

    As for the main topic, my belief is that the simple answer is yes. But I should like to hear the counter-argument before I give any detailed response (and also so it gives me time to finish my follow up post to All Alone in the Dark).

  20. empathologism

    I was the unbeliever and it was my wife who approached me, cold-called as such….so she, like you, took that chance. I get your point and I agree. I thought, however and maybe I misunderstood, that the question was about the already existing confines of marriage. Maybe its more open ended.

  21. deti

    “ssm: I understand your point. So, would you then say that considering sexual attractiveness, and how to be more sexually attractive, is pleasing (or at least, not displeasing) to God?”

    Yes I would say that considering sexual attractiveness and how to be more sexually attractive, is at least not prohibited by God and is pleasing to God (as per the Song of Songs).

    Sexual attractiveness certainly is important to us men. It’s important to us how you look because our sexual attraction to you is quite difficult to sustain without it. And we men are finding out more and more just how important our sexual attractiveness is to women. And as has been shown repeatedly, a man’s attractiveness is NOT ONE IOTA less important to Christian women than it is to secular women.

  22. Paul

    Deti,

    “But if there’s none at all – NONE – to begin with, I question whether it can be generated out of nothing.”

    In our church, what I’ve noticed is that the least attractive single men (regardless of their profession, education, earning power) remain single. They don’t have any marital options other than women who they are not interested (for whatever reason.) The end result, a lot of very lonely, single Christians.

  23. Deep Strength

    It’s good to look at things from a historical perspective.

    When the Bible was written and even up until maybe 50-60 years ago, in the majority if not all of cultures who have a Christian/Judaic influence the soon-to-be wife was literally either property or under the protection of her father before marriage.

    A man looking to be a husband courted her because (1) she was attractive to him and (2) would be a good house-wife/helpmeet.

    Usually the woman had some form of veto power over who she could marry and she typically used it if she was not attracted to her would-be husband, after her parents and/or the community approved except in cases of royalty type arranged marriages. Note, some cultures like India et al do have a large type of arranged marriages.

    Currently, we do not have the familial, societal, and other support structures now that were there in the past to safely pass of a woman to her husband to be a bride.

    What does this mean?

    Honestly, it’s hard to say. The Bible really only hints as attraction peripherally through things such as beauty (what a man finds attractive), and SoS hints about it from the woman’s perspective.

    We know that a man who is truly walking with God cultivates excellence in all things that he does for the glory of God. But many of the specific traits of being a Christian are indeed not attractive. However, some of the things we are supposed to are to some extent — being excellent in your job will bring about money and status.

    But part of the masculine frame that we are to cultivate our sons as Christians growing up is supposed to be instilled from fathers… and the demolition of families has brought at end of that.

    Hmm, that’s all I have at the moment. Just throwing some thoughts out here.

  24. donalgraeme

    “I wonder if two Christians would be right to marry, even if their attraction to one another was only lukewarm, if they found that they were compatible in other areas and intended to keep their vows for life? I don’t think there is any problem with that, provided they don’t later divorce due to the low attraction.”

    I would tentatively say yes, but my question is why would they marry then? Would it not be better that they were with someone to whom they were more attached? But if they honor their vows, then I don’t see how it would be improper or sinful.

  25. The Ringmistress

    @empatologism,

    I think they are two separate but related issues. With a starting assumption that both parties are believers, can and should Christians work to maximize attraction a)while seeking a mate and b) within marriage.

    I’m truly curious where Mr. Caldo was going with his assertion. He tends to have rather nuanced views.

  26. Stingray

    Off the top of my head I have only two examples, however, they are something to consider. Take, for example, women’s long hair, to which most men are attracted. In 1 Corinthians it talks about veiling. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

    I am no biblical scholar, so maybe I am way off. But long hair is considered honorable and men find it attractive. In verse 15 long hair is referred to as her Glory.

    In the same chapter, it talks about men being the head of their wives, which we also find attractive. So, while these are things that we should strive to live by, could it be that this is why we also find them attractive?

    (Good Lord, I hope I am making some sense with my explanation. I have a sinus headache and am not thinking well.)

  27. empathologism

    If you all can just hang on for a couple of days, I intend to do an in-depth study on this question between 3PM today and noon Sunday. It is my goal to collect massive quantities of data. I’ve chosen a laboratory and have arranged to rent its use for nearly 48 hours during which heavy controls will prevent any contamination of the sampling. Ive written the procedures and all researchers are well trained. We have procured the appropriate lab wear, but sadly there are objections to recording the experiments, hence a written (if sanitized and redacted) recounting must suffice.

    Unfortunately I studied this a lot in college but thankfully most variables have changed a great deal in the ensuing 28 years, so the experiment is new wine in new wine skins fresh.

  28. Jocassee

    “Yet after you come together with your spouse, those minor annoyances and complaints sort of fade away. It’s like hitting “reset” on your “grace for your spouse” switch. So, regular marital relations for the unitive purpose are a good thing. And can we all agree that we’re more likely to engage in relations if there is sexual attraction present? So it seems to me that maintaining/generating sexual attraction would be a perfectly acceptable thing for Christians to be concerned about.”

    Thank you so much for condensing this! This is something that was missing from my understanding of Christian relationships for a long time. I was brought up that sex was good and pleasurable in a married relationship only, but that sexual attraction was taboo while dating. It took me a long time to figure out how attraction and our future sexual relationship would affect how and whom I dated, and putting that together with other biblical requirements. I like to think I figured out as I am currently dating a woman who drives me crazy but will also be a fantastic wife and mother for my kids.

    First time commenting, been reading for about a month. Keep up the good work.

    [ssm: Welcome! In what way does the woman you are dating drive you crazy?]

  29. deti

    “I wonder if two Christians would be right to marry, even if their attraction to one another was only lukewarm, if they found that they were compatible in other areas and intended to keep their vows for life? I don’t think there is any problem with that, provided they don’t later divorce due to the low attraction.”

    This probably describes a sizable minority of Christian marriages, as well as many nonChristian marriages, up to about 1970. Actually, it probably describes the woman’s (lack of or tepid) attraction to the man; because men are much more capable of being attracted to a wider variety of women than women are to men.

    “I wouldn’t cheat on or divorce my husband if I ceased to be sexually attracted to him. We would still have a valid marriage, and I am capable of keeping my vows. I expect other people to be able to do the same. But why make life so hard? Why not try to stay attractive to your spouse if you are able to do so?”

    I have a bit of experience with this as you probably have surmised by now. No, a woman who isn’t attracted to her husband to begin with or ceases to be attracted might not cheat on or divorce her husband.

    But she can make his life a living hell. She can deprive him of sex. She can nag, bitch, complain and wail about how unhaaaaappy she is. The marriage is still valid and she’s kept her vows, but she’s by God going to remind him of just how inadequate she thinks he is. That, I submit, is not obedience to God to submit to one’s husband and basically to not be a bitch.

  30. Cail Corishev

    I don’t even see how this is a question. I’ll try to avoid any sola scriptura bashing by just saying that there’s a difference between un-scriptural and non-scriptural. Scripture doesn’t tell me to grow a beard; that doesn’t mean my beard is un-scriptural. Since it doesn’t command that I shall or shan’t grow a beard, I’m on my own (with the help of the church Jesus founded for the purpose) to figure that out based on the general principles it does give me.

    Making your spouse horny is the same way. If scripture doesn’t command that you do it or not do it, it doesn’t somehow default to not. You have to figure out whether you should or not. For a wife, it’s straightforward from there: if her husband tells her to do X, Y, and Z to make him hot, she should do those things as long as they aren’t forbidden by a Higher Authority. Case closed. For men it’s a little more complicated: a husband is called to love his wife, which means caring for her needs. If she needs to be attracted to him, he should do what he reasonably can to fill that need, and there’s nothing in scripture that says “except for turning her on.”

    I think a lot of the resistance comes when “need” gets confused with “demand.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to say to his or her spouse, “I need you to be attractive to me so that sex isn’t a chore for the rest of our lives.” Now, that doesn’t mean you can demand it, or that you’re off the hook on your own obligations if your spouse doesn’t provide it. But sex is the reason we get married, after all — St. Paul makes that clear. The purpose of marriage is procreation and unity, but the reason for marrying is for a licit sexual outlet. If you’re not willing to make an effort to keep the sex enjoyable, what was the point in marrying?

  31. donalgraeme

    To briefly answer the questions I brought up earlier:

    1) Should Christians, in general, be concerned with generating sexual attraction?
    Yes. But it is case specific.

    2) Should married Christians be concerned with generating sexual attraction with their spouses?
    Absolutely. Married Christians have a duty to do their utmost to generate sexual attraction with their spouse.

    3) Should a non-married Christian who wants to be married be concerned with generating sexual attraction?
    Yes. Attraction is what starts the ball rolling. If you want to be married, you need it, otherwise you will always be skipped over by the opposite sex. Without sexual attraction you are pretty much guaranteed to remain single.

    4) Is generating sexual attraction sinful in and of itself?
    No. There is nothing in the Bible which says that it is a sin. But the Bible does admonish against using sexual attraction sinfully (like catching the eye of a married man, or another man when you are already married).

  32. sunshinemary Post author

    So, Donal, how concerned with it should we be? Especially as married people.

    For example, Deti’s wife told him she wasn’t feeling attracted to him anymore. Is there a point at which she is responsible for maintaining her own attraction to him because he’s done all that is reasonable to do? How much is reasonable to do?

  33. Cail Corishev

    Since the wife’s body belongs to her husband, and the husband’s body belongs to his wife, I think that they owe each other a duty to be attractive for one another.

    Pretty much. Again, it’s not a duty in the sense of, “You have to be attractive to me or else.” It’s something you should do because it’s the right thing to do. If you give your spouse his/her conjugal rights, while doing nothing to make those rights appealing, that seems like a Pharisaical attempt to obey the letter of the law while violating the spirit.

  34. Doc

    “He’s kind of a jerk, which is probably why I’m still hot for him after all these years.”

    It’s good to see a woman that admits the truth. More than a few of the women I see have commented that “you’re often an ass, but you’re my ass”… My comments usually lead to other areas to prove that her a** definitely is a thing of it’s own, but it makes the point that women like a man who is a man, and not a doormat… Too many of the boys today forget that simple fact…

  35. sunshinemary Post author

    Cail:

    there’s a difference between un-scriptural and non-scriptural.

    Good point.

    You know, men complain a lot about having to do stuff to make themselves attractive to their wives. Why is that?

  36. sunshinemary Post author

    You know, it occurs to me that a lot of men seem really angry that women even have attraction vectors. That is sort of unfair. I would never be angry about the fact that men are, by and large, attracted to young, slim, pretty girls. Why are men so angry that women are attracted to LAMPS? Especially power/dominance?

  37. MWMM

    Cane’s comment is typical fundamentalist talk. What did these people do before the printing press? Our faith is not dependent on the Bible. You could even say Cane’s question is unChristian to begin with.

    [ssm: He didn’t ask a question. Also, I believe he is Anglican, so he’s probably not a Sola Sriptura-ist.]

  38. empathologism

    If you give your spouse his/her conjugal rights, while doing nothing to make those rights appealing, that seems like a Pharisaical attempt to obey the letter of the law while violating the spirit.

    “Come here sweety, and join me on the floor, there isn’t sufficient room in the bed anymore”

    Box checked

  39. donalgraeme

    So, Donal, how concerned with it should we be? Especially as married people.
    Good question. And I think the best answer is that it is a balancing act. It shouldn’t be the #1 priority (that should always be our devotion to the LORD) of married people, but it should probably be in the top 5.

    You know, men complain a lot about having to do stuff to make themselves attractive to their wives. Why is that?

    Probably for the same reason why women complain about having to use make-up, wear nice clothes and keep the weight off. Sloth

    At least, that is my guess. Not being married, and appreciating the value of making myself more attractive, I can’t empathize with them.

  40. deti

    “You know, men complain a lot about having to do stuff to make themselves attractive to their wives. Why is that?”

    Mind if I take a crack at that?

    1. Because to the uninitiated, what we’re told is “attractive” seems to change from day to day.

    2. Because you women seem to have a very, very hard time telling us what you find attractive. You either :

    a. can’t articulate it; or

    b. you don’t want to admit that you weren’t hot enough to secure commitment from a man who had those attractive traits and you had to settle for us; or

    c. you don’t want to admit that we lack the physical characteristics you find attractive because that will make you look shallow and superficial.

    3. Because we do what everyone tells us is “attractive” only to discover it isn’t attractive or it isn’t relevant to male attractiveness.

    4. Because we know that no matter what we do, we weren’t your first choice. There was a hotter man out there with a longer or thicker penis or a better body who tripped your triggers JUUUUST right; and we know you’ll always compare us to him/them. You won’t want to; you won’t mean to; you’ll fight it with every fibre of your beings; but you’ll do it anyway.

    5. Because we’re breaking our asses 14 hours a day trying to earn money and hold up our end of the marriage bargain; and now you want us to work out for an hour a day to get ripped abs and bulging guns and a tight butt.

  41. MWMM

    Ssm. I realized I used the wrong word only after I hit the post comment.

    Regardless if he’s Anglican, the comment still is reflective of a limited and erroneous view of Christianity.

  42. Deep Strength

    Ok, let me tackle this from a different angle.

    So we know that men like beautiful, young, virgin, women.

    If women are truly living up to what is set out by God in the Bible they would be taking care of their bodies — not being slothful, gluttonous, sexually immoral, etc. This helps take care of the attractiveness part.

    Likewise, we know that women are attracted to men of status, money, power, etc.

    A man doing his job excellently for the glory of God will accumulate money and status, he will likely end up more in a leadership position likely lending him experience with power and how to lead effectively.

    Living Scripturally in essence should make you more attractive to members for the opposite sex NOT because of reading the Bible, prayer, morals, charitability, kind, like children, etc. but because of the FRUIT of what is provided for living a life for God.

    Let me provide a pertinent example. I work as a physical therapist. I often do my own research on the web because I want to be better at what I do for the glory of God. Being better at what I do allows me to treat my patients better AND interact with the staff better giving advice and receiving help in turn. It allows me to gain confidence and better lead a patient through the process of rehabilitation. I can see the fruit of this because it has allowed me to become a more attractive person in general with how I converse with my patients, how I treat them, etc. Essentially, living for God through excellence in my job has enabled me to better serve others not only in the clinic but in other interactions with members of the church, etc.

    Just like we have been called to cultivate for ourselves the fruits of the spirit; being excellent and doing all that we do for the glory of God should theoretically cultivate some of the markers of attractiveness to members of the opposite sex.

    Basically, are we confusing cause and effect here?

    We know that Christian attributes in and of themselves are not attractive to members of the opposite. But are the fruits of living out the “Christians attributes” (aka living for God) attractive?

  43. DrTorch

    On a related note, I saw this article about a reality TV personality

    http://www.zimbio.com/The+Real+Housewives+of+New+Jersey/articles/xdnDjhG0HhK/Real+Housewives+New+Jersey+Star+Melissa+Gorga

    “‘Real Housewives of New Jersey’ Star Melissa Gorga Says Lots of Hot Sex Saved Her Marriage”

    (Lots of other junk in the story, so caveat emptor)

    FWIW, I guess it strikes me a bit sad that non-Christians (my assumption) think that it’s worthwhile to use Biblically legitimate (if not commanded) approaches to keep their marriages in tact, moreso than some professing Christians.

  44. Cail Corishev

    You know, men complain a lot about having to do stuff to make themselves attractive to their wives. Why is that?

    That’s easy: because there’s a suspicion that it’s a roundabout way to make the husband subject to the wife.

    If someone can take “submit to your husbands” and turn that into “give your husbands honey-do lists,” any amount of linguistic torture is possible. When you say husbands “have to” make themselves attractive, that can be (and often is) taken to mean that she has a right to command that he do so. That turns the relationship upside down, and also gives her an excuse for being unhaaaaapy.

    A husband should be attractive to his wife. That doesn’t mean he has to. In any relationship, whether it’s with God, or with your spouse, or with a stranger you meet on the street, there’s what you are commanded to do (or not do), and then there’s what you could do above and beyond that. We will be judged on both, and Jesus made it clear that if you show up at the pearly gates and say, “Hey, I always obeyed the letter of the law,” He’s not going to be very happy.

  45. deti

    “You know, it occurs to me that a lot of men seem really angry that women even have attraction vectors. That is sort of unfair. I would never be angry about the fact that men are, by and large, attracted to young, slim, pretty girls. Why are men so angry that women are attracted to LAMPS? Especially power/dominance?”

    Again, I’m not going to pick a fight here and I know I seem overly contrarian here today. I’m offering these thoughts to show what’s going on out here in the real world.

    It occurs to me that a lot of women are really angry than men have attraction vectors and are attracted to young, slim, pretty, nice, pleasant girls. That’s sort of unfair. Why are women so angry that these are men’s attraction vectors? And better yet, why are women so stupendously successful at legislating and codifying their preferences into law and culture; while men are derided as sexist pigs for expressing their preferences?

    [ssm: Come on, now. You are responding by saying, “But women do that too!” I know they do. But I can still wonder about it when men do it, no?]

    Men are angry about it because this is directly contrary to everything they’ve learned about attraction for 10, 20, 30 or more years. Men are angry about it because the response of people like Stanton, Mohler, Dennis Rainey, Bob Lapine, and others is to double down on stupid. Men are angry about it because most women won’t vocally admit to their LAMPS attractiion vectors, even when their revealed preferences and clear conduct plainly lay LAMPS bars. WE men are at least honest that we like young hot tight nice. We say it, and we do it. Women can’t seem to do that, frankly because you’re all afraid you’ll be judged as shallow bitches.

    Men are angry about it because even if they master LAMPS their odds of finding a wife, keeping her and sustaining it over decades still don’t seem to be all that good. There are good, Godly men here, learning about this stuff. And yet they STILL can’t find EVEN ONE decent woman.

  46. Elspeth

    I once jokingly told my husband, “I could never withhold sex from you. Sometimes sex is what keeps me from hating you.” And because he gives as good as he gets, he replied, “Yep, ditto, except for the part about sometimes.” *wink*

    He’s kind of a jerk, which is probably why I’m still hot for him after all these years.

    Actually, we really like each other a lot, but the point is that living with another person who gets to have some say over your life is hard sometimes. No matter how much you like them, sometimes you have those moments when you think, “Maybe if we just bought a duplex and each lived in one unit…”

    I’m gonna go finish the rest of your post now but this part made me chuckle. I thought to myself, “She said what I think, but much more eloquently.”

    Okay, I’m going to finish reading it so I can offer something constructive.

  47. Paul

    SSM,

    “You know, it occurs to me that a lot of men seem really angry that women even have attraction vectors. That is sort of unfair. I would never be angry about the fact that men are, by and large, attracted to young, slim, pretty girls.”

    This has been a big bit of consternation in my church.

    I mentor a group of young single males. These men are educated, have decent jobs (in one case, owns a couple businesses) and homeowners. But they are single and have absolutely NO interest in the single women in my church. There are three common reasons: she’s too fat, she has (a, some, to many) kid(s), or (what is more common now) she has too much debt and bankruptcy issues. So these women are ANGRY not specifically at the single men in thei church writing them off as unacceptable marrital partners, but that they represent promising men (as a whole) who have completely written them off.

    And yet still, that is only half of it.

    These young men, I refer to them NOT as alphas or betas. They are OMEGAS. By that I mean they possess many of the powerful/strong/attractive traits that you might consider as ALPHA, and yet stable and nice-guy-ish enough to be a BETA, and they made it work for them (in a non-Christian sense.) These guys have (in some cases) MULTIPLE girlfriends (several different partners) and they are not going to marry ANY of them. Why should they? With no-fault-divorce, they have too much too lose (too many assets that they would be risking/gambling on a bad marriage.) So, they take advantage of the great gifts and blessings that God bestowed upon them and they play the field. The Christian side of me is angered by that. The secular side of me says that I can’t blame them (we have altered God’s Law on marriage with man’s law such that there is no longer anything in it for them.)

    Very sad. But I don’t think these situations are all that uncommon.

    -Paul

  48. donalgraeme

    @ Deti

    “Men are angry about it because most women won’t vocally admit to their LAMPS attractiion vectors, even when their revealed preferences and clear conduct plainly lay LAMPS bars. WE men are at least honest that we like young hot tight nice. We say it, and we do it. Women can’t seem to do that, frankly because you’re all afraid you’ll be judged as shallow bitches. ”

    I don’t recall where, but shortly after I came up with LAMPS I theorized that women can’t vocalize it because even they don’t fully understand it. Their general nature is such that few ever think of what they really find attractive in men, plus they get desirable/comfort traits mixed up with attraction traits. Couple this with the fact that few women are capable of true introspection (SSM being a notable exception), and you have women who can’t tell men what they find attractive, because they honestly don’t know. (And yes, they fear being judged)

    “There are good, Godly men here, learning about this stuff. And yet they STILL can’t find EVEN ONE decent woman.”

    Not true. Well, for me at least. I know a few decent, God-fearing women out there. It is just they all tend to be already married (or engaged) when I meet them.

  49. sunshinemary Post author

    Deep Strength:

    We know that Christian attributes in and of themselves are not attractive to members of the opposite. But are the fruits of living out the “Christians attributes” (aka living for God) attractive?

    Well, I do think women are attracted to a man who is more concerned with his mission than with catering to her, so there may be something to that. However, the fervency of a man’s faith doesn’t make him sexually attractive to women. It doesn’t make him unattractive either. It’s just neutral.

    Deti:

    I seem overly contrarian here today.

    Oh, really? I hadn’t noticed a difference.

    Cail:

    That’s easy: because there’s a suspicion that it’s a roundabout way to make the husband subject to the wife.

    Ah, now that is an idea I had never considered before.

    Really? Do men feel that way? Do you feel that if you work out and cultivate status and power, that it will make you subject to us? I would say it is just the opposite. A man who does all those things will be able to instill a lot of dread in his woman because she will know that he has options. She’ll have to be on her best behavior

  50. donalgraeme

    @ Paul

    I use Alpha and Beta to describe attributes, rather than as a general description of men. Those young men you describe are strongly Alpha and Beta, but unrighteous Alpha/Betas.

    As you elude to, we have created a society where virtue is punished and vice is rewarded. Such a society has built its house on sand. When the storm comes, it will fall.

  51. Stingray

    SSM,

    I don’t think that’s what Deep Strength meant. I think he wrote (much, much better) what I was trying to say above. The end result of following *what is good* (our faith) is often what is found attractive. A man will very often have the end result of being an excellent leader, a woman will be gentle, kind, have long hair, take care of herself. The things may come from faith or they may not. But the end result is often attractive.

    [ssm: OK, I see what you’re saying.]

  52. Paul

    “A man who does all those things will be able to instill a lot of dread in his woman because she will know that he has options. She’ll have to be on her best behavior…”

    No not really SSM.

    She has legal/financial protections that enable her to not have to worry what kind of a person she becomes the moment he says “I do…”

    It is HE that must ALWAYS be on his BEST behavior.

  53. Cail Corishev

    Do you feel that if you work out and cultivate status and power, that it will make you subject to us?

    No, no. I’m saying that if someone tells us we have to to make a particular woman happy, that implies subjection. If I “have to” do something, that implies an “or else.” If there’s no “or else” then the “have to” is meaningless. If the “or else” is, “she’ll start sleeping with her boss and frivorce me,” then I have become subject to her command. So: “should” yes; “have to” no.

    It comes back to submission not being mutual. A wife does “have to” be attractive to her husband (assuming he wants her to be), not because it’s good for the marriage, not because it makes him easier to live with, but because she is subject to his authority. Since he’s not subject to her authority, there’s no equivalent “have to” in the other direction; there can only be “should.” He does “have to” love her, because that command comes from God, not from her, and I think being attractive for her fits into that love. But that’s different, because it’s part of his decision on how to love her; it’s not something she can command.

    This is where I part ways with some of the MGTOW crowd, by the way. Some of them insist that doing anything to please even a potential future woman in any way is submitting to women’s desires, so therefore guys who work on their LAMPS factors for the sake of attracting a wife are really fooling themselves and being as submissive as any white-knighting doormat. I think that’s nonsense. There’s a difference between making positive changes in your own life that will also make you attractive to the best kind of women, versus doing whatever women want in the hopes of getting attention from them. Giving them what they need is not the same thing as catering to their whims.

  54. Deep Strength

    @ Stingray

    Yeah, that was what I was trying to get at. I’m also pretty sure that is what Cane Caldo is trying to get at as well.

    Our faith it and of itself is not attractive. But the fruit of living as a Christian — being excellent in all that I do — will end up resulting in:

    1. Looks when I take care of my body through good nutrition and working out,
    2. Athleticism when I work out,
    3. Money when I do my job to the best of my abilities (and hopefully get promoted)
    4. Power as I develop necessary leadership and communication qualities at home, church, on the job, etc.
    5. Status as I am good at what I do occupationally, hobbies, in the church, etc.

    Kind of just throwing it out there.

  55. deti

    “Really? Do men feel that way? Do you feel that if you work out and cultivate status and power, that it will make you subject to us? I would say it is just the opposite. A man who does all those things will be able to instill a lot of dread in his woman because she will know that he has options. She’ll have to be on her best behavior”

    But most men don’t do this unless their wives tell them to do it.

    Most wives nag and complain that their husbands are fat, lazy and don’t make enough money. So if they’re improving, it’s because their wives nagged them into it, which sets her up as the arbiter of whether his improvements meet her standards and are “good enough” for her to stay with him and/or end the sexual desert treatment.

  56. Paul

    “As you elude to, we have created a society where virtue is punished and vice is rewarded. Such a society has built its house on sand. When the storm comes, it will fall.”

    It has been “falling” since the mid sizties and hit rapid fall rate in 1973. I see nothing in society that leads me to believe that we can stop the fall. Its not what the people of this country want. So we will continue to drop down further and further into the bottomless hole.

    We could have had someone who had it all together as President. But we told that man “no” 7 months ago, and since God gives us Free Will, He is allowing His people to suffer the consequences of their horrible decisions.

  57. deti

    you know, maybe I’ll just let Cail take the reins from here on out. He actually says it quite well.

  58. The Ringmistress

    @Stingray, SSM,

    I suspect that may be the vector that Cane Caldo is traveling along. That in talking about generating attraction we’re putting the cart before the horse.

    Maybe an analogy will help.

    A lot of churches, Catholic as well as Protestant, get very concerned about “building community”. That could be the very definition of Churchian, the community focused back on itself. Pope Francis calls it the self-referential Church. Well, is community such a bad thing to build? No, but it confuses a fruit with a purpose.

    And more to the point, if you build the community without reference to Christ, you have a vibrant community devoted to something other than God. If you’re not with me, you’re against me…

    Same goes for marriage. The Christian shouldn’t be concerned with building attraction, so much as he should be concerned with becoming the best expression of the man or woman he or she was formed to be. The net result should be a more attractive person as a SIDE EFFECT. Because if they are attractive without reference to Christ, where is that marriage headed?

    [ssm: I understand what you’re saying. But…in the real world of marriage, don’t you think the impetus to change is basically the guy (or gal) waking up and saying to themselves, “Hey, wait a minute. How come I’m not getting laid around here anymore?” And then trying to make themselves more sexually appealing? Does having that as a motivation displease God? Maybe it does. But then, consider Song 8:6-7:

    Set me as a seal upon your heart,
    as a seal upon your arm,
    for love is strong as death,
    jealousy is fierce as the grave.
    Its flashes are flashes of fire,
    the very flame of the Lord.
    7 Many waters cannot quench love,
    neither can floods drown it.
    If a man offered for love
    all the wealth of his house,
    he would be utterly despised.

    A side note: My sister-in-law read these verses as part of HHG’s and my wedding ceremony, even though we were married in a museum by a Unitarian (and female!) minister.]

  59. sunshinemary Post author

    Deti:

    Most wives nag and complain that their husbands are fat, lazy and don’t make enough money. So if they’re improving, it’s because their wives nagged them into it, which sets her up as the arbiter of whether his improvements meet her standards and are “good enough” for her to stay with him and/or end the sexual desert treatment.

    Would you say, then, that it might actually be a good thing that a woman withholds sex?

    Hear me out.

    Red Pill Wifey wrote something similar to this a while back in her post Default Yes…No.

    A lot of ladies are suffering from overly-beta alpha-deficient husbands. Default Yes sounds good at first, especially if your marriage has been suffering from not enough sex. Especially if you feel guilty for that fact, like I have. I’m working on getting over it, really. But it’s easy to fall into that trap, thinking that if he has the reward, he’ll be more motivated to change.

    But if he’s getting sexed up by a hot woman, why would he change?

    Our failure wasn’t necessarily of that scenario… Captain M wanted to change. But by giving him sex whenever he wanted it, whether I wanted it or not, I wasn’t giving him a gauge of how well his MAP was running. It was like taking a long trip without being able to see the gas tank needle.

    The idea is for guys to get so darn hot that their women can’t help but say yes. And I was robbing him of that and only causing more problems.

    So in a way, withholding sex might be helpful because it will motivate him to be a better man.

    I’m not convinced that’s right, but it is something to think about.

  60. Paul

    Ringmistress,

    —A lot of churches, Catholic as well as Protestant, get very concerned about “building community”. That could be the very definition of Churchian, the community focused back on itself. Pope Francis calls it the self-referential Church. Well, is community such a bad thing to build? No, but it confuses a fruit with a purpose.—

    Thats true. But if the goal of the church (in question) is to get the largest congregation possible (for $$$$ to pay the minister and keep the lights and heat on) then you strive not to offend/shame by showing what Christ taught us. As a result, you create a conflict of interest. The church itself isn’t serving Christ and delivering His message. It is serving itself to justify it’s on existance. This is a problem that almost all small churches have because far too many Christians go to church to feel good about themselves, NOT to be lectured on what they are doing wrong and how to be better Christians.

  61. sunshinemary Post author

    Cail:

    This is where I part ways with some of the MGTOW crowd, by the way. Some of them insist that doing anything to please even a potential future woman in any way is submitting to women’s desires, so therefore guys who work on their LAMPS factors for the sake of attracting a wife are really fooling themselves and being as submissive as any white-knighting doormat. I think that’s nonsense. There’s a difference between making positive changes in your own life that will also make you attractive to the best kind of women, versus doing whatever women want in the hopes of getting attention from them. Giving them what they need is not the same thing as catering to their whims.

    Thanks for this. I had wondered about that as well.

    Both spouses should try to bring something to the attraction table, you know? Men and women both. That doesn’t mean it should be the focus of our lives or that we should demand it. But it also doesn’t make it wrong to like it nor to try to provide it to your spouse.

  62. Stingray

    withholding sex might be helpful because it will motivate him to be a better man.

    It might, but so might submission. We talked about this some at my blog the other day where I said this (and I am thinking of expanding on it in a post as well).

    Then submit. For many (most?) men . . . a woman who submits is a woman he cherishes beyond measure. To have someone place their utter and complete trust in you, to have that person lay themselves down and say “I go where you go”, it creates a bond and a sense of responsibility in men that can be nearly incomprehensible.

  63. Paul

    “Both spouses should try to bring something to the attraction table, you know? Men and women both. That doesn’t mean it should be the focus of our lives or that we should demand it.”

    But that is not way it works in society anymore. Far too many spouses DO demand it.

    I have known way too many divorces that were a result of being attracted to the spouse (to begin with) something happens in the marriage which removes that attraction (in many cases, outside the control of the person who is no longer as attractive), and one spouse (usually the woman) feels justified in divorcing (usually the man.) And society doesn’t SHAME this behavior anymore. There is no SHAME associated with divorce. So, this is learned behavior.

    As Christians, we are commanded by our Savior to love and (most importantly) to FORGIVE. So we must FORGIVE the one who engages in the “frivorse” (your term SSM.) A secular society would SHAME that behavior back in the day. Secular society no longer shames this so….

  64. sunshinemary Post author

    And you know what, Sting? I think a woman voluntarily submitting to her husband, whether she thinks he’s “earned” it or not, will tend to find him more sexually attractive. That was essentially my thinking in an old post I wrote:

    Advice for a former slut married to a beta provider to whom she is not sexually attracted.

    And others have since confirmed that for me.

    I really think that if a woman starts to consider herself owned by her man, and goes out of her way to be submissive to him, that the very idea of that will be sort of hot to her and she’ll automatically find him more attractive, regardless of whether he does anything.

    MintheGip had asked me to write a post about that, sort of like the one I wrote above but for married women who haven’t slutted around. I think I’ll work on that, since there may be something to the idea.

  65. donalgraeme

    So in a way, withholding sex might be helpful because it will motivate him to be a better man.

    No. No. NO. A thousand times No. Withholding sex from a husband is rebellion, pure and simple. Whatever “pure” intentions a women might possibly have to even think of the idea, it will never end well. The Curse of Eve will take root in her heart, and she will walk the path of sin. The Hamster will take over, guaranteed.

    A woman cannot “change a man for the better” like that. She can’t. That is female Blue Pill thinking right there. If a man won’t do what needs to be done, his woman punishing him won’t make him any better. All it will do is either push him away, or emasculate him. If a man refuses to make necessary changes, Mathew 18:15-17 is the appropriate means of dealing with the problem.

    [ssm: RPW’s point was that it provided feedback to the man. If she wasn’t feel attracted to him, the way to communicate that was by refusing to have sex with him. That would let him know that he wasn’t working his MAP. Of course, as a Christian, I can’t do that. But I can sort of see her point. No pain, no gain…]

  66. Cail Corishev

    So in a way, withholding sex might be helpful because it will motivate him to be a better man.

    Leaving aside the fact that this would be “un-scriptural,” I think it’s questionable whether it would be useful motivation. Yes, men often do things for their wives — washing the dishes, buying extravagant gifts — in the hopes of “earning” sex. But that doesn’t make them better men; if anything it leads to resentment (because he’s not getting what he signed up for) and a reduction in masculine behavior, making them even less attractive to their wives over time. It doesn’t work.

    The wife who actually wants her husband to become a better man (and not a better servant) will find that honey works much better than vinegar for that. If she tells him every day, “You make me so hot when you [insert masculine action or quality here],” he will rise (so to speak) to that challenge much better than if she says (or implies), “You’re not getting my good stuff until you shape up.”

  67. Elspeth

    Couple of things about the original post:

    The first is that I’d need to understand exactly what Cane meant. After reading his commentary for the better part of a couple of years I am inclined to believe that he was saying that generating attraction is unScriptural insomuch as marriage isn’t about attraction but about holiness.

    I’m inclined to agree. Preparing oneself to be fit for the vocation of marriage if you feel it’s God’s plan for you is one thing. Working to maintain your attractiveness to your spouse is another, but putting too much effort into generating attractiveness in a generic sense is a borderline proposition at best for the serious Christian. That said, I suspect that Cane is one of those for whom this has never been an issue in the broader sense.

    We should also be mindful of the fact that there have been, throughout history, peoples and cultures where marriage was not based on attraction, it was often arranged, and such marriages lasted a lifetime while also producing lots and lots of children. This was because there was a deeper understanding of what it means to be marriage and despite our Western sensibilities, Christians should be way ahead of the pack on this and no Christian husband should have to do without sexual intimacy if he’s married to a godly Christian woman.

  68. deti

    “Would you say, then, that it might actually be a good thing that a woman withholds sex?”

    Could be, possibly. Depends on the man, the wife, the marriage and the overall circumstances.

    In my case, it would not have been a good thing. If she had decided to double down on the sexual deprivation and the disrespect, it would have been game over. I was 99.9% ready to walk that day; and looking for a reason, any reason, to stay in the marriage. At that point the kids were the only things keeping me from pushing the “bomb bay doors open” button on the Enola Gay and just going Hiroshima/Nagasaki on the whole damn thing.

    Sting probably has it right: try submission. In Mrs. deti’s case, her immediate submission and repentance were the only thing that saved her marriage.

  69. Entropy is My god

    @ DETI

    “Men need to become more attractive. That isn’t a Marcottianism, but rather just a statement that men need to bring to market what the market demands.”

    Yes you are correct, men need to man up. Most are puerile snivelers, shivering under a blanket of laziness and entertainment spawned euphoria. Some are not though, and inside of these men burns a rage when statements like that erupt from the foaming mouth bowels of feminists, manginas, slack jawed progressives and effeminate multicultural wing nuts.

    Some men have “manned up” and do you know what, there is never enough. Universally, unfeminine, over entitled, spoiled western princess demand MOAR! Their battle cry shouted through snarling lips when every last millisecond of their self affirmation fantasy doesn’t go exactly as it did in their mind.

    Men need to man up, and when this wretched excuse for a civilization we live in descends into barbarism and manning up will be the difference between; at best forced servitude and at worst homosexual rape and brutal death, or perhaps scraping out a meager existence on the scraps of a decaying world.

    So once again we se that men will man up or suffer, same as always….. Except now women will find out that they are not empowered, that they are not equal, that white knights who rush to their rescue will be swiftly eliminated from this world and all of their darkest, deepest BDSM fantasies will comes to life in ways they never imagined.

    This problem will never be fixed, until it is. It cannot be changed with a society of resource abundance. Let scarcity begin. Pray for starvation….

  70. empathologism

    I’m not convinced that’s right, but it is something to think about.

    No, its not right. Not at all…what she wrote. It went sideways at “But if he’s getting sexed up by a hot woman, why would he change?”

    But not because she referred to herself that way, because its about changing him in this way. This is way too close to wife-as-holy-spirit talk, regardless the subject.

  71. Elspeth

    @ Deti:

    Lest your accurate description of my path to marriage show me up to be a hypocrite, I can admit that your comments resonate, but I am loathe to advise any person to marry outside the faith. It can be a difficult road at times. Trust me on that.

    And thanks for the good word you offered on my behalf. It was appreciated. I dropped you a line but for all I know it was delivered to some guy in Timbuktu.

  72. donalgraeme

    Empath is getting at what I am trying to say about sexual denial. A woman’s Hamster will never let it work as it theoretically should. Once a woman starts down that path, it can’t end well. Her very nature makes it so. That is why Paul was so clear in Corinthians about sexual denial being wrong. Its not wrong because it is scriptural, it is scriptural because it is wrong.

  73. deti

    Elspeth:

    I should have begged your indulgence to use you as an example. I appreciate your gracious response.

    The point of my accurate description of your path to marriage is not to show you up to be a hypocrite; but rather to illustrate the following:

    1. that hard, visceral sexual attraction from woman to man appears to be crucial to strong marriages in the current era.

    2. that Christian women want to be sexually attracted to their men; and

    3. There’s really no difference between Christian women and nonChristian women when it comes to attraction vectors.

    [ssm: I agree with points 1 through 3, and while I know that no one in the manosphere ever has much sympathy for women, try to understand that women in the Church tend to feel ashamed of what really turns them on. That’s part of why we try to make out our attraction vectors as being something else, stuff like being a good father or being faithful in reading the Bible. Because we’re ashamed of the what we really want. I was ashamed of it for years, deeply ashamed. I never admitted it, ever, until I started reading in the sphere about a year and a half ago. I thought there was something wrong with me, but now I realize that I’m pretty typical.]

  74. Stingray

    I think a woman voluntarily submitting to her husband, whether she thinks he’s “earned” it or not, will tend to find him more sexually attractive.

    I agree with you. If she lets herself truly let go, she will see him differently. Maybe even as a new Man.

    [ssm: Yes, I think your right – she has to really let go. I’m going to write something up about this and see what other people think.]

  75. sunshinemary Post author

    I suspect that Cane is one of those for whom this has never been an issue in the broader sense

    Yes, that may be part of it. If one is a natural alpha, one cannot understand why other people aren’t getting it all the time and have to concern themselves with things like attraction-generating.

  76. DrTorch

    [i]Would you say, then, that it might actually be a good thing that a woman withholds sex?[/i]

    NO!

    If RPW, or any other woman wants her man to improve, then be a helpmate. That’s what the wife role was created for. Being a helpmate can mean lots of different things. Encourage him. Get rid of distractions for him. Consider working with him on projects. Remind him of incentives for doing things.

    There may even be times when the wife has to be the voice to point out sloth or something else.

    But you take away sex, and that’s a huge discouragement. That puts even more pressure to perform, and seriously changes the risk/reward evaluation.

  77. Cail Corishev

    But if he’s getting sexed up by a hot woman, why would he change?

    I think this is applying female thinking to the male. A woman whose thinking is not disordered wants her man to instruct her, challenge her, lead her to a higher place. So it’s natural for her to respond to his correction. For instance, some of the women here have talked about how it terrifies them when their man just walks away and won’t deal with them for a while, and how quickly that pulls them into line. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

    A man whose thinking is not disordered doesn’t work that way. He doesn’t want instruction or correction from his woman, and he’ll resist it. (He’ll also see sexual withholding as an open-ended threat for the future.) He married her so he could have sex, and now his own desire for her is being used to control him. He won’t see it as her correcting him for his own good, because that’s not how it works, so he feels tortured or blackmailed instead.

  78. Elspeth

    @ Empath:

    I am admittedly, often slow on the uptake, LOL. That one (BFE) went over my head, but I can say that I totally got your comment about Europe being sentient, even though it seemed I was the only one who did. So I’m not the dullest knife in the drawer either, :) .

  79. Elspeth

    Pondering the issue a bit more. Donal’s LAMPs attraction vectors leave a lot to be desired in my book as well, to be honest.

    Most men would up their “game” exponentially by being unmoved by a woman’s beauty (hide it if you must) and by letting her know three things:

    1. You can take her or leave her

    2. You will not be a special project

    3. She will not tell you what to do.

    This is why women who could do better take up with losers so often. Women like to be led, not lead a guy around by the nose.

    Being handsome certainly helps, but a person can only change so much about what God gave them although everyone should work to do the best they can with it.. Not everyone is athletic, or has status and power.

    But any man can stand up for himself and let his woman know who is running the show. Too many men do just the opposite, thinking it’s going to get them what they want, and it gets them just the opposite.

  80. Deep Strength

    Was doing some reading from 1 Kings 2 today and ironically probably fits in here:

    2 When the time drew near for David to die, he gave a charge to Solomon his son.

    2 “I am about to go the way of all the earth,” he said. “So be strong, act like a man, 3 and observe what the Lord your God requires: Walk in obedience to him, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and regulations, as written in the Law of Moses. Do this so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go 4 and that the Lord may keep his promise to me: ‘If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul, you will never fail to have a successor on the throne of Israel.’

    Basically, be strong (masculine) and act like a man (display your masculinity) and serve the Lord.

    Attractive to females? I would think so.

  81. The Ringmistress

    In RPW’s defense, she is a Catholic and knows of the need to confess denial of the marital debt In other words, she knows it’s a sin.

    What wasn’t clear was that she had a request from her husband specifically to deny him if he wasn’t turning her on.

    She is also speaking from the experience of the MMSL forums, where the problem is frequently high drive women who desire more sex but have no way to incentivize improvement in their spouses. Basically, they become submissive, sexy wives and their husbands respond by doing nothing. There’s no way to signal their dissatisfaction.

    I don’t think sexual denial is the right response.

    And Athol Kay had since clarified that Default Yes is a variation on the sales technique of assuming the close. It’s a position for a man to come from of assuming sex will occur unless he gets a hard No, as opposed to asking if it might.

    What she had was a communication problem. Their marriage has suffered from low attraction combined with no sense of the biblical demand to not deny the spouse. But in obeying the second, she was hindering her husband’s ability to know when he was pushing her buttons in regard to the first. Which meant he became angry that she was NOT denying him.

    Any clearer?

  82. Stingray

    she had a request from her husband specifically to deny him if he wasn’t turning her on.

    I wondered this. If this is the case, she is submitting to him.

  83. Cail Corishev

    Any clearer?

    Yes, thank you. If that’s what he asked for, that’s on him, not her. Seems like a dangerous strategy to me, but that’s his problem.

  84. Cane Caldo

    Unrepentant fundamentalist Jackass present and accounted for.

    I don’t mean to take anything away from Donal’s LAMPS as a diagram; as a body of research and conclusions about the ways in which women are attracted to men. LAMPS and other psycho-analytical tools are fine for gaining a basic understanding of the patterns of people’s choices, but you can’t overlay a literary graph (like LAMPS) on a person’s life and find the way they SHOULD go. That’s a very good thing because otherwise we would have to say that the poor should stay poor because they have a place on the graph; the wifeless should stay wifeless because they’re not good enough.

    Overheard in the manosphere: It we look at the chart, you can see it right there in the graph: He’s got a vector of: l-a-M-p-S, so he essentially deserves to be divorced.

    The LAMPS don’t tell us why Cindy actually CHOSE Carl. The answer is some combination of LAMPS (modified by her social status, peer-group, etc.), and the fact that Cindy’s father was a shade-tree mechanic, and so is Carl. Carl ought to be grateful for this. There are only so many lower-income shade tree mechanics in the world (less every day in the US), but there are a boatloads of men who score higher on nearly every vector of the LAMPS. Yet Cindy stays with Carl.

    The tendency is to take what is essentially a graph, and turn it into a map. People do this all the time with the Myers-Briggs test.

    “I’m an ENFP. That’s why I talk so much!”

    To which we should fly in Myer’s and Brigg’s faces with, “No, you’re a Janet. Now sit down, shut up, and read a book.”

    Janet, having seen it codified that she likes to run her mouth, determines that she likes to run her mouth without thinking because…she…likes to run her mouth, and she doesn’t like to think things through. The advice to sit, shut, and read will be more useful to Janet–and everyone around her–than any alphabet soup of personality traits. But you have to know Janet and interact with her to come up with that advice.

    Personally, I DETEST the study of the human heart and mind that does not begin from scripture. “The heart is deceitful above all things”, and yet we think we’re going to study the hearts directly, and come up with useful information? That bitch is a liar! All extracted data points are errant.

    More to the point: This is not multiplication. It is not chemistry. Human psychology is not a subject upon which Scripture is silent. We are God-breathed; we are in-SPIRED. Psychology is the study of God’s breath. Who can know it except God? Where would we find it? In Scripture, and in the counsel of His church; the body which houses the Holy Spirit. To access that counsel, you have to be in a relationship with the body.

    “Should Christians be concerned about generating sexual attraction?”

    The operative word is “generating”. The answer is “No”.

    It cannot be a goal in-and-of-itself to try to produce even a wife’s “attraction vectors”. That is a sure path to ruin. It’s not sustainable. It’s not even what we actually see done. She must choose to what she responds based on what she thinks is good; not to what she feels pulled. What sucks is that our society does not coerce women into making good choices. In our desperation, we turn to determinism, “That’s just the way things are.”, or, “That’s just the way I am. You can see it in this graph.” That’s nihilism.

    Should we be concerned if we are attractive? Sure. We should definitely be aware. But our concern must be about doing the task.

    If someone can’t hear non-Game, then they can think of it this way: Aloofness cannot abide with concern.

  85. an observer

    Why are men so angry that women are attracted to LAMPS? Especially power/dominance?

    Way more men are attracted to women than women men.

    Men are attracted to young, slim women. Almost every woman is young and slim for a while, some more briefly than others.

    Now look at what attracts women. Power and dominance is especially rare, and difficult to acquire. Few men have it naturally.

    I guess what i’m saying is this. Women peak early and with relatively little effort. Every woman is young once.

    Men peak much later, and must work to attain any measure of attractiveness.

    Now does this make sense?

  86. deti

    Entropy:

    “Yes you are correct, men need to man up. Most are puerile snivelers, shivering under a blanket of laziness and entertainment spawned euphoria. Some are not though, and inside of these men burns a rage when statements like that erupt from the foaming mouth bowels of feminists, manginas, slack jawed progressives and effeminate multicultural wing nuts. “

    That’s the problem with the “Man up!” cry right there. As a man, I have no problem when I am confronted by a peer or a superior man on my failings and told to “man up”. When properly used, the statement is an exhortation from one brother to another, or from father (figure) to son. We’re trying to spur on our brother or son to be better, to get better, to pick himself up and shake off the momentary setback. We’re trying to help him along with a manly mix of encouragement and gentle shame. We want him to be better, we know he can, so we tell him to be the man we know he can be. Suck it up, get back on the horse, put your nose to the grindstone, and do what you know you need to do as a man.

    It has much much less effect from people like Mark Driscoll or Dennis Rainey. Or from women in the tradcon movement. Most of what we hear is the shrill “you need to man up and stop playing those video games!”

    I have no interest, absolutely NONE, in hearing the “man up” cry from males who aren’t themselves men. I especially don’t want to hear it from ANY woman. Because from most women, “Man Up” means “earn money and support me” or “you have no right to judge me” or “loser males, please identify yourselves so I know who not to date or have sex with”.

  87. Lisa in Vermont

    Obviously, if you want to attract the best quality mate you are going to put forth your best effort. If you’re a woman you’re going to make sure you look smoking hot and act sweet. If you’re a man you’re going to take the LAMPS qualities into consideration. I don’t know of any scripture passage that would say it’s wrong to do so.

    My observation has been that once the wedding ring is on his/her finger people tend to relax a bit too much when it comes to keeping their attractiveness level elevated.

    For instance, I’ve always been attracted to bodybuilder types. I appreciate the effort that men take to keep a nice physique. Plus, I just think it makes them more masculine. Every woman wants a masculine man unless she’s a closet lesbian.

    When I met my husband he was a bit flabby. He decided to get in shape for our wedding and was working out regularly when we married. Sixteen years later he’s gained 20 pounds and hasn’t lifted a weight since we got back from our honeymoon. Meanwhile I belong to a gym that’s open 24 hours a day so I can workout daily regardless of how hectic my schedule gets. This is typical. Most married men my age (early 40s) are out of shape.

    As far as sexual attraction in marriage is concerned, I think you can have a decent if somewhat disappointing marriage without it. I doubt it was a priority for most women until the past 100 years or so. Before that women weren’t even supposed to enjoy sex and most probably never had a single orgasm. Marriage was more of a practical arrangement, especially since women didn’t have the personal and property rights necessary to live successfully on their own.

    Regarding physical attraction, I will probably get darts thrown at me for saying this, but I can relate to my secular sisters when they say that marrying someone without sleeping with them first is like buying a car without taking it for a test drive.

    Being married to someone with whom you are completely sexually incompatible is akin to having a constant thorn in your side. While this aspect of my marriage has improved greatly since reading this and other manosphere blogs (thanks SSM), I’ve accepted the fact that I will never have a passionate sex life. My husband loves me dearly and because of this he will dole out enough sex to keep me from climbing the walls like a cat in heat, but he will never “ravish” me in the way most women fantasize about.

    But how could I have known this given that when we dated we attended a fundamentalist church where even French kissing before marriage was frowned upon? My earlier boyfriends (even the Christian ones) were always trying to get under my shirt or down my pants so I figured all men were like that and my husband would be the same once we were married.

    But what if I had known and what if I had rejected my husband because of this? I wouldn’t have the beautiful children we created together; I probably wouldn’t have left NJ to live in one of the loveliest places in the U.S.; I might not have a husband who supports my career as a journalist. I wouldn’t trade all of these things for passionate sex, though being a typical woman, I suppose I’d like to have them PLUS passionate sex.

  88. Frank

    Based on personal experience, women were attracted to me for the following reasons:

    Humor
    Intelligence (intrigued by how my mind worked)
    Very sure of myself, which comes from being right all the time (I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken)
    Mysterious
    Being a smart***
    Facial hair

    I’d call this passive attraction generation because it’s part of my personality makeup. I don’t need to exert any effort here because it’s just who I am, naturally. I would imagine any future wife would especially be attracted to these traits, so no herculean effort would be needed to generate more attraction factors than what’s already part of my natural baseline. Of course this carries the risk of dampening the ambition to go above and beyond due to laziness and complacency (which I’m guilty of) but it’s something to consider. If a woman is attracted to your baseline attractive traits, anything you do more would be icing on the cake.

    I’m of a mind though that I would want to be as attractive to my wife as possible, so even if I DIDN’T have to boost my LAMPS factor, I’d do it anyway (Just like, she doesn’t HAVE to primp herself, but she does it anyway.) I don’t see this as submission, but as inspiration. Good women have an awesome ability to inspire men to go above and beyond.

  89. Entropy is My god

    @ Cane

    “That’s just the way things are.”, or, “That’s just the way I am. You can see it in this graph.” That’s nihilism.

    That is all it is, and all it can be. If women have no moral agency, if they cannot control their reaction to what they are attracted to, if what ever a woman does is excused (and it is, every action of all women is holy writ and incontestable in the USA) then there is no moral standard. Churchians love to pick their pet issues from the pages of the bible and coax them, stroke them and touch them until their personal pet issue is far more important than any other issue, it is their god.

    This plays out in this way, all woman are always right about all things all the time. My man isn’t attracting me enough in every way I want, there fore any action I take is okay, whether it be withholding sex, taking children, hitting him, beating him, throwing objects at him, calling the cops on him, stealing from him, etc…. Yet they play and pretend that they are Christian when in-fact they worship Diana, Aphrodite, Ishtar, Semiramis, what have you. They are dedicated to the worship of the divine feminine, meaning that any thing feminine is divine. These feminists can only exist in a world of resource abundance.

    When the resource abundance goes away, I think women will be very, very, shocked to learn the rule they have lived by and persecuted men and children with is devastating when used on them. “Do what thou wilt” is a viscous way to live when you don’t have an army of beta, mouth breathing white knights available to financially, and physically, imprison, rape, and enslave the men around you.

    But by all means, keep “Manning up” so that you can be attractive to your wife, and hope against hope that precious dearie doesn’t use her tyranny to destroy you.

    Don’t man up for her, man up for God, man up to face the adventure that rises to meet us in the shadowy decline of this festering cesspool we call a country. Man up to crush those White Knights who will come to enforce the tyrannical rule of the ultimate feminine edifice the leviathan of government.

  90. DrTorch

    I’m not buying it Cane. Your various points don’t fit together necessarily, so I see no compelling logic.

  91. an observer

    So in a way, withholding sex might be helpful because it will motivate him to be a better man.

    Completely unscriptural. A woman denying sex to her husband is in rebellion. It is manipulation.

    Dalrock discussed this in his post, why so many women wish their husbands would cheat. Sexual deprival is an attempt by her to retain the high moral ground. Since pastors never tell wives to submit to their husbands and be sexually available, the husband is in a no-win situation.

    Her rebellion and disobedience is never highlighted from the pulpit.

  92. Paul

    “Men are attracted to young, slim women. ”

    And if women ever understood why men liked slim women, you would NEVER stop slapping us.

    -Paul

    [ssm: Why? I just assume that a slim figure is associated with youthfulness, which is why men are attracted to it.]

  93. hurting

    Paul
    June 21, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    Seconding what Paul said here. All of the high cards are held by women in marriage. What you describe is the way it might have used to work, at least potentially, in the mythical ‘husband runs off with the hot secretary’ scenario. Today a wife has a claim on the man’s resources regardless of his performance of his end of the contract.

  94. deti

    SSM:

    “ I agree with points 1 through 3, and while I know that no one in the manosphere ever has much sympathy for women, try to understand that women in the Church tend to feel ashamed of what really turns them on. That’s part of why we try to make out our attraction vectors as being something else, stuff like being a good father or being faithful in reading the Bible. Because we’re ashamed of the what we really want. I was ashamed of it for years, deeply ashamed. I never admitted it, ever, until I started reading in the sphere about a year and a half ago. I thought there was something wrong with me, but now I realize that I’m pretty typical.”

    I’m having a little more sympathy for women. For example, I’m starting to have a little more empathy for the fact that a lot of you ladies just can’t find men attractive enough to stay with or want to marry. Some of that’s your own doing. Some of it is us men. A lot of us are putting up with far, far too much shitty behavior from women; accepting women’s sluttiness and marrying them anyway because we think we can’t do better; and not absolutely kicking a disrespectful shrike to the curb.

    A lot of us men allow your emotions to govern our every act and response.

    A lot of us are fat. A lot of us dress for shit. A lot of us don’t earn good money.

    And worst of all, most of us don’t stand up to you women because we tremble in fear the implied threat of “YOU MEN WILL do what we say or the sex spigot gets turned off; and I’ll find another guy, and NO WOMAN WILL EVER HAVE SEX WITH YOU AGAIN.” Most of us won’t respond with “Go ahead and break up with me; I’d rather jerk off to internet porn than put up with your crap for ONE. MORE. SECOND. You don’t want me? You know where the door is.”

    What woman wants this from a man? What woman gets wet at this kind of behavior from a man?

    [ssm: I would say the trembling in fear is even more off-putting. They very idea of my husband cowering before me makes me feel sort of enraged to contemplate. Not putting up with her crap is a start on fixing the situation. And I’m sorry, I know this will offend some of my readers, but I’m a proponent of what gets called “dread game” around the sphere, but which I simply call reality and consequences.]

  95. Entropy is My god

    @ Deti

    Smile, Smile when you get turned down. Smile because when the sun goes down and the vibrant youths come to take what was never theirs, maybe you can turn her down when she begs for protection, I have a head ache, I am not in the mood, maybe if you were more romantic or brought me flowers, or cooked dinner or helped out more around the house I would protect you……..

    Smile

  96. an observer

    We could have had someone who had it all together as President. 

    Ron is retired now. Rand doesn’t convince me.

  97. an observer

    MYTH
    ‘husband runs off with the hot secretary’ 

    REALITY
    Woman seeking epl moment pulls eject lever for cash and prizes.

  98. Paul

    hurting,

    “Today a wife has a claim on the man’s resources regardless of his performance of his end of the contract.”

    Exactly. This is what has come of the second most imporant pilar of Feminsm (second only to abortion on demand) that being, no-fault-divorce. NFD ended (forever) the Patriarical marriage. Megan McArdle said it best on her essay on same-sex marriage.

    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/galt.html

    ….Divorce, in the nineteenth century, was unbelievably hard to get. It took years, was expensive, and required proving that your spouse had abandonned you for an extended period with no financial support; was (if male) not merely discreetly dallying but flagrantly carrying on; or was not just belting you one now and again when you got mouthy, but routinely pummeling you within an inch of your life. After you got divorced, you were a pariah in all but the largest cities. If you were a desperately wronged woman you might change your name, taking your maiden name as your first name and continuing to use your husband’s last name to indicate that you expected to continue living as if you were married (i.e. chastely) and expect to have some limited intercourse with your neighbours, though of course you would not be invited to events held in a church, or evening affairs. Financially secure women generally (I am not making this up) moved to Europe; Edith Wharton, who moved to Paris when she got divorced, wrote moving stories about the way divorced women were shunned at home. Men, meanwhile (who were usually the respondants) could expect to see more than half their assets and income settled on their spouse and children.

    There were, critics observed, a number of unhappy marriages in which people stuck together. Young people, who shouldn’t have gotten married; older people, whose spouses were not physically abusive nor absent, nor flagrantly adulterous, but whose spouse was, for reasons of financial irresponsibility, mental viciousness, or some other major flaw, destroying their life. Why not make divorce easier to get? Rather than requiring people to show that there was an unforgiveable, physically visible, cause that the marriage should be dissolved, why not let people who wanted to get divorced agree to do so?

    Because if you make divorce easier, said the critics, you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society.

    That’s ridiculous! said the reformers. (Can we sing it all together now?) People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!

    Oops. When the law changed, the institution changed. The marginal divorce made the next one easier. Again, the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce.

    There were actually two big changes; the first, when divorce laws were amended in most states to make it easier to get a divorce; and the second, when “no fault” divorce allowed one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage. The second change produced another huge surge in the divorce rate, and a nice decline in the incomes of divorced women; it seems advocates had failed to anticipate that removing the leverage of the financially weaker party to hold out for a good settlement would result in men keeping more of their earnings to themselves.

    What’s more, easy divorce didn’t only change the divorce rate; it made drastic changes to the institution of marriage itself. David Brooks makes an argument I find convincing: that the proliferation of the kind of extravagent weddings that used to only be the province of high society (rented venue, extravagent flowers and food, hundreds of guests, a band with dancing, dresses that cost the same as a good used car) is because the event itself doesn’t mean nearly as much as it used to, so we have to turn it into a three-ring circus to feel like we’re really doing something.

    A couple in 1940 (and even more so in 1910) could go to a minister’s parlor, or a justice of the peace, and in five minutes totally change their lives. Unless you are a member of certain highly religious subcultures, this is simply no longer true. That is, of course, partly because of the sexual revolution and the emancipation of women; but it is also because you aren’t really making a lifetime committment; you’re making a lifetime committment unless you find something better to do. There is no way, psychologically, to make the latter as big an event as the former, and when you lost that committment, you lose, on the margin, some willingness to make the marriage work. Again, this doesn’t mean I think divorce law should be toughened up; only that changes in law that affect marriage affect the cultural institution, not just the legal practice….

  99. Cail Corishev

    The tendency is to take what is essentially a graph, and turn it into a map. People do this all the time with the Myers-Briggs test.

    Agreed, there’s way too much of that. However, that doesn’t mean the graph itself isn’t useful. It just shouldn’t be overextended. It’s like when people criticize IQ for not measuring personality traits like ambition. It’s not meant to measure that, any more than a yardstick is meant to measure humidity. LAMPS isn’t intended to serve as a complete Manhood 101 guide; it’s meant to provide men with a shorthand metric by which to look at themselves and quickly spot whether there are things about themselves which are turn-offs for women which they could improve upon.

    My only objection to LAMPS is that I think the P is about 80% of it, and if you have no P it hardly matters how much LAMS you have, but that’s a quibble. It’s still probably the best handy metric we have until someone comes up with a better one. It’s easy (and true) to say, as Elspeth did, that men just need to stand up for themselves and be unmoved by women. But as men we like details, specific actions we can take, and LAMPS helps us find those.

    It cannot be a goal in-and-of-itself to try to produce even a wife’s “attraction vectors”.

    That’s pretty much what I was getting at with my stuff about “have to” versus “should.” If you become more attractive because you love your wife (or you want to love a wife someday) and you want her to be happy and make you happy, so you work on becoming a better man in various ways — regular prayer, avoiding sin, lifting weights, working hard, etc. — that’s all good. If you do all those things because your wife is nagging you to, or because you’re trying to win your way back into her knickers, that’s not good.
    It really all comes down to motivation and frame. Is your motivation love and wishing to take care of her needs, or fear of losing her or her interest?

  100. Cautiously Pessimistic

    @ssm – “men complain a lot about having to do stuff to make themselves attractive to their wives. Why is that?

    Because what we’re told to do to make ourselves attractive to them seems to repel them.

    Why are men so angry that women are attracted to LAMPS? Especially power/dominance?

    Because for the bulk of our lives they’ve sworn up and down that those things repel them.

    At least, that’s the case for me. I’m not as angry as I might have been, because I managed to find, listen to, and put into practice red pill wisdom before my marriage detonated. But it’s extremely aggravating to find out that most of my efforts geared towards attracting women were actually repelling them simply because I was so naive as to believe what my parents, pastors, teachers, women, and the culture generally were saying.

  101. Elspeth

    And worst of all, most of us don’t stand up to you women because we tremble in fear the implied threat of “YOU MEN WILL do what we say or the sex spigot gets turned off; and I’ll find another guy, and NO WOMAN WILL EVER HAVE SEX WITH YOU AGAIN.”

    Wives can smell the fear a mile away. The fact that my husband is not afraid of me is enough to make me refrain from attempting to try some crap like that. Of course, that would be if I wasn’t totally enthralled with him already. If a wife considers for a minute that you are fully aware that you can get someone else, she’ll behave better.

    I know a wife whose husband had a wandering eye and a zipper problem for the first 10 years of their marriage. Then he converted, and suddenly he was more docile than she was used to. He was afraid she was going to leave, and I think she was going to leave. But then he started going to church with her and the women there (yeah, in the church) were checking him out.

    She stopped punishing him and things got better. She told me point blank: “There is absolutely no way I was going to let some other woman reap the benefits of his conversion after the decade of hell that I put up with.” She started submitting, and he suddenly became the strong guy she married minus the adultery. They’ve been married 25 years now.

    [ssm: Wow, that woman’s story is freakishly similar to mine. The only time in 22 years that my attraction to my husband wavered was after he became a Christian and started behaving like…I don’t know…a stereotypical docile Christian man, I guess. He let me get away with acting like his moral superior for awhile because he felt sort of ashamed of all the messing around he’d done. Letting me get away with acting like that temporarily killed my sex drive and made me an insane bitch from hell to live with. He got over it, though, and retook the captain’s seat, which fixed the problem.]

  102. Paul

    “If a wife considers for a minute that you are fully aware that you can get someone else, she’ll behave better.”

    I disagree.

    She can behave anyway she wants because at any time for any reason (or NO reason) she can divorce her husband and take his wealth and his children from him, not to mention, force him to continue supporting her financially all the rest of her days. Yes he might be able to get another woman, but his life that he loves will be all but destroyed. So no, she does not have to behave better. She can do…. pretty much whatever she wants to do.

    And a man must take it on complete faith that she will always love him and never leave him.

  103. hurting

    Put me down as of the belief that most people can not materially change their attractiveness (at least physical) a great deal from the hand they were dealt from the Creator, and even if they could, they probably can’t change their relative position versus others of the same sex very much. Within reason, and namely for health reasons, they should do what they can to be the best version of themselves insofar as at least maintaining one’s weight and fitness have a complementary effect on health.

    As far as the reasons Deti articulated upthread, I’d say in many instances it’s a combination of them, with the result being multiplicative rather than additive.

    In the end, though, incentives matter. The current incentives all align with supporting a woman’s ‘right’ to nuke her marriage frivolously.

  104. Rollo Tomassi

    Considering questions like this, issues of sexual purity, absolutism, virginity, guilt, feminization of the church and the general malaise that comes with all that, I’m amazed modern Christians manage to reproduce at all.

  105. Paul

    They are less likely to Rollo. Modern Christians are having a hard time even getting married. I think the percentage of people over the age of 18 that are married, is the lowest rate ever in our nation’s short history (just over 50%.) Very sad.

  106. Elspeth

    So no, she does not have to behave better. She can do…. pretty much whatever she wants to do.

    Well of course Paul, that’s always the case. People are going to do what they want to do.

    The wife I referenced was madly in love with her husband when she married him. She was 17 and not trying to find a beta provider to fill in a checklist because her biological clock was ticking loudly.

    I think that the route to the altar matters I’ve met women who really don’t like being married. They hate feeling accountable and feeling tied down. Such women are a bit more of a gamble than those who deeply desire married life and not just a wedding.

    I stand by my assertion that the more passionately a wife loved her husband, the less she can tolerate the idea of him finding someone else, even if she hates him at the moment.

  107. Elspeth

    Modern Christians are having a hard time even getting married.

    This is very true, Paul. It’s true even for young, attractive chaste women. The Christian marriage “market” is an awful mess. An economy that has left young men out in the cold coupled with the delusional way young people are taught to make decisions makes me amazed any young Christians can find and marry one at all.

  108. hurting

    Elspeth,

    In all charity I must again concur with what Paul reiterates above. To that end I’ll offer a bit of my own story:

    At the very first hearing in my divorce (sought by my wife, fought futilely by me), the judge set forth his best estimate of combined alimony/child support that I’d have to pay. Note that I had not even conceded to the divorce (technically mine is not a truly no-fault state) much less custody of the kids. It was fully 40% of my pre-tax income (about $40K) at the time, which is roughly equal to the average household income in my census tract.

    My story is far from atypical.

    All she had to do was file the paperwork and pay the attorney’s fees.

    it is typically the man who must keep looking over his shoulder while the woman looks for options.

  109. Stingray

    even if she hates him at the moment.

    Hate may not be a bad thing from a woman. It has a passion to it. Indifference is what the killer is. This is what happens with these women who wish their husbands would cheat. Those women who claim they are unhappy. These are the women who are irritated and bored. Those who hate, are still having deep feelings for their husbands.

    It’s as Roissy (I think?) says, hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is

  110. Looking Glass

    I didn’t get a chance to read through everything, but I wanted to respond to 2 major points coming up.

    On the topic of “why are Men angry?”, it’s quite short:

    Fastest way to get into a fight with a guy (without just throwing a punch)? Insult him to his face.

    That’s important because the way Men are taught about Attraction, especially in Churches, is an insult. Being lied to, that much, will make any Man rather angry. This is why it’s the “bitter” Red Pill and why some guys can’t get passed that.

    On Deep Strength’s point about the side-benefits of being a strong Christian:

    An actual Christian Walk ends up a bit like Tithing. When we look at it, we say (on a first & second order analysis) “I don’t gain anything but giving this, so why should I?”. The first reason is that you’re commanded to give. The second is it’s an active choice to follow your Faith and trust God to provide what you cannot. And the third reason is that God has Blessed you with what you have, so it’s a sign of respect to give a portion of your “fruits” to God.

    What most miss is that the act of “willful” giving has a huge number of positive benefits on the way you live your life and the way you think about God. The family that tithes will be forced to have a much better idea of their finances, making you much better stewards with the money God has provided. This has a massive carry across effect on the rest of your life and further opens a person to listening to the Spirit. It takes you closer and closer to knowing God.

    This is the true Heretical aspect of “Churchianity”. A strong Christian doesn’t get bowled over and pushed around. A strong Christian doesn’t play the New Age style “we respect everyone’s faith” nonsense. A strong Christian Man is attractive to Women because his strength comes from the Lord and he does not allow them to play games with him or usurp his Faith. Attraction is a natural side product of your Faith. But you have to “go deep” and pay that Tithe to get there. The most loathsome aspect of Churchianity is that it denies the ability to go deeper and Walk properly.

    Oh, and the flip side is also true for Women, though they generally wouldn’t be able to figure out where the anger would stem. A Woman Walking in Faith will be very feminine. That’s quite sexy. At the same time, she’ll also be snatched up ASAP. Which is the other problem.

  111. Looking Glass

    @hurting:

    The marriage contract in the West is a Crime against Humanity. Bar none.

  112. sunshinemary Post author

    Elspeth, I’m in agreement with you. What Christian men appear to need very much is a huge helping of dread game, but we don’t have to call it that. As Mr. Caldo said:

    If you’ve ever thought to yourself, “Why doesn’t she appreciate me for who I am?”, check your pants, because the whereabouts of your cock are unsure.

    Stop being so afraid of your woman, O Christian Man! Let her experience some fear.

  113. Paul

    I stand by my assertion that the more passionately a wife loved her husband, the less she can tolerate the idea of him finding someone else, even if she hates him at the moment.

    This has not been my experience. What I’ve seen isn’t the “opposite” of what you are saying per se, just anger and envy, NEVER regret. I’ll explain.

    Anger and envy? The ex-wife (who divorced her husband for whatever reason) is ANGRY at her ex-husband for finding another woman. She is ENVIOUS of the woman in his life (be it his GF or his new wife, should the wife not care about Luke 16-18.) So we have ANGER and ENVY. But we do NOT have regret. The Ex-wife does not REGRET divorcing him because (well) he did something in her mind that justified what she did by leaving him (he did something that not only made her stop loving him, she started to hate him) so…. of course…. she’ll never regret it no matter how easy it was for him to “replace” her. How could she regret it when the love is gone?

    Your position makes a whole bunch of assumptions, that passionate LOVE steps in and prevents a woman from allowing her temporary hate from festering into something perminant. I think we both know that in an ideal world this would be the case but in the world of reality, it just isn’t. Data shows too many frivorces for your position to be the reality based one. I’m sorry.

  114. deti

    “try to understand that women in the Church tend to feel ashamed of what really turns them on. That’s part of why we try to make out our attraction vectors as being something else, stuff like being a good father or being faithful in reading the Bible. Because we’re ashamed of the what we really want. I was ashamed of it for years, deeply ashamed. I never admitted it, ever, until I started reading in the sphere about a year and a half ago. I thought there was something wrong with me, but now I realize that I’m pretty typical.”

    Hmm. SSM, I’m more inclined to believe Donal’s theory that nearly all women really don’t know what turns them on. They’re a bit like old Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart and porn. The old lawyer and judge couldn’t describe porn, but “I know it when I see it”.

    Similarly, girls can’t describe what turns them on, but they know it when they feel it. Or, more accurately, they know it when he tingles them.

    And I think a big part of this is simply that girls are just not taught to be introspective about this. They’re not taught to examine this about themselves; to reach an understanding of it so they can harness it and prevent it from destroying them.

    I don’t think they’re ashamed of it; because they have no awareness of it.

    SSM I suspect that you became ashamed of this when you saw the stark truth of every woman’s deep, base sexual desires and turn ons in exchanges at Dalrock’s. A woman wants to be dominated and ravished by a strong man. She doesn’t just want his companionship and monetary support. She wants a confident, dominant man to simply take what he wants, and she wants him to want her and take her without asking. She wants him to order her around; to tell her to do what he wants in the bedroom; and she wants to do what he tells her. You don’t like it because it’s base, fleshy, selfish, and dark; and because it approaches the same level of unbridled lack of control as men’s sexual conduct. You don’t like it because it seems unconstrained, uncontrolled and unmoored from Scripture. You don’t like it because it’s dangerous and destructive if not controlled and brought to heel.

    And it scares the hell out of every parent, because a red pill parent knows that it resides deep within his daughters.

    It’s not shame. It’s shock. It’s horror. It’s recoiling from the sight in the mirror and seeing what they truly are.

    Look at Lisa in Vermont. Her husband won’t ravish her with the passion she wants him to show. He doesn’t have it in him. He’s out of shape. She doesn’t like it. He could probably satisfy her even in his flabbiness if he smacked her on the ass and told her to “get undressed, it’s sexytime” a couple of times a week. Because that would satisfy her deep need for ravishment and dominance. She’s now become aware that what she wants to see is her husband take charge of their sex life and simply take from her what he wants. She wants him to want her like that. And because he can’t, or won’t, it dampens her attraction for him a little.

    [ssm: I don’t know, Deti. I think I am a bit more introspective than the average woman, but even when I was much younger, in the early days of my marriage and way pre-manosphere, I worried that there was something a bit wrong with me because of the violent sexual fantasies I had about my husband (I am NOT into BDSM for the record). But it turns out that is really, really common in women. The majority of women have “rape”/ravishment fantasies, so they must be aware of it on some level. Of course, what you describe women as wanting is entirely accurate, and I’m sure you are correct about LiV’s situation. But I think up until very recently, most women, especially most Christian women, didn’t realize their desire for their husband to take them, to “use” them sexually (as another commenter put it last week), was normal and okay. So they hid it out of shame. Even in my pre-Christian days, I never told my husband how I felt, and I think most women probably don’t. I get the feeling that’s starting to change, though, as more research comes in showing that everything that Heartiste has been saying is fairly accurate.]

  115. sunshinemary Post author

    Cane Caldo:

    Janet, having seen it codified that she likes to run her mouth, determines that she likes to run her mouth without thinking because…she…likes to run her mouth, and she doesn’t like to think things through. The advice to sit, shut, and read will be more useful to Janet–and everyone around her–than any alphabet soup of personality traits. But you have to know Janet and interact with her to come up with that advice.

    Yes, it is wearisome to listen to people justify being weird or annoying because of some personality test they took. The only way something like Myers-Briggs is useful is if we use it to help us understand where we have a tendency to sin.

    But I still don’t see LAMPS that way (maybe we should start writing it as lamPs in order to designate the relative important of male power). These really are vectors of attraction. What’s wrong with that?

    Do you agree with what Cail said above about non-Scriptural verus unScriptural?

    p.s. I hope you understand that I don’t agree that you are a jackass. I sort of want you to be wrong about this, but I’m willing to consider that you may be right.

  116. Lisa in Vermont

    SSM
    And I’m sorry, I know this will offend some of my readers, but I’m a proponent of what gets called “dread game” around the sphere, but which I simply call reality and consequences.

    The problem with dread is that it doesn’t work, or at least it should work, in Christian marriages. A non-Christian woman may worry that her husband will cheat if she denies him sex; a non-Christian man may worry that his wife will deny him sex if he doesn’t supplicate to her.

    But as Christians, we are commanded not to cheat on our spouses just as we are commanded not to deny them sexually. And the greatest dread of all — divorce —- should certainly be off the table.

    Even if I gained 100 pounds and started acting like a bi**h my husband wouldn’t be justified (by scripture) in cheating on me. Even if he cheated on me, I wouldn’t be justified (by scripture) in divorcing him. So, I don’t understand how trying to instill dread in your Christian spouse would be effective.

    We should follow God’s commands for husbands and wives as outlined in Ephesians 5 because we want to honor Him and His word, not because we’re afraid of earthly consequences.

  117. Paul

    And the greatest dread of all — divorce —- should certainly be off the table.

    But it is NOT off the table. And society no longer SHAMES those who not only put this ON the table, but ACT upon it.

    Think about it, when is the last time you ever saw two women talking to each other when one of them says “Oh I divorced my husband because of that…” and the other stops talking, turns around, walks away from her and shuns her? Has that ever happened? I am guessing no.

  118. sunshinemary Post author

    That’s why I don’t call “dread” dread, LiV. I call it reality and consequences.

    The reality is that other women probably find your husband attractive and would be willing to take him away from you if given the chance, Christian Woman. The consequences of denying him sex are that he will be tempted to cheat. Why shouldn’t she know that?

    Listen, Mr. Caldo is opposed to game, but he’s used dread on his wife. He just didn’t call it dread. He simply told her that she bore some of the responsibility for his past infidelities because she had refused him. And her told her to lose weight and never refuse him again. That’s basically what I’m talking about (not the cheating part, of course).

  119. Elspeth

    Yes, it is wearisome to listen to people justify being weird or annoying because of some personality test they took. The only way something like Myers-Briggs is useful is if we use it to help us understand where we have a tendency to sin.

    I totally agree. If examining ourselves is used to make excuses rather than be better, the examination is utterly useless, and yes, annoying.

    I hope you understand that I don’t agree that you are a jackass.

    I suspect that even if he thought you did agree, he wouldn’t mind. He seems strong like that. He took our little TC poll (on Mort’s now defunct blog) and all the mixed thoughts from the women there like a champ.

  120. davidvs

    Here is my opinion from the happily married and devout camp.

    I do not agree that Dark Triad traits are attractive to women, or that married men need to work on LAMPS. Cane called those “graphs, not maps” and I think both needlessly decorate three core personality traits that make both men and women socially and sexually attractive, and physically and emotionally healthy.

    First, high standards and goals. Attractive people have struggled to become worthwhile and healthy and want to spend time with others who are also worthwhile and healthy. Attractive people continue to have goals, and the main reason they meet people is to collect more friends who will join them in pursuing those goals.

    Second, fearing only God. Attractive people listen to everyone and seriously consider their contributions but do not put anyone on a pedestal or value any person’s opinions above their own. Instead they listen to God for guidance while behaving properly submissive as scripture requires. This means they honestly project their true personality, values, and thoughts instead of portraying what they think others desire or would be pleased to see.

    Third, caring with boundaries and independence. Attractive people enjoy people and conversations, and like to help others and pray for people, but mostly spend time with what they know they themselves enjoy and desire and are called by God to do. They invite people to join them doing worthwhile, fun, and interesting things while not tolerating disrespect, rudeness, or unscriptural advice; they are prepared to walk away from anyone who gives those. (In a marriage “walk away from” can simply be leaving the room until your spouse calms down.)

    Would a married husband and wife who are filled with God’s Spirit and do these things need to worry about divorce? I cannot imagine so.

    Continuing self-improvement, self-knowledge, and spiritual growth are the foundations of both spiritual maturity and a healthy marriage. Moreover, excelling in visible self-improvement, self-knowledge, and spiritual growth requires God’s help–there is no better Preselection Effect than being close to and helped by God!

  121. Paul

    .Would a married husband and wife who are filled with God’s Spirit and do these things need to worry about divorce? I cannot imagine so.

    Can you imagine any divorced Pastors? I have had not just one, but two of them at some of the Churches where I went to worship Christ. Unless you are saying that a Pastor (or the Pastor’s former spouse) might not be filled with God’s Spirit?

  122. Miserman

    Why are men so angry that women are attracted to LAMPS? Especially power/dominance?

    I would say several reasons.

    One, they have been told by churches that nice guys marry nice girls and when they realize such sentiments are empty and lacking in real-world substance, damage has been done.

    Two, developing LAMPS in any meaningful way seems to be limited to a select few of alphas, which is horribly discouraging to men. Not everyone can be an Alpha and later in life the red pill is swallowed the greater the chance a man is consigned to a lonely life of beta celibacy.

    Three, men sometimes get lazy and do not want to work for it. Human nature.

  123. davidvs

    I have known divorced pastors.

    Some let go of high standards and/or goals. They stopped striving. They put life on cruise control to maintain what they had. That became soil in which sloth or pride or entitlement (avarita) took root.

    Some stopped fearing only God, or never had that quality to begin with. Dalrock writes about this dynamic plenty often. The sins of gluttony or luxury or competition (superbia) took root.

    Some abandoned their boundaries and/or independence and became slaves to difficult congregants or their wive’s Honey Do lists.

    And I have known some ex-pastors who were never filled with God’s Spirit, but they did not get divorced while employed as a pastor. They wanted a high status leadership job, went to seminary, and discovered that shepherding a flock was too difficult (or “not appealing after all”) without God’s help.

  124. Cane Caldo

    I probably should not have responded here at all today. My brain is tired. As DrTorch suggested, it wasn’t my best work; which is the burden of success. Biggie was right: “Mo money mo problems.”

    But since I’ve already broken the seal I want to make clear that I am not bashing Donal’s LAMPS. To be honest, I haven’t considered it as closely as I have other Men’s Sphere terms, guides, etc. My point of mentioning LAMPS in the source comment that SSM is quoting from is that LAMPS–as useful as it can possibly be–is not a starting point for judgment on how to behave. My comment actually assumed that LAMPS is in some way useful. I’m not bagging on Donal, or his writings.

    @SSM

    We’re good. You didn’t call me a jackass, and I’m not angry at the folks who did. “Tingles are born in the defensive crouch”, Roissy said. That’s true of men, too. I’m just not inspired at the moment to write a treatise.

    The string that Dread Game plays upon is “anticipation”.

    [ssm: I don’t need a treatise – a simple conversation with plain speech would be fine – but I would like to know more about why you believe generating attraction is unscriptural. If you’re too tired to address it now, maybe you could write a post about it for your own blog.]

  125. davidvs

    > Why are men so angry that women are attracted to LAMPS? Especially power/dominance?

    Society teaches men to have low standards and goals, to fear the feminine, to surrender to the boundaries females want, and to overprovide or perish.

    Instead we learn that we need high standards and goals, to fear only God, to respect our own boundaries, and to be independent. (See my comment above.)

    I was not angry. The anger I have seen in others is because of that 180 degree flip-flop. Lies have wasted so much time, energy, and opportunities.

  126. Retrenched

    is it licit for us even to concern ourselves with what the opposite sex finds sexually appealing? Is it okay for us to act on that information?

    Not only licit, but absolutely necessary. Given the rules and dynamics of the modern SMP in the US, I’d say that anyone who wants a marriage or relationship to work doesn’t really have any other choice than to concern himself/herself with these things.

  127. van Rooinek

    Should Christians be concerned with generating sexual attraction?

    What an insanely stupid question. If you want to get married, you MUST generate sexual attraction. Duh.

    And the Gods of the copybook headings, with terror and slaughter return…

  128. donalgraeme

    Can’t stick around for long.

    @ Deti and SSM

    I think there is a difference between a woman wanting to be dominated (or ravished) and her understanding what it is she finds attractive in men. My point wasn’t that women don’t understand they want to be dominated, but rather that they don’t understand what it is about men they find attractive. Two different things.

    Regarding dread game, I’m not entirely sure if it is acceptable to Christians or not. Making hollow threats is a terrible idea, and frankly some of it seems to violate Colossians 3:19.

    I am going to need more time to respond to Cane’s comment.

    [ssm: I don’t think idle threats are necessary for dread game to work. He can simply allow her to see another woman flirting with him (for example). Your point about understanding the desire to be ravished versus what she finds attractive in a man makes sense, though.]

  129. Paul

    I have known divorced pastors.

    Some let go of high standards and/or goals. They stopped striving. They put life on cruise control to maintain what they had. That became soil in which sloth or pride or entitlement (avarita) took root.

    Some stopped fearing only God, or never had that quality to begin with.

    Or, some just picked the wrong spouses.

  130. davidvs

    > He can simply allow her to see another woman flirting with him (for example).

    Isn’t that is Preselection Effect, not Dread Game?

  131. Lisa in Vermont

    Deti
    He could probably satisfy her even in his flabbiness if he smacked her on the ass and told her to “get undressed, it’s sexytime”

    I think it’s important for men to understand this. If we are attracted to you we will stay attracted even if you gain a few pounds or lose some hair. Attraction is so much more than appearance.

    My husband will sometimes feel guilty when he sees me getting ready to leave for the gym. He’ll grab his belly with both hands and say something like, “I’ve got to start working out. I’m so out of shape.”

    In response, I’ll always grab his a** and say, “But I still think you’re hot,” to let him know that I still want him physically.

    My oldest sister is drop-dead gorgeous; men literally turn their heads when she walks into a room. Her husband looks like Tony Soprano. She could care less about his big belly or receding hairline. When he took her away for a romantic weekend a few weeks ago she came back bragging about how they’d had sexy time up to four times a day.

    If a woman tells her husband, “I’m not attracted to you anymore,” because he doesn’t look the way he did on their wedding day, chances are there are bigger issues that she just doesn’t want to discuss. In that case, the husband can go to the gym every day and join Hair Club for Men and it probably wouldn’t help save his marriage.

  132. Anonymoose

    BDSM is, probably intentionally, a misnomer. It is used to categorize and vilify widely, but the SM part doesn’t actually apply to 99.999…% of people. As has been discussed here before, forcing themselves on an actually unwilling woman is NOT a fantasy of men, and a woman who, once aroused, enjoys having her butt and thighs intensely stimulated doesn’t have an orgasm when she drops a can of beans on her foot.

    The essence of bondage is vulnerability and strenuous positions. The “strenuous” part is quite important, and is why photographers often end up having sex with their models. Commanding an even fully clothed woman to assume and hold positions that put significant tension in the muscles at her shoulders and in her armpits, in the small of her back, and in her inner thighs, for an hour or so, tends to get quite a few of them very excited.

    When monogamous, effective dominant sexuality ends up being mostly psychological, because the man and woman have a deep emotional connection, and because sex occurs mostly in the mind anyway, since what is possible physically is actually quite limited.

  133. Looking Glass

    @Lisa in Vermont:

    Which really does go to why guys do get angry about this stuff. The Wife, in your closing scenario, just lied to her Husband’s face. Guys value honesty.

  134. Dominic

    If I might place this discussion within a broader theological context, it is traditional Protestant doctrine, having its roots in St Augustine’s “Two Cities”, that God rules the world via two “hands”: He rules the “external” or “this-worldly” realm via Reason or what Luther calls his “left-handed” rule, and he rules the internal or “spiritual” realm (namely, the heart, conscience, faith, etc) via his Word and the Holy Spirit or what Luther calls his “right-handed” rule. This is the doctrine of the “Two Kingdoms”.

    Thus to give an analogy, St Paul teaches in the Scriptures that every man must provide for his own household on the pain of denying his faith and being worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8), thus this apostolic command is binding upon the Christian’s conscience (the “right hand” rule) by the Word which conviction is wrought by the Holy Ghost. However, how a man goes about doing this is dependent upon his Reason (broadly speaking, let’s assume that of course he is not doing anything illegal or contrary to the law of God). If he is a financier he must use his financial knowledge to trade, if he is an engineer his engineering knowledge, etc, the point being that while the Scriptures gives us laws binding upon our conscience, the Scriptures does not teach us how to repair a car, make a business deal, when to plant our crops, or in general, how to generate household income. To know how to deal with “this-world” governed by the laws of physics and human nature, we use our God-given reason and brains via science, observation, common sense, logic, etc, to know how precisely to generate this income in obedience to the command to provide for one’s household.

    Thus in the context of this discussion, it is interesting to note that even within Protestantism there are two distinct traditions with regards to where is marriage located in the “Two Kingdoms”. Is it a special distinct Christian “spiritual” estate, a sacrament as Roman Catholicism has traditionally taught, or is it a “this-worldly” enterprise which Christians shares with non-Christians?

    Luther himself believed that marriage is a wholly “this-worldly” thing and even argued that just as a Christian can do business and trade with non-Christians or work for non-Christians or hire non-Christians, etc, likewise can a Christian marry non-Christians since marriage is a worldly physical thing on par with business, trade and government, etc.

    One does not need to go accept Luther’s inference (that Christians can marry non-Christians), to accept his more general point that marriage is a “this-worldly” affair, a civic ordinance like government, contracts, property, the military, etc. Of course it is important to note at once that a Christian, being bound by the Word of God, is bound to engage in the civic order with honesty and integrity his conscience bound to the Word of God, thus in matters of trade the Christian should not use “false weights” and cheat our customers, etc, as the Augsburg Confession of Faith puts it,

    Of Civil Affairs [we] teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage… the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men.

    Article XVI: Of Civil Affairs.

    Likewise, marriage being a “this-worldly” thing does not entail that the Christian is free to follow whatever the Zeitgeist blows but instead obeys this civic ordinance also in accordance to the Word of God, e.g. no divorces, marital duties and ordering of the genders, etc.

    Thus, although God does command in the Scriptures laws with regards to the marital life, but the Scriptures does not provide in detail how exactly the Christian is to go about doing this, just as St Paul commands in the Scriptures that Christians are to provide for their own household without telling them how they are going to do this. Thus, herein is where the insights of the manosphere, game, LAMPS, etc, comes in. These provides empirical facts and details about gender relation, biological functions, etc, which helps Christians couples to fulfil their marital obligations, etc, just as knowledge of science, engineering, economics, etc, helps the Christian farmer, engineer, stock broker, etc, earn his keep and provide for his household.

    Thus in a sense, the distinction between “non-Scriptural” and “unscriptural” is entirely correct. Newton’s theory, the law of supply and demand, vector calculus are “non-Scriptural” in the sense that they aren’t found in the Scriptures, but they aren’t “unscriptural” because they do not contradict the Scriptures, they are simply part of the order of God’s world, etc.

    It is understandable that there might be some apprehension with regards to the “Two Kingdoms” doctrine given how “over-spiritualised” many contemporary churches have made marriages, virtually denying its “this-worldly” features and entanglements, as if our bodies have already been raised with a “spiritual body” without involving any biology or the facts of anthropology, etc. And also a much deeper worry is that saying that marriage is “this-worldly” may give license to adultery and fornications and “tingles”, etc, on the basis that the laws of biology are supreme. But as already noted, although the Christian must use his reason to engage in business and trade, etc, but that does not me that he is free to rip people off, but is still bound to the laws of God in how he engages in those enterprise, likewise is the Word still supreme in the conscience with regards to the marital life.

    Therefore, just as the Christian does ask of the Father for their “daily bread”, but God does not provide this daily bread directly from the heavens as it were, but distributes it down here on earth via our reason, knowledge, our talents, our resources, our civic institutions, or more generally, via His general Providence, likewise does the Christian ask of God for purity of heart and strength to keep their marriage vows, but knowing that God provide us with the means to keep it here on earth, that is, with our brains, our physical resources, etc.

    Thus, just as It would be both irresponsible and tempting God to ask Him to “short-circuit” the process as it were, to ask him to turn stones to bread when he has already provided the seed and the land and the weather, likewise would it be tempting God to ask Him to short-circuit the process when he has already provided the means and knowledge for keeping one’s marriage vows, expecting him to magically “flick a switch” as it were to alter how we are wired, etc. But of course in times of extraordinary need, God may provide for extraordinary measures, but I trust that we aren’t talking about those exceptional cases but in the ordinary course of this world, etc.

  135. davidvs

    > I seem overly contrarian here today.
    > Oh, really? I hadn’t noticed a difference.

    I hope that is sarcasm, SSM. The change in Deti is glaring. Normally he goes out of his way to avoid talking about specific real people by name, instead using his famous crew of imaginary bad boys with humorously appropriate appellations. Today he dives immediately into the conversation with stuff about you and the other women who regularly comment, even though his observations are not entirely relevant (as you pointed out). Deti seems to be trying to be polite, but today he is acting ugly the way pus is ugly: not rude but crudely indicative that something is festering. Yet everyone is allowed an off day, and allowed our prayers for peace instead of festering.

  136. FuzzieWuzzie

    “Why are men so angry about LAMPS?”
    In one word: “Hoops”. We’re tired of jumping through them. It doesn’t work. The more hoops, the more we diminish ourselves in the eyes of those we seek to attract.
    Then she rides off with Whatshisname on the back of a Harley.

    This dredged up the biggest fitness test that I ever experienced. Back in the 70s, my mother told me flat out that it would take $100K/yr to keep a wife. At that time, incomes of that level were the province of guys who were driven to work in limosines.My dad put in his two cents worth by adding, that would be $100K/yr AFTER taxes.
    I ended up admitting to them that I never expected to make that much.
    Later, I realized what I could expect to draw by meeting that criteria- a golddigger.
    I never married. Did i pass or fail?

  137. Paul

    Back in the 70s, my mother told me flat out that it would take $100K/yr to keep a wife. At that time, incomes of that level were the province of guys who were driven to work in limosines.My dad put in his two cents worth by adding, that would be $100K/yr AFTER taxes.
    I ended up admitting to them that I never expected to make that much.
    Later, I realized what I could expect to draw by meeting that criteria- a golddigger.

    Gold-diggers are (by their very nature) secular, if they remain gold-diggers in marriage. To be a gold-digger in marriage is to disavow three of the marital vows that we are not permitted to re-write: for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health…

    attractive, healthy, pretty whore = call girl

    intelligent, expensive, calculating call girl = gold-digger

    lucky gold-digger fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time to marry a man of great financial means = trophy wife

    I never married. Did i pass or fail?

    That depends? Did you meet a Christian woman who would have loved you for life, would never have left you (looks or no looks, money or no money), would have at least “tried” to give you children, and you turned the other way? Then yes, maybe you did. If you didn’t meet this woman yet in your lifetime (and some men will live their entire lives and never meet this woman) then no, you passed.

  138. Pingback: The Christian Faith and the Manosphere : An Application of the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms | The Rationality of Faith

  139. FuzzieWuzzie

    Paul,
    No, I don’t think I ever met or got close enough to know a good wife candidate. So, I guess that i passed.
    What’s annoying me today is the realization that my own mother was a materialistic Churchian.
    Aren’t good mothers supposed to provide the model for their son”s wives? Oops!
    Since then, it’s been like drawing a landscape of somewhere I’ve never been.

  140. Deep Strength

    I think it was deti who said you only ever meet maybe 2-3 wife candidates in your lifetime.

    I’ve met 2. First I met in high school, but she went to a different college and med school out of state and it never worked out. LDRs never really do. She got married last month.

    Second I met in college. Unfortunately, I was nowhere the man I am now and had been working up the courage to ask her out. She was only single for a couple weeks when she met her then husband. Now she’s married with kids.

    I don’t think I would go back and time and change the past since my life has significantly improved since then (late 20s) and the journey to get here has been rewarding. But a wife now would indeed be a gift from God.

  141. Paul

    Fuzzie,

    Unfortunately, your parents aren’t always the best advice givers to their children when trying to help with spouses. My own father told me that I should only take a wife that “looks up to me” (which I thought was ridiculous) and my mother said she was more likely to feel “uncomfortable” if I took a wife that was very educated and intelligent. So yes, sometimes these things happen.

    The world is getting smaller but the smaller it gets, the more complicated things become as more and more variables are thrown into the pot. 30 years ago it would be unheard of for someone to run a credit history check or pull a criminal history check on a potential spouse before their nuptuals. Today, it is much more common. Don’t you want to know if your bride to be owes $25,000 on the credit cards? Would you be angry with her if she withheld that kind of information until “after?” I’ve known people who had to walk away from a spouse just a week before the marriage because they found out (almost too late) about a bankruptcy that their partner was “hiding” from the other. Given there were over 3,000,000 homes where the owners just turned the keys into the bank and just “walked-away” in the last 5 years, that bit on information would be critical before one person should marry the other. Blood tests just don’t seem to cut it anymore.

    As Christians we try to simplify these complexities as much as possible. But in the end, you may never know (until it is too late) if your spouse is a great actor on his or her best behavior hiding the fact that they are bi-polar or (gasp) BPD. That would just be awful. For secular people, they defeat these problems by living together (in sin) so they will find out for sure if their beloved is being sincere or just acting. (It is much harder to hide a mental health condition if you share a home with someone.) We have it tougher. And after we say “I do” we understand that we just entered into something sacred, something that is a gift given to us by God Almighty. So we will be left to answer to Him if we try and “game” His “system.”

  142. FuzzieWuzzie

    Observer,
    A self-shot app for cats? How appropriate!

    You opened the door to “where have all the good men gone?’ and SSM’s supportive comment of Dread game. If feminism is a society-wide fitness test, what is the response?
    Maybe a lot of the “good men” are going “hermit”. The most common complaint about internet dating from women is “that men are after one thing”. Could they be reaping what has been sown?

  143. Kate

    I find deti’s comments the most truthful regarding the realities many do not see, either because they have had no opportunity to see them, or they just do not believe they exist. As someone who has seen many sides to many issues, I recognize a soul who has been through the mill and come out the other side a wiser person. If he is in fact frustrated, I can understand why. I strongly encourage readers to study his words. As a group of people who revolve around faith, I recommend you put your faith in his analysis and advice.

  144. Hannah

    When I was only 7, I recall instantly visualising all males I met naked. Yes possibly very strange, but that’s what I did. I grew up with no tv and hadn’t been exposed to anything immodest in regard to male nudity. This continued for many years, something involuntary that would enter my brain and I would have to consciously re-clothe the person I was looking at! It wasn’t necessarily sexual, more just very revealing. I am introspective and I analyse things to a fault… but what I came up with in regards to these ‘naked moments’ was that I realised from a very early age the true MASCULINITY of ALL men.

    Put very simply, a penis is incredibly powerful.

    Translated, this means I am aware that EVERY man has power and therefore holds attraction.
    In turn, I am super sensitive to the importance of modesty to protect any interaction with a male turning sexual. One of my brothers told me that I was the only person he’d ever met that doesn’t flirt. I think this is why.

    The reason I am sharing this is because I believe I can recognise that the number one thing that women find attractive in a man is POWER.
    If society recognised God’s heirarchy and stopped pretending we are all equal, then mans attractiveness in general would rise exponentially.
    If we recognised men have a higher status than women, it immediately puts ALL women in a submissive/weaker position to ALL men. This would raise attraction.

    If we went back to a patriarchal society, men would be more dominant without being punished for being so…. this would also raise attraction.

    For what it’s worth, IMO attraction comes from recognising a man as SEXUAL first and foremost as this acknowledges man’s power and my vulnerability.
    Attraction comes from realising a man is dominant and superior through acceptance of my inferiority as the weaker sex.
    Attraction comes from men standing firm in their masculinity as this increases my awareness of my femininity.

    Examples of masculinity being shown: Not explaining/apologising for actions. Ignoring emotional responses by being a rock not an echo chamber. Being commanding – taking the lead and expecting obedient following. Being dominant by keeping me unsure of where I stand…. humour/sternness/assurance all tip the balance.
    Inviting me into HIS world under HIS conditions, not the other way around – the purpose of a woman is to love her man but the purpose of a man is to take dominion. This needs to remain constant or trouble will start brewing.

    That’s pretty much it for me – looks and physique?… Well that comes down to what the woman looks like and how sweet she is… she can choose the best looking/tallest/strongest man from the selection that present themselves in front of her based on HER attractiveness. She needs to accept that.

    (When I was around 15, a friend’s father pulled me aside and told me to make sure I didn’t marry someone less attractive than myself. I pondered on that for years. I wondered if he regretted marrying someone less attractive than himself – but they had children that went into modelling so figured it wasn’t that. I think now he was telling me that I needed to never feel ‘superior’ to my man.)

    In summary, I believe the ratio of men even being noticed by women could be inverted if we got rid of the ridiculous lie of ‘equality’.
    If women were to recognise that they were created FOR man, not vice-versa.
    This makes every single man out there very powerful indeed.

    For a girl to be worthy of such a man she needs to be:
    Young
    Attractive
    Modest
    Pure
    Sweet

    (lamPs and yamPs :))

  145. Hannah

    Money? Realised I missed out money…. truthfully I couldn’t care less!
    We have the capacity to live in gratitude and thankfulness whatever our financial situation. Can’t understand how money would actually be an ATTRACTION point… nothing physically changes in me when considering FINANCES!?! Yawn….
    Seems more like a ‘demand’ like it ticks a box rather than a raw desire factor to me.
    Maybe it’s like the age of a man… it doesn’t actually diminish attractiveness at all (unlike in women) but perhaps is more ‘practical’ to be youthful and financially secure?

  146. an observer

    Fuzzie,

    If feminism is a society-wide fitness test, what is the response?

    Here’s my response to feminism.

    Was at the supermarket this morning, basket of stuff piled up ready to check. Cute gal comes up behind with one bottle of milk, and smiles at me. I know the game; I’m supposed to say: “You go right ahead” and wave her past.

    Instead, I smile right back, then turn around and ignore her. She has to wait.

    This is what equality looks like.

  147. FuzzieWuzzie

    Hannah,
    I like! For this to happen, somehow years of main stream media indocrination would have to be overcome, not to mention silencing the “wacky” ones.
    By the way, I just realized that you’re being married is a good thing!

  148. FuzzieWuzzie

    Observer,
    I like Hannah’s solution more and,no doubt, you’ll agree. It’s a whole lot wider in scope.

  149. Jacob Ian Stalk

    SSM is right to question the validity of Donal’s LAMPS regarding what a Christian ought to do with them. Perhaps ‘non-Christian’ would a better way than “non-Scriptural” to describe them, as there’s no evidence in the NT that these are relevant to Christian life. There is certainly no support whatsoever for their acquisition in order to attract a Christian wife. Solomon certainly seems to view these five characteristics as masculine virtues but then, Solomon didn’t get it right. He isn’t the Messiah. God saw fit to bring forth Jesus to save His people, not in the manner of Solomon’s apparent support of LAMPS for a man but in the manner of self-abasement, self-sacrifice and God’s grace. The lesson of grace was the very lesson His people failed to understand throughout the ages, including Solomon, which renders the LAMPS into mere distractions; the same self-gratifying distractions the that the stiff-necked Israelites could not see were preventing them from loving God as they ought. If you believe the wisdom of Solomon ought to supersede God’s wisdom in Christ then up the garden path you will certainly go. It’s the saving grace of Jesus Christ that defines what it means to be Christian, which leads us directly away from the LAMPS.

    Let’s look at them more closely:

    Looks

    Song 5:10-16, if read with a mind towards God, is about health, vigor, tenderness, preciousness, strength, purity and sensitivity as manly virtues. It’s true, however, that many women are attracted to the good-looking, well-groomed man who carries himself well, even if none of these virtues are present. If such a man is in church, why wouldn’t women want to marry him? However, the Bible takes a different view of looks so Christians ought to consider what it says about Christ. Of Him, the Scriptures say, “He has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him …” (Isaiah 53:2). The Christian man who truly has a godly ambition to help his wife become holy and without blemish – for which they’ll both receive God’s abundant blessing – may not be recognised for his looks (or even noticed) at all.

    Athleticism

    There’s no scripture in the Bible that supports the assertion that physical athleticism is a mark of manhood. On the contrary, the Apostle Paul himself placed a greater weight on spiritual exercise than bodily exercise (1 Tim. 4:8). While it’s true that men are generally more athletic than women, this is not always the case, and women can be just as fit as, or fitter than, men. Either way, this is simply not the focus of NT Scripture. The focus is on God’s strength and how Christians are to use it to prune sin from their lives in order that they can both live and spread the Gospel. If we declare athleticism to have anything at all to do with right manhood, we’re essentially declaring hostility towards any man who isn’t athletically inclined.

    Money

    Jesus declared that “a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15) and yet here we are debating whether or not what He says is true. It’s true that in most churches and in the feeble hearts of pew-warming women that men are expected to be “providers”, even though modern women are perfectly capable of providing materially for themselves, their men and their families. Church men are very often measured against their peers in this regard, often to the point of female excommunication. This, like athleticism, is a false metric used by the faithless to create God in their own image. If we assert that the lessons of the bible are for women as much as men, then in what way are Christian women to not also provide for their men? Through the lens of Christ, biblical provision is surely referring to much more than mere money, which both men and women are capable of making. Christ renders the lesson of 1 Tim 5:8 into a spiritual one where adherence to God’s Word, love, care, forgiveness and emotional support are the means of provision.

    Power

    In contrast to our culture’s idolatry of the powerful, the attitude God expects of men is deference to His power. God has no use for men who think they succeed through their own abilities. A man who exerts the power within himself is declaring his independence from the One who nourishes and sustains him (Deut. 8:1-18). David, a powerful man, surely knew what that meant (Psalm 131). Men and women need to realize that as human beings we are as helpless and vulnerable as the day we were born (Job 1:21). Affirming this is not the same as being timid or passive but it is a sober realization of how our emotional, mental, and physical abilities all depend on the Lord. All glory is for Him. When both men and women understand and appreciate these truths, they will pause and hesitate before speaking about power.

    Status

    If we’re talking about worldly status, then presumably it is vocation and/or skills that we’re upholding. Careerism is idolatry. Christians are no more entitled to a satisfying job that engages the full extent of their talents than they are to looks, a beautiful body or wealth. It may please God to put Christians in low-paying, boring jobs beneath their level of education, pedigree or expertise. If anything, God wants us to perform necessary tasks that others may consider to be unimportant, “He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much” (Luke 16:10).

    If we’re talking about church status, then it would be well to consider that even the Pharisees held a place of importance. Jesus said they sat in the seat of Moses (Matt. 23:1-3) and yet we know what He thought of them. You may stand in front of church and declare some truth, but you have no reason to boast. Consider the attitude the Apostle Paul had toward his ministry (1 Cor. 15:9-10) and consider whether your “ministry” makes you any less wretched in your sin.

    In conclusion, the LAMPS are little more than the serpents sales pitch to Eve. Church women who say they want men who exhibit these fruits of the world are still feeling the serpent’s seductive poison. They ought to seriously ask themselves whether they are worthy of church marriage at all, let alone to a faithful man. Do they want a man who can secure worldly riches for them as Solomon did for his courtiers, or do they want a man who is ambitious enough to cultivate Christ’s character within himself and present her to God as “holy and without blemish” (Eph 5:27)? Men and women of faith ought to be a lot more discerning about pre-marital demands in these areas and consider whether the LAMPS are anything more than evidence that the serpent is squaring up its target.

  150. donalgraeme

    The above comment by Jacob Ian Stalk is a perfect example of Blue Pill or Churchian thinking. Just as others like him, he cannot separate what women find attractive in a man from those traits that are desirable in a man. The following line alone says it all:

    There is certainly no support whatsoever for their acquisition in order to attract a Christian wife.

    The sad thing is that his views are those of the majority. Much work lies ahead.

  151. deti

    “I think it was deti who said you only ever meet maybe 2-3 wife candidates in your lifetime.”

    I attributed the theory to Badger, who originated it and expounded on it. I quoted it because my experience bore it out.

  152. thehap

    SSM, are you in contact with Karamazov? If so, can you pass along my e-mail address to him? I’d like to talk to him.

    [ssm: Sure, no problem.]

  153. Jacob Ian Stalk

    @donalgraeme

    The things women find desirable in a man are obvious to anyone who goes through life with their eyes and ears open. My argument is not concerned with women’s desire or how this differs from what men desire for themselves, as these are not the purpose of Scripture, but with what God wants. This is neither Blue Pill nor Churchian, but biblical. Argue from Scripture by all means.

  154. BradA

    I am way behind in reading, but I would tend to argue that Christian men need to be taught how to be godly alphas (or at least to significantly build those traits). Women should never seek non-Christian alphas, since that violates the Scriptural command to be unequally yoked. They do need some basic attraction though. They should be taught to avoid the world’s view of attraction and to be attracted to the same alpha Christian men that are being built up.

    That would be tough to implement and may not happen in the near future, but that is certainly what I would recommend aiming for.

  155. BradA

    One other answer to the base question: It depends on who you are trying to be attractive to!

    Trying to be attractive to someone outside the marriage is not a godly trait. It would seem that Proverbs talks about a woman who does that in very unflattering terms.

  156. BradA

    @MWMM,

    > Our faith is not dependent on the Bible.

    What faith do you have then? Mine is definitely founded on God’s written Word to us.

  157. BradA

    @SSM,

    > while I know that no one in the manosphere ever has much sympathy for women

    That is something that is ultimately very shortsighted, especially by those who claim to follow Christ. Expecting women to be perfect is just as foolish as expecting men to be perfect. Both are not going to work.

    This got me thinking of

    Pro 5:18 NKJV – Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
    Pro 5:19 NKJV – [As a] loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love.

    This implies that men to have a responsibility to control their attraction vector. I don’t think this negates the need for a wife to stay as attractive as she can, but it is also necessary that he keep his focus on the right things. After all, the grass is truly always greener elsewhere, until we get there.

    I am not sure the full implications of this, but it is something to consider.

    ====

    One other general thought: It is certainly important that we get over the “wife as Holy Spirit” meme, but that does not mean a man should stay in foolish behavior just because his wife happened to note it to him. Should he keep watching sports all day, just to show that his wife’s desire to not have him do that (however it is expressed) not control him? He is much better off finding truth wherever he can and seek to be God’s ideal.

    I am constantly doing that as I can. I know my wife would like some changes, but she has learned that no one can really control me after almost 25 years of marriage (in August).

    Your (SSM) comment about the “bad boy” attraction may fit us. My wife didn’t love it when I mentioned it, but I see that it has some factor since I do whatever I am determined to do. Fortunately for both of us, I am aimed at serving my Lord and continually work on perfecting that.

    I think these issues all play a role in a successful Christian marriage.

  158. Pingback: Daily Linkage – June 22, 2013 | The Dark Enlightenment

  159. Looking Glass

    @Jacob Ian Stalk:

    You somehow completely missed the point where donal was being descriptive. Which renders pretty much everything your wrote meaningless and off point. And, further, apparently you think 99% of Women should be kicked out of churches and all Men should be monks.

    As to the second comment, wow. Just wow. How badly have you been burned?

  160. Novaseeker

    The divide here seems to be between the following points of view:

    1. Christians shouldn’t focus on being attractive, per se, but should focus one being Christian according to scriptural command, because in doing so they will more or less automatically become attractive to the opposite sex who are themselves Christian as a side effect; and

    2. Christians shouldn’t be precluded from focusing on building up their attraction, because this isn’t prohibited by scripture, and certain passages in scripture can be argued to support it.

    This is pretty much the same debate that has been had about this issue — worded differently here, but the same in substance — for years now in this part of the internet. It’s a rather large philosophical divide, and one in which people only rarely cross the lines — I suspect it is rather disposition-based, as a result.

  161. van Rooinek

    The divide here seems to be between the following points of view:
    1. Christians shouldn’t focus on being attractive, per se, but should focus one being Christian according to scriptural command, because in doing so they will more or less automatically become attractive to the opposite sex who are themselves Christian as a side effect;

    IF THAT WORKED, THERE WOULDN’T BE A CHRISTIAN MANOSPHERE, NOR A NEED FOR ONE. YES, I’M USING ALL CAPS BECAUSE I’M E-SHOUTING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Legions of decent Christian men have followed EXACTLY that advice and have eventually turned on the church in anger when they figured out that it DOES. NOT. WORK.

    Those who think this DOES work, INVARIABLY come from the ranks of those who have a generous helping of NATURAL attractiveness (physique, charisma, status…) It worked for THEM because of their natural attractiveness, NOT their spiritual walk. However it’s almost impossible to get such people to understand this, and they continue to give bad advice that doesn’t work for the vast majority of the population.

    Ross Clark addressed this many years ago in his classic essay, “Talkdown” — emphasis mine:

    The process by which some Christians get married and others remain single rarely involves supernatural intervention. Rather, people’s attraction in the romance stakes follows a distribution from drop-dead gorgeous, through to drop-dead at the thought of it.

    They who have get all the attention they want, and much that they don’t. Those who aren’t perceived to be attractive are left out. Despite bitter protestations to the contrary, Christians are no different in this respect—but no-one will ever admit it!

    To compensate, leaders sometimes suggest that their charges work on their Christian life. But being a good Christian does not, in itself, improve your chances. In fact, it just highlights what is already there. The attractive are more attractive still; the naturally less-attractive are levered right out of the running, as if living in the Light shows up the bugs all the more. The stronger the Christian life, the more this effect can be seen at work.

    Perhaps this is why dating is so disliked amongst the (married) youth leadership; it creates a culture of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’, and it can lead to other discipline problems.

    It is with good reason that youth leaders are afraid of ‘losing people’ if they were to admit the reality of who gets the relationships and who doesn’t—that it is about your own natural attraction, not whether God ‘has’ someone for you. Those who are attractive don’t need to stay in Christian circles to get what they want; those who aren’t are left with nothing to stay for.

    Source: http://singleness.org/talkdown.shtml
    (disclaimer: I do NOT endorse most of the content of Singleness.org — in my single days I found it useless and hurtful. This one essay, however, is a shining exception.)

  162. van Rooinek

    I should amend one paragraph of that:

    Those who are actually married, and yet who think this DOES work, INVARIABLY come from the ranks of those who have a generous helping of NATURAL attractiveness (physique, charisma, status…) It worked for THEM because of their natural attractiveness, NOT their spiritual walk. However it’s almost impossible to get such people to understand this, and they continue to give bad advice that doesn’t work for the vast majority of the population.

  163. Sarah's Daughter

    @deti
    With regard to the female manosphere bloggers, that strong sexual attraction is what makes your marriages succeed and is the glue that holds you together. It’s what got you with your husbands; and it’s what keeps you together.

    …successful manosphere marriages, at least those of the women who run blogs and comment in and around these parts, are driven by hard sexual attraction and not by other factors.

    Strong sexual attraction makes for successful marriages – true.
    What makes for strong sexual attraction? All the other factors.

    For me, there has been a notable change in my sexual attraction to RLB since I repented of my rebellion and obeyed God’s commands for marriage.

    As Stingray said and SSM agreed:
    I agree with you. If she lets herself truly let go, she will see him differently. Maybe even as a new Man.

    [ssm: Yes, I think your right – she has to really let go. I’m going to write something up about this and see what other people think.]

    It was all the other factors that brought me to biblical submission.

    All the other factors –> my biblical submission –> intense sexual attraction

    There’s no way for me to prove to anyone that there was a period of time in our marriage that my husband was a Delta push-over/nice guy who was in rebellion to God’s command for him in marriage (love – as he wrote about today: Love is the command, not trust. Couple that with my rebellion and you’ll understand that the intense sexual attraction was not always present.

    Push-over/niceguy + rebellion –> weak sexual attraction

  164. Sarah's Daughter

    van Rooinek, your perception of a strong Christian walk/life is different than my husband’s is today. While he was deployed, he read and reread Job, again and again. He immersed himself in his Bible. He learned what loving your wife as Jesus Christ loves the Church actually means. After nine months he came home a very different man. Good thing he is a Christian because he couldn’t help women being attracted to him.

  165. Miserman

    BradA wrote, … I would tend to argue that Christian men need to be taught how to be godly alphas (or at least to significantly build those traits).

    One of the accusations leveled against men and male headship by feminists is that there an inherently cruelty toward women engrained within. Thus, an “alpha” is the same as an oppressive wife-beater. However, Christianity is a religion predicated and anchored on benevolence (kindness) and Christian male headship is to be held as a benevolent environment. I would say that being both resolute (power and status) while allowing for compassion is important.

    [ssm: Agreed.]

  166. van Rooinek

    van Rooinek, your perception of a strong Christian walk/life is different than my husband’s is today…He learned what loving your wife as Jesus Christ loves the Church actually means

    This statement of yours involves multiple unwarranted assumptions about me. My wife is the right person to refute you, but unfortunately she doesn’t care for blogging.

    Good thing he is a Christian because he couldn’t help women being attracted to him.

    And there it is… He’s attractive on natural grounds, so, it’s a good thing he’s a Christian. This is totally the opposite of the bad church advice which tells men that if they just focus on growing in faith, they’ll “become” more attractive. In effect you’ve just conceded the argument.

    [ssm: Sometimes guys with a lot of natural charisma, when they first start living the Christian life, become less attractive. That happened to HHG. Once they really understand the difference between Christianity and Churchianity, they tend to become even more attractive than they had been before. Perhaps that is how it was for RLB, too?]

  167. van Rooinek

    One of the accusations leveled against men and male headship by feminists is that there an inherently cruelty toward women engrained within.

    …. a cruelty to which women are paradoxically drawn: the jerk phenomenon.

    However, Christianity is a religion predicated and anchored on benevolence (kindness) and Christian male headship is to be held as a benevolent environment.

    Unforunately, as I pointed out on another thread, benevolence often looks less masculine than it really is. Kindness is mistaken for weakness

  168. Sarah's Daughter

    van Rooinek,
    You seemed to miss this part:
    “After nine months he came home a very different man.” – in fact, you completely missed the point of what I said in that comment and the previous one.

    He’s attractive on natural grounds, so, it’s a good thing he’s a Christian.

    This is not what I said. At all.

    My apologies to you though, it may not be your perception that is different than my husband’s, it is likely what churches are teaching that is so different. My husband does not submit to what most modern churches teach men regarding a Christian walk – especially when it comes to marriage.

  169. van Rooinek

    it may not be your perception that is different than my husband’s, it is likely what churches are teaching that is so different. My husband does not submit to what most modern churches teach men regarding a Christian walk – especially when it comes to marriage.

    Neither do I. I don’t submit to what most modern churches teach on marriage — because they got it so completely wrong on singleness. As I noted above.

  170. Sarah's Daughter

    ssm: Sometimes guys with a lot of natural charisma, when they first start living the Christian life, become less attractive. That happened to HHG. Once they really understand the difference between Christianity and Churchianity, they tend to become even more attractive than they had been before. Perhaps that is how it was for RLB, too?

    Yes, to an extent. RLB never bought into the churchian way…I did. And, because I was in rebellion, I compared him to the churchian men I was seeing. I started telling him what he should be doing that my churchian books were saying are what women actually want. So we were stuck. He was still a heathen in my eyes because he wasn’t doing churchy things and supplicating things. I was coveting and envious of other women’s marriages because they looked good and smelled good (and were big fat fake lies). RLB was VERY cynical and would walk out of churchian churches (without considering how much he was embarrassing meeeee! ;) )
    He would cave now and then and do some of the marriage books things that I was demanding but it didn’t make me feel any more attracted to him. Man, was I confused. We must just not be right for each other. What is he doing wrong? How can we fix him? (Wasn’t I a peach?)

    So, when he came back from Africa, a changed man who WAS NEVER going to cave again, who was even more convicted that all that churchian crap was wrong, you can imagine he became even more attractive to me than ever before in our relationship.

  171. Sarah's Daughter

    I should write a post about this but I’m still sensitive to how stupid I was. I used to mock him when he’d reject something a churchian pastor/man would say. I would say in the most rebellious bitchy tone: “oh, so we go to the Church of Ben…got it.”

    Ummm, yes, SD…you idiot. Read your Bible and stop skipping over the parts you don’t like!

  172. peoplegrowing

    Pondering the issue a bit more. Donal’s LAMPs attraction vectors leave a lot to be desired in my book as well, to be honest.
    Most men would up their “game” exponentially by being unmoved by a woman’s beauty (hide it if you must) and by letting her know three things:
    1. You can take her or leave her
    2. You will not be a special project
    3. She will not tell you what to do.

    But these things are all strongly indicative of Power/Masculinity, which Donal ascribed as the most valuable attraction factor himself. They are also inherently setting the man up to have a higher relational status than the woman. A man who can confidently do/believe in 1-3 is displaying high value, which is what most of the Game I’ve read is all about.

    If someone can’t hear non-Game, then they can think of it this way: Aloofness cannot abide with concern.

    Beautifully concise.

    Legions of decent Christian men have followed EXACTLY that advice and have eventually turned on the church in anger when they figured out that it DOES. NOT. WORK.

    This assumes that these Christian men were actually really working on following scripture, and not following Churchian advice. It’s pretty well established in these parts that MOST churches aren’t really preaching Christian values, but rather watered down, easily palatable, feel-good advice. I’m not trying to fault men for doing what churches and churchians told them (in theory you should be able to rely on your leaders for good, honest leadership) but that is the state of things. They did what they were TOLD and not what was BIBLICAL.

    Finally, I’m surprised no one else has quoted this yet in response to the original post, so I hope that doesn’t mean I’ve misinterpreted it, but….

    8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
    …..
    32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
    1 Cor 7:8-9, 32-35
    As far as I can tell, Paul is stating that (if you can manage without burning in lust as mentioned earlier in the chapter) it is good to be unmarried, because you can follow God with single-minded devotion. On the other hand, it is better to marry than to burn. Yet Paul makes it clear that marriage is a “concern” that distracts from single-minded devotion to God.
    Now, paying attention to your marriage doesn’t mean you give up paying attention to God, but it does seem to me that Paul is making allowance for the fact that you will have to spend time on your marriage. Does this not affirm that doing what is necessary to maintain your marriage (including generating/maintaining sexual attraction) is at least expected and permissible, even if it runs the risk of taking SOME (not all) of your time and SOME (not all) of your focus from God?

  173. The Ringmistress

    It just struck me, perhaps the disconnect that occurs when men ask “What do women want in a husband?” is that they’re saying “Given equally marriageable men, what do you find attractive?” and women are hearing “Given equally attractive men, what would you consider marriage material?”

    Because all the loves kids, good provider, devout stuff matters. But it’s like a girl having a decent mind and good housekeeping skills; what makes an otherwise attractive person worth keeping for the long term.

  174. Cane Caldo

    @peoplegrowing

    “This assumes that these Christian men were actually really working on following scripture, and not following Churchian advice.”

    On point. I was emailing back and forth with a man and he was giving me flack about how my advice was no good: He’d been reading his Bible, going to church, etc. I asked him how he was reading it:

    “Honest question: Do you read your Bible with the intent of looking for how this should affect your view of what it means to be a man? I know I used to read it, and think sort of nebulously about how this would make me a “better Christian””

    He responded:

    “Anyway, to answer your question, I haven’t really read my Bible in a while […]. When I did read it, I always did so with the mindset of being a nicer Christian. Which is a huge Frame kill right now that I think about it.”

    [ssm: You know, I think you’ve hit on exactly the route my husband took. He started reading his Bible with certain Churchian ideals in mind, and with the (worthy but incomplete) goal of becoming a better Christian, and more to the point, with the goal of trying to stop a particular sin that is a weakness for him. Once he started reading the Bible with an eye toward pondering what it means to be a man, and insisting that I see it that way, too, he changed how he went about living as a Christian man. He had farther to go with the good Christian part than other people might because he was an atheist for so long, but he really didn’t have to change much with regard to being a man.]

  175. Cail Corishev

    Argue from Scripture by all means.

    This is basically a cheat, when the subject being argued isn’t addressed directly by Scripture. It’s like if someone says Buick makes the best cars, so you tell him to back that up with Scripture; then when he can’t, you declare yourself the argument winner.

    Again: Scripture does not say “thou shalt make thyself sexually attractive to thy spouse,” nor does it say “thou shalt not make thyself sexually attractive to thy spouse.” IT’S NOT IN THERE. Sorry to all the people who want to think you can find a scripture verse that speaks directly to every choice you make in life, but it’s just not.

    It does, however, say “wives submit to your husbands” and “husbands love your wives.” So we have to figure out if those include making ourselves sexually attractive to them. It should take about 5 seconds to see that they do (you’re not being submissive or loving if you spoil your spouse’s pleasure in the marriage act), so then the question is how to do it, how much emphasis to put on it, and how to keep it in the right frame or perspective. Those are actually useful questions to ask.

    [ssm: So, I hope you don’t mind if I put those useful questions in bold to draw people’s attention to them.]

  176. Cail Corishev

    1. Christians shouldn’t focus on being attractive, per se, but should focus one being Christian according to scriptural command, because in doing so they will more or less automatically become attractive to the opposite sex who are themselves Christian as a side effect

    A big part of the problem is that the idea of what a “good Christian” is has been so skewed. We’ve had a lifetime of “turn the other cheek” and almost no “drive out the evildoers.” Kids in catechism and Sunday school classes get a steady diet of “Jesus loves me” and never learn about Hell or demons. St. Francis is presented as a tree-hugging animal rights activist instead of the radical soldier for Christ that he was.

    So the man who tries to be a “good Christian” will do….what? In another era, he might have picked up his sword and joined a crusade to take the Holy Land back from the infidels. But today, if he’s had the usual training, it means he tries to be nice (though “obsequious” would be a better word. Especially towards women, he tries to be helpful, kind, unthreatening, admiring…. He thinks he’s being chivalrous and gentlemanly, and ultimately, Christian. He’s never been taught that there’s a hard side to Christianity, the “not peace but a sword” side, that he’s missing out on.

    So there is a way that being a “good Christian man” can coincide with being attractive to women. It’s probably fair to say that that would be the True way to be a “good Christian man.” But that meaning is so foreign to today’s man that before he can apply it, he has to unlearn what he’s been taught and relearn what “Christian” means in the first place.

    [ssm: Yes, this is exactly why Christian men seem so unappealing. Christian women find them too accepting and passive, too supplicating and too likely to fail fitness tests (for example, when a man’s wife says she’s going to spend a bunch of HIS money on throwing a baby shower for the single mom who got pregnant again after starting to attend church, he lets her instead of telling her HELL NO. That is a fitness test FAIL, Christian Man.]

  177. freebird

    W/o the beta hangers on:
    1.There is no context for ‘alpha’ to shine.
    2.The costs of the soft harem all go to the alpha
    3.The wymyn will get bored and unattracted as the framework of status is removed.

    For women, with the beta hangers on removed:
    1.No friend zone benefits,including free furniture moving,car repair,ect.
    2.More load on her ‘alpha’ to be the entertainment center.
    3.Less ball busting satisfaction from the coven crowd,no fresh bodies to crow over.

    Yes,MGTOW fixes the alpha fucks beta bucks paradigm.

    Once deprived of the free ride for several generations,women may begin to consider rational dealings.

    In the meantime,have some popcorn and enjoy the decline.

    We’re not gonna support the thug spawn of another man,single moms,bed.made.lie.

    My kids or no kid.
    Hell is for you,not for me.

  178. freebird

    Yes.the good churchian beta-boy will perform all the grunt husband work with none of the sex reward and all of the legal risk of false accusation.

    If God could speak he would be warning and punishing.

    In fact,Soddom and Gomorra.

    Never look back,you can never look back.

    Buy hey,whatever the traffic will bear,right?
    That IS the definition of morality,right?

    Hmm?

    churchians.

    Here is a clue:
    God is a god of vengeance,it’s what e does best when you mess up the natural order.

    Thence comes death,always on the heels of SIN.

  179. donalgraeme

    Going to time to respond to all of the points raised in the comments, but here is a brief one:

    My “LAMPS” theory/idea was merely an attempt to understand what it was that women found sexually attractive in men. It was never meant as a philosophy. I created it in response to the Churchian message which teaches that women are attracted to niceness, kindness, etc. I knew those to be untrue, so I sought to explain what was true.

    LAMPS isn’t meant as a map or guidebook. Like the Red Pill in general, it is about getting out the truth concerning human nature and human sexuality. What you do with that knowledge is something else entirely.

  180. sunshinemary Post author

    Donal
    I think the important thing to note is that no one is recommending LAMPS as being prescriptive – it’s just describing what ALL women (Christian and non-) find sexually attractive in a man. It’s not saying that the Bible says that we are supposed to DO anything in particular about it. And I specifically chose Bible verses from Song of Songs that showed the woman was sexually attracted to those characteristics, but which didn’t imply that the Bible says a man has to do anything in particular. As you say, a man should do with this knowledge what seems right to him after has has studied God’s word and prayed for guidance.

  181. freebird

    “He learned what loving your wife as Jesus Christ loves the Church actually means.”

    Christ loved the church so much he took a WHIP to the money lenders,then the Roman’s crucified him at the behest of same money lenders.

    The End.

    That is where real ‘loving’ leads,a power struggle where “The Law” is the ultimate winner.

    What is “The Law’ In your area?

    Are men defacto convicts in waiting upon accusation of “abuse” in power struggles?

    The spirit (of the law) giveth life,but letter of the law killeth.

    There is one,ONE single issue for would be Christain pro-family advocates to focus upon,and it ain’t what whoever is doing with their crotch.

    Word

  182. Novaseeker

    This is totally the opposite of the bad church advice which tells men that if they just focus on growing in faith, they’ll “become” more attractive. In effect you’ve just conceded the argument.

    Well, what they are really saying is that if you think you are focusing on growing in faith, and it isn’t working with attracting women, you’re doing it wrong — that is, you’re not really growing in faith, and you’re not really being a Christian.

  183. freebird

    Wow yeah,the baby showers for unmarried harlots in the churches,the gay and lesbian weddings.

    I need to go for a walk,too much righteous indignation.

    I hope it all burns/turns to salt.

    Purified,that is to say,by a cleansing FORCE.

  184. sunshinemary Post author

    Free Bird

    Wow yeah,the baby showers for unmarried harlots in the churches

    Yep. Christianity Today, as usual, leads the charge:

    Hold Baby Showers, Not Political Debates: How to approach unplanned pregnancies with Christian grace and acceptance.

    From the article:

    I’ve heard accounts from single women whose churches would not hold baby showers for them when they were faced with unplanned pregnancies. A Christian response of grace, acceptance and support would look more like this:

    – We can acknowledge that pregnancy is not a sin. Rather, sex outside the context of marriage is the sin. We can also acknowledge that many more Christians are engaged in sexual immorality, including pornography, than just women who get pregnant. We must talk about our theology of sexual purity all the time and with everyone involved, not just women facing unplanned pregnancy.

    – We then can apply grace. We all need God’s forgiveness through the blood of Christ, and grace offers us the path towards transformation through the power of the Spirit.

    – We can commit to supporting women, both emotionally and practically, regardless of whether the pregnancy is planned or unplanned. This can include holding baby showers, counseling a woman throughout the pregnancy, or reaching out to single moms.

  185. peoplegrowing

    Not the oh-so-subtle reframe by CT: It’s not an “out of wedlock” pregnancy, it’s merely “unplanned” – even though married couples could have an “unplanned” pregnancy and there would be no reason for any “political debate” on that issue.

  186. donalgraeme

    @ SD, vR and SSM

    This is a complicated area. I think that for some men, if they become truly righteous, if they are filled with the Spirit and let it drive them, then that can be something which women find attractive. That drive, that sense of purpose leaves a man with the aura of “being on a mission”, and women are often attracted to that kind of attitude. It falls under the “Power” attribute.

    However, I’m not sure that it is something which applies to all men. It certainly isn’t the case for all men that as they become more devout and dedicated to their faith, women find them more attractive. At this point, I can’t say if it is something unique to individual men, or if for some men the reason why it works is because they aren’t following the Churchian script.

    Given this uncertainty, I think that the safest course of action is to simply inform Christian men not to follow what the Churchian’s teach about masculinity.

  187. Deep Strength

    @ Donal

    Yeah, I’m thinking along the same lines. I don’t know if it applies to everyone.

    But I know it applies to some including myself because I can see the effects of being excellent in my profession which God has given me passion for and the like.

    Perhaps a good analogy for this is the passage from James 2. Faith without actions is dead.

    Basically, the Christian traits in and of themselves are not attractive (the faith), but living out those traits as a mission from God is attractive (actions). However, if you are living out your faith from a churcian perspective it’s not attractive because the faith is a lie and thus the actions are a lie.

  188. The Ringmistress

    @SSM, re: baby showers for harlots

    I think there is a problem with treating out-of-wedlock pregnancy as equal to pregnancy within marriage.

    However, if we restore a sense of shame about out-of-wedlock pregnancy without a moral framework that also shames premarital sex, what you create is a perverse incentive to abortion.

    Shame connected to a sense of falling short of the moral law can lead to acting more virtuously. Shame connected to a sense of social opprobrium will only.cause one to hide the source of shame (or more correctly, embarrassment).

    The crisis pregnancy apostolate td my former parish would hold baby showers for the girls they were counselling. But it was part of a broader mission.

  189. rosa377

    Hi Mary,

    I found your blog about 2 days ago and I’m glad to see someone standing up to the hatred that is feminism. However, i feel it is my duty as a Christian to point out something which you are wrong about. I read your post entitled “The sexual feminism of married Christian women” and while I agree with you on many points, you are wrong about one: the controversial topic of oral sex. Oral sex is actually considered sodomy, which the Bible says is a sin. According to the dictionary, sodomy is defined as “anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says, “Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”

    Why is it wrong if it’s done between a husband and wife? Because they are, in fact, having homosexual sex; this includes anal and oral sodomy. If God says it’s not alright for homosexuals to do it, then why would he permit a man and wife to have oral or anal sex? The Bible says the marriage bed is undefiled, but that doesn’t mean you have a license to do that which the Lord considers “unnatural.” The word “sodomite” is not exclusive to homosexuals, but can be applied to heterosexuals as well.

    And I am no prude, I assure you, but I think it’s wrong of you to call women who are disgusted by oral sex “entitled princesses.” Perhaps they feel disgusted because they are not meant to find such acts pleasurable or arousing.

    Apart from everything I’ve mentioned, I quite like your blog actually, but it would have been wrong, as a Christian, not to say anything about it. I correct not in hatred, but rather in love of the truth.

    “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.” Galatians 6:1

    “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.” 1 Timothy 5:20

    **Best Regards

    [ssm: Welcome, Rosa. Thank you for your comment. I understand that it was motivated by genuine concern. At this point, I do not agree with your interpretation, but I am hesitatant to get into this again. The last time I debated this with a bunch of TradCats, the conversation left, ahem, a bad taste in my mouth.]

  190. Elspeth

    I think that for some men, if they become truly righteous, if they are filled with the Spirit and let it drive them, then that can be something which women find attractive. That drive, that sense of purpose leaves a man with the aura of “being on a mission”, and women are often attracted to that kind of attitude. It falls under the “Power” attribute.

    Yes, and women are naturally intrigued by a man who is so consumed with something else that she has to work to keep his attention. This of course, so long as he pays her enough attention that she knows he’s interested.

    Of course, she will work overtime trying to make herself the center of his attention. And if she succeeds, she will promptly seem bored. Which is why he needs to make sure she doesn’t succeed at getting him off mission.

  191. Looking Glass

    @Cail:

    I have a shorter version, that normally works well:

    “Less ‘kind’ Jesus, more ‘nasty’ Jesus, a lot more Joshua”.

    The Church, almost to the whole, has forgotten that the book of Joshua exists. Joshua was God’s own appointed Warlord. Warlord.

    Joshua 1:1-9: (NKJV)

    1 After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, it came to pass that the Lord spoke to Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant, saying: 2 “Moses My servant is dead. Now therefore, arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them—the children of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the River Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory. 5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you. 6 Be strong and of good courage, for to this people you shall divide as an inheritance the land which I swore to their fathers to give them. 7 Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper wherever you go. 8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. 9 Have I not commanded you? Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”

  192. Looking Glass

    Did we make it 160 comments before oral sex came up? That’s pretty good for around here.

  193. Sarah's Daughter

    So lemme get this straight, I can kiss/lick/suck on any part of my husband’s body except his penis? If I should do this I am engaging in homosexual sex? This is just flippin bizarre.

  194. Elspeth

    @ SD:

    The theology is that you can kiss, lick, suck whatever you and your husband likes so long as ejaculation occurs in the vagina. Anything place else is considered sodomy according to Catholicism and some Protestant denominations.

    [ssm: Except Catholics don’t agree whether or not you can kiss, lick or suck your husband’s penis with or without ejaculation. I have had Catholics tell me so long as he doesn’t come outside your vagina, it’s all good. Then others have told me any mouth-to-genitals activity is a sin. So I don’t know what they really believe at this point.]

  195. Alte

    Well, there’s always someone trying to be holier than the pope. I had someone tell me that it’s a sin to change my blog tagline, so whatever.

  196. Fuzzie Wuzzie

    I’m so confused about all of this. Anyway, as a celibate boy bear, it has no application beyond the academic.
    Anybody seen any girl bears out there on the prowl?
    They’re easy to spot. They’re wearing pink miniskirts and holding pink parasols.

  197. grey_whiskers

    @Paul on June 21, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    I have known divorced pastors.

    Some let go of high standards and/or goals. They stopped striving. They put life on cruise control to maintain what they had. That became soil in which sloth or pride or entitlement (avarita) took root.

    Some stopped fearing only God, or never had that quality to begin with.

    Or, some just picked the wrong spouses.

    Here’s an interesting quote from C.S. Lewis — a scene from That Hideous Strength where Jane Studdock first meets The Director (Elwin Ransom) and they are discussing marriage in general, and her marriage to Mark Studdock in particular:

    “But is it really necessary?” she began. “I don’t think I look on marriage quite as you do—”

    “Child,” said the Director, ” it is not a question of how you or I look on marriage but how my Masters look on it.”

    “They would never think of finding out first whether Mark and I believed in their ideas of marriage?”

    “Well-no,” said the Director with a curious smile. “They wouldn’t think of doing that.”

    “And would it make no difference to them what a marriage was actually like . . . whether it was a success ? Whether the woman loved her husband?” Jane had not intended to say this. “But I suppose you will say I oughtn’t to have told you that,” she added.

    “My dear child,” said the Director, ” you have been telling me that ever since your husband was mentioned.”

    “Does it make no difference?”

    “I suppose,” said the Director, ” it would depend on how he lost your love.”

    Jane was silent.

    “I don’t know,” she said at last. “I suppose our marriage was just a mistake.”

    The Director said nothing.

    “What would you-what would the people you are talking of say about a case like that?”

    “I will tell you if you really want to know,” said the Director.

    “Please,” said Jane reluctantly.

    “They would say,” he answered, ” that you do not fail in obedience through lack of love, but have lost love because you never attempted obedience.”

    Something in Jane that would normally have reacted to such a remark with anger was banished by the fact that the word obedience-but certainly not obedience to Mark- came over her, in that room, like a strange oriental perfume, perilous, seductive. . . .

    “Stop it!” said the Director sharply. Jane stared at him, open-mouthed: the exotic fragrance faded away.

    “You were saying, my dear?” resumed the Director. “I thought love meant equality,” she said. “Ah, equality!” said the Director. “Yes; we must all be guarded by equal rights from one another’s greed, because we are fallen. Just as we wear clothes for the same reason. But the naked body should be there underneath the clothes. Equality is not the deepest thing, you know.”

    “I always thought that was just what it was. I thought it was in their souls that people were equal.”

    “You were mistaken; that is the last place where they are equal. Equality before the law, equality of incomes- that is very well. Equality guards life; it doesn’t make it. It is medicine, not food.”

    “But surely in marriage . . .?”

    “Worse and worse,” said the Director. “Courtship knows nothing of it; nor does fruition. They never warned you. No one has ever told you that obedience- humility-is an erotic necessity. You are putting equality just where it ought not to be. As to your coming here, that may admit of some doubt. For the present, I must -send you back. You can come out and see us. In the meantime, talk to your husband and I will talk to my authorities.”

  198. Elspeth

    Except Catholics don’t agree whether or not you can kiss, lick or suck your husband’s penis with or without ejaculation. I have had Catholics tell me so long as he doesn’t come outside your vagina, it’s all good. Then others have told me any mouth-to-genitals activity is a sin. So I don’t know what they really believe at this point.

    It is my understanding that Catholicism does allow oral stimulation during lovemaking between a husband and a wife. I just clicked a bit and found this at beginningcatholic.com:

    Like many sexual actions, oral genital stimulation is not inherently good or bad as long as it’s not used as an alternative to intercourse, or to achieve male orgasm.

    Christian oral sex can’t deliberately result in male climax. That would not be keeping open to fertility. (Female orgasm is not under the same restriction!)

  199. Looking Glass

    @Elspeth:

    Why does that quote still scream “We have to throw a bit of Feminine Imperative in!” to me?

  200. grey_whiskers

    @The Ringmistress on June 22, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    It just struck me, perhaps the disconnect that occurs when men ask “What do women want in a husband?” is that they’re saying “Given equally marriageable men, what do you find attractive?” and women are hearing “Given equally attractive men, what would you consider marriage material?”

    Because all the loves kids, good provider, devout stuff matters. But it’s like a girl having a decent mind and good housekeeping skills; what makes an otherwise attractive person worth keeping for the long term.

    In other words “what do you want in a man” has different answers, depending on whether she is seeking a boyfriend, or is in an LTR and is trying to get him to commit.

    But of course this is begging the question, for in order to *get* married, you have to excite / interest / arouse her enough that she wants to have a relationship with you, and then be smitten enough that she wants to settle down, limiting her freedom to explore life and her own awesomeness.

    Another way to say this is, if you ask a woman “What do you find attractive in a man?” — especially in the context of marriage, what happens is the woman *assumes for the moment* that you are talking about a man she is already married to, and what is it she wants — or feminism / Churchianism have *told* her she wants — once she is safely married. (But, looking at the comments of @Elspeth, @SSM, @LisainVermont and others, a woman does not *stay* safely married unless he maintains sufficient alpha frame. “Beauty and the Beast” and “Phantom of the Opera” and all the rest are just that, fantasies. The woman wishes exclusivity from the alpha, and imagines that she can satisfy her hypergamy, her tingles, and her rebellion, if only she can get an alpha to commit and then tame him. But the moment he is completely tamed, he ceases to be an alpha, and attraction fades or withers.)

  201. Elspeth

    LOL, Looking glass. I can see why you say that. It occurred to me as well, but as I noted in this post, there are some concrete biological reasons why female orgasms are not under the same restrictions.

    But yes, I thought that little snippet might raise an eyebrow or two. We are not Catholic, but we do appreciate the thinking that recoils from separating a man’s seed from procreation.

  202. Elspeth

    @ Whiskers:

    There are women who stay as a matter of principle and faith to men they have “tamed”. There are also women who rather like being in control and would rather not have their system upended, and they stay. I rather enjoy having my husband refuse to be tamed by me. There’s a sense of security with knowing who’s boss and a feeling of relief that comes from knowing it’s not me, LOL. A supporting role suits me better.

    But why on earth would a man settle for being tamed by the one he is supposed to be leading?

  203. sunshinemary Post author

    Elspeth,
    I do want to point out that Catholics don’t agree with one another. I know one can find Catholic sources that say it’s okay so long as the man orgasms in the woman’s vagina. You can also find sources that say it isn’t okay. Rosa above, for instance, makes no distinction between male or female, orgasm or not (I am assuming she is Catholic). I had other commenters on my old blog who expressed the same thing, only much less politely than Rosa did.

    You do recall the conversation at Samson’s Jawbone, right? I vowed then never to discuss this subject with Catholics again, unless my husband decides someday that we are reconverting to Catholicism, in which case I will.

  204. Cail Corishev

    The rule for Catholics is simple: no ejaculation except where it belongs.

    However, the rule then becomes a jumping-off point for theologians to discuss what we should and shouldn’t do. Oral sex (for instance) isn’t forbidden, but is it a good idea? Should it be discouraged, encouraged, or neither?

    For example, there’s such a thing as “occasion of sin,” meaning something that’s not a sin in itself but which you know has a good chance of tempting you into sin. So if a certain sexual activity feels really, really good and you know (especially from past experience) that it’ll feel really, really, really good if you go ahead and finish in that position even though it would be a sin, if that temptation is very strong for you, that could be an occasion of sin you should just avoid. Putting yourself in occasions of sin that you’ve been susceptible to in the past can become a sin in itself.

    Much has been said and written along those lines on both sides, and what often happens is that someone hears a priest or reads a theologian who says, “Oral sex is wrong because of X, Y, and Z,” and goes around telling people that’s the Catholic position. No, it’s that priest or theologian’s position. In general, Catholics don’t have nearly as many actual rules to follow as non-Catholics think.

    [ssm: Non-Catholics think that, Cail, because Catholics keep saying that to them. We don’t get that idea out of thin air.

    Your explanation is the most rational one I’ve heard so far. In fact, I think it’s the first rational one I’ve heard.]

  205. deti

    “The divide here seems to be between the following points of view:

    1. Christians shouldn’t focus on being attractive, per se, but should focus one being Christian according to scriptural command, because in doing so they will more or less automatically become attractive to the opposite sex who are themselves Christian as a side effect; and

    2. Christians shouldn’t be precluded from focusing on building up their attraction, because this isn’t prohibited by scripture, and certain passages in scripture can be argued to support it.

    This is pretty much the same debate that has been had about this issue — worded differently here, but the same in substance — for years now in this part of the internet. It’s a rather large philosophical divide, and one in which people only rarely cross the lines — I suspect it is rather disposition-based, as a result.”

    I have found in my limited time here that the proponents of 1. above are men who have natural charisma and who easily attracted women. These tend to be the “righteous alphas” van Rooinek refers to. Cane Caldo also advocates this, but we know from his history he was able to have extramarital affairs (one who can get more than a few women to have sex with him outside his marriage has more natural charisma than at least 95% of all men). Lyn87 also advocates this. He comments frequently at Unmasking Feminism. Now I don’t know anything about Lyn other than he has been married a number of years, but he is also in the armed forces and a military history expert. In other words, a Wolf Alpha who can rip your head off and crap down your neck. In other words, attractive to women.

    It’s quite easy to tell Christian men they just need to be more Christian and more devout; when the men advocating this are naturally attractive to women, or are so attractive they can cheat repeatedly on their wives (do as I say, not as I did), or have the “controlled badass — I could kill you if I wanted to” vibe.

  206. deti

    When reviewing a claim, consider the source. Always, always, always consider the source.

    Always.

  207. van Rooinek

    Christian oral sex can’t deliberately result in male climax. That would not be keeping open to fertility.

    … as this Prot. discerned from natural law, long ago.

    (Female orgasm is not under the same restriction!)

    Yeee–hawww!!! ;-P (0)

  208. sunshinemary Post author

    I’m not 100% convinced that being more devout will attract Christian women.

    That doesn’t mean men shouldn’t be more devout. Undoubtedly they should. It’s just that it isn’t sexually attractive, that’s all.

    As Deti says, Christian and non-Christian women are sexually attracted to the same things. There isn’t much difference between them. A number of years ago, shortly after my husband began attending church, I watched a woman whom he’d met at a church retreat for new believers run up to him one Sunday, hug him, and then take his arm and begin stroking it while glancing at me periodically. This went on for a good five minutes until I stalked away.

    It was a chilly ride home in the car.

    Christian women are attracted to the same stuff as non-Christian women. And it ain’t devoutness.

  209. The Ringmistress

    @grey whiskers

    I think the problem is that even if you ask what a woman finds attractive, she frequently doesn’t know, and is more likely to note what caught her rather than what reeled her in. Or, the feature that is attractive in a particular man is only attractive because of the frame it is set in.

    Take chivalry. I was attracted to this aspect of my my husband when I first met him. But it was because chivalry was not a tactic for him to score chicks. It was an internal code of honor that he applied universally. He would escort a girl across campus at night even if he was uninterested in her because it was the right thing to do to not let women go across dark college campuses alone at midnight. One of his friends exhibited much of the same behavior, but for him it was clearly a covert contract to gain approval and eventually sex. So if I say, I was attracted to my husband’s chivalry, you would be mistaken in trying to then act chivalrous to gain the attraction of women. Because what I was actually attracted to was the internal commitment to an ideal without concern for what others thought. Capisce?

    So “Just be yourself” really means “Know who you are are OWN IT.” “Be more romantic” means “Be like that dominant man in.my romance novel and OWN ME.”

  210. Pingback: Sexuality, The Word, and the Manosphere | Illusion Of Sanity

  211. Cail Corishev

    Non-Catholics think that, Cail, because Catholics keep saying that to them. We don’t get that idea out of thin air.

    That’s true, although I suspect at least 50% of it comes from stand-up comedians talking about their parochial school days.

    I’m not 100% convinced that being more devout will attract Christian women.

    It won’t in itself. But, if his devoutness leads him to having more of a “Christian soldier” attitude toward life, that could contain elements of attractiveness. Having a clear mission in life is attractive. Leadership is attractive (hence so many pastors being situational alphas, at least). Standing up for yourself is attractive. Our word virtue, which in the Christian sense means “good moral habits,” comes from the Latin virtus, meaning good masculine qualities such as courage, excellence, character, valor, strength, and fortitude. Those certainly contribute to a man’s attractiveness.

    On the other hand, if “devoutness” for him means he starts wearing WWJD bracelets and coming to group prayer meetings to share tearful confessions about his sinful weakness….well, he might as well put the second pillow on his bed away for sake keeping, because no one’s going to be needing it any time soon.

  212. Looking Glass

    @van Rooinek:

    Took you long enough! After oral sex popped up, I knew the thread would call out to you. :)

    @SSM & Deti:

    There’s some play between both points, but side #1 runs into the issue of using “Faith” as a rework for confidence. The Men are already confident, through other means, and then imbue themselves with even more via Faith. But this presupposed confidence in the first place. If you’re already confident, Faith just drastically reinforces it. For the Alpha Male that becomes a Christian, during the intentional process he will lose some confidence. Once he’s more grounded in Faith, it should return, as that’s part of his base personality.

    For the much more normal Man? He’s told to “go deeper” or “be more faithful”. But this comes from a Churchian or confidence presupposed point of view. In the first, it’s telling him to be weaker by ignoring the “all conquering” aspects to Christianity. In the latter, it’s saying to be like the person making the statement.

    I do believe that a properly aligned Faith will breed confidence, and that confidence will be attractive. I also believe a properly aligned Faith will drive a Man to take care of his body, increasing his physical appearance. I further believe that a Man using his God given Talents to the best of his ability will increase his Status and Power. I don’t, however, believe Faith has much to do with Money. If you are blessed with it, great, if not, God provides for the needs. But be a good steward of what you have.

    My last point before I head to Church. The weak can’t be humble. To be humble requires coming from a position of strength. But that strength, as Christ showed, it’s in “arms” but in “Spirit”. You need the strength of God to be humble. This is why fake humility is sickening to see. This is also what most Churches sell, which is a blight on our world.

  213. rosa377

    @Sunshine Mary
    I have no desire to start an argument, just wanted to clarify that I am 100% not a Catholic. I don’t believe in the virgin Mary or the saints and don’t attend Catholic mass. I am, in fact, a 100% nondenominational Christian. My interpretation of the scripture is based on objective analysis and not my own biased opinions, as it should be. Have a good day. God bless.

  214. Ton

    Come on down to NC Fuzzie. Probably get you a good size bear in no time. Not sure what out of state hunting licence cost, but I’ve been very successful on my bear hunting

    Sorry is other folks have said the following, to many posts to wade through…

    Men being angry about doing what it takes to generate sexual attraction; so much of what we are told about becoming sexually appealing is counter to true masculinity and a lie. Of course men don’t like doing things that reduce their sense of masculine pride and to makes matters worse, the sacrifice of masculine pride kills a woman’s attraction. It’s a lose lose.

    #2, way to many men have bought into the bullshit about being yourself and are angry about not being good enough as they are. I despise that kind of thinking. A man should never be good enough

    #3 many men are lazy and don’t want to put in the work, and often the return on investment is relatively small because of women’s over inflated sense of worth. Spending hours of effort to date 4’s & 5’s is not very motivating. It’s like the stereotypical woman’s sense of entitlement is contagious or something. Women comment positively on my physique. It’s taken decades of work and countless hours of pain, efforts, injury rehab etc etc and my build is still not appealing to all women. ( I recommend Danny’s goofball game over great physique game)

    And I’m sure most times it’s a combination of factors and long list of others I’m not tracking

    Side note, I don’t think the LAMPS post gets the credit it deserves.

  215. Fuzzie Wuzzie

    Ton,
    Here are some people honoring your home state, where the movie was shot. I think the music was theirs originally.

  216. katmandutu

    Bit late to the party. I was going to say that Rosa was not a Catholic, because she takes an extreme position. And it is not a Catholic one.. (I see she has since clarified that herself) Yes, Cail gives

    Christopher West is a populariser of the “Theology of the Body” based on Pope John Paul II’s book Love and Responsibility. He has written several books and articles on the subject, and in Good News About Sex , which is a practical summary of this theology, West offers some instances in which oral stimulation (stimulating genitals but not to the point of ejaculation) is acceptable within marriage:

    •Foreplay: If it is used in the act of foreplay that leads to sexual intercourse where the male climaxes into the female, then oral stimulation is certainly permissible for a couple to engage in within marriage.

    •The Big O: If a man was able to orgasm during sexual intercourse but his wife did not, he may bring his wife to orgasm after intercourse in whatever way he chooses (manual or oral stimulation). West writes, “Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration.”

    •No substitutions, please: Oral sex or stimulation can never be used as a replacement for sexual intercourse, but oral stimulation can be used to lead a couple to vaginal intercourse. Pope Benedict also points couples towards discovering love within sex instead of settling for substitutions for the real thing, stating: “No mechanical technique can substitute the act of love that two married people exchange as a sign of a greater mystery.”
    •Men: No sex 4u: The reverse, however, is prohibited. A man’s orgasm is always tied to his fertility so therefore the church states that oral sex that would end with a male orgasm outside of sexual intercourse is not permissible
    .
    •Intimacy Over Arousal: Not every single sexual act, per se, need be procreative, but within a “sexual session,” if you will, there needs to be openness to procreative activity. So there can certainly be oral stimulation throughout sexual activity within marriage, but if one is using oral sex simply to avoid pregnancy yet achieve orgasms, then one is limiting their sexual union to merely give arousal rather than intimacy.

    •Premature ejaculation?: For something to be sinful there needs to be both intent and full knowledge of that intention to do evil. If one were to get very turned on and orgasm prematurely, that indeed is not a sinful act. Accidents happen. One needs to be mindful of their intention to sin.”

    One only need refer to The Theology of The Body to understand the Catholic Church stance on oral sex. As vR SAYS.

    “Christian oral sex can’t deliberately result in male climax. That would not be keeping open to fertility.

    … as this Prot. discerned from natural law, long ago”

    It’s actually quite straightforward.

    As Cail said. “.The rule for Catholics is simple: no ejaculation except where it belongs.”

    That’s JUST how it is for Catholics. :)

    [ssm: Thank you for clarifying, Kat. I see nothing objectionable in this. It seems quite sensible to me. I would have nothing further to say on the subject if it weren’t for the fact that I have gotten into conversations with other Catholics saying differently, taking a position more like Rosa’s (who isn’t Catholic). It’s not that I care either way; my only point was perhaps if one is going to presume to tell non-Catholics how they should be having sex, one might want to be sure that one’s position truly represents the Church’s teaching. I think that’s a reasonable expectation.]

  217. redlegben

    If she isn’t getting pregnant the normal way, why not try a different direction? It’s called logical experimentation. If Mary got pregnant without sex, shouldn’t your wife be able to through non-traditional means? ~s (in case you’re wondering)

  218. Keoni Galt

    “Christian oral sex can’t deliberately result in male climax. That would not be keeping open to fertility.

    So……………………

    ………………….what if the wife is pregnant? Is THAT ok to deliberately engage in oral that deliberately results in male climax, since the fertility part already got fulfilled for at least the next 9 +/- mos.?

    [ssm: Or what if she’s past menopause? I read on a Catholic blog recently that sexual activity should stop when the wife reaches menopause because there is no more possibility of procreation.]

  219. The Scolds' Bridle

    Cane is well-intentioned, but like a lot of Christians, he describes a fairly blue-pill view of the world.

    I am reminded of an elderly gentleman I knew, who grew up in the straight-laced 1950s, and was always a clean-shaven guy with a crew-cut.

    This man absolutely refuses to believe Jesus had long hair. He associates long hair with the 1960s, with rebellion and drug use, and with promiscuity. He is unable and unwilling to consider that at some point in the past, long hair was not a sign of rebellion. What will he do when he walks through the pearly gates if he sees Christ with long hair? What if Christ does not conform to this man’s image?

    And so it is with this sort of post-victorian perspective on sex, marriage, and the nature of women. There is still a lot of left-over social/cultural baggage from previous eras.

    Don’t get me wrong – I would love it if Cane’s worldview was actually in operation, but idealism is a roadmap to frustration, not success.

    Cane- All the Sunday-schooling in the world is not going to make the girls get The Tingle for nice, polite men with integrity. Please, go ahead and try to educate, train or scold them into finding nice guys attractive. It never works.

  220. The Scolds' Bridle

    By the way, as a single guy I really enjoy turning the tables on lots of women by casually dropping comments about how hot 20-somethings are. I like doing this around 40-somethings, just to give them a taste of what their stupid comments sound like.

    Around one chubby girl who was way too picky, I kept talking about a previous girlfriend and her college-athlete body. It was, of course, an act of deliberate cruelty, but it was directed at a picky woman who needed to be taken down a couple notches.

    I’m not a breast man at all, but If I’m around a flat chested woman, I’ll make a remark about well-endowed women.

    In short, I pour gasoline on the smoldering coals of female insecurity. But only to those who deserve it. For some of them, it is the first non-white-knight experience they’ve had in a long time.

    And I very much regret to inform you that the more cruel I get, the more interest I get from women, even the “nice” ones. It’s like they can’t believe I’m as bad as I seem. But here is the real mechanism: When you wound a woman’s ego, she will do anything to make up for that loss, and she will stay involved in your life if only to try and get a little bit of kindness out of you. It is sick, but that is what they seem to want. If you treat them well, you are immediately labeled as conquered territory, and they move one.

  221. Hannah

    @ The Scolds’ Bridle:
    “When you wound a woman’s ego, she will do anything to make up for that loss.”

    Exactly. This is like I said further up, a man maintaining his powerful position intensifies the vulnerability of a woman.
    If she recognises that males are the stronger sex, it takes very little to be aware of that.
    If she is under 60 years old and not actively anti-feminist, then it will take a lot more force to introduce her to her weakness.
    I don’t agree that it is sick, it’s just the nature of things.

    My husband had a friend who was hilarious to be around – he attacked women’s pride systematically and was SURROUNDED by incredibly attractive women.
    I remember him telling a woman on the beach that she had a great body but what a shame about her ugly face!
    Not one to mince words.
    The last time we saw him I was due to have a baby within months. He said to me “Hannah your face is so much prettier when you’re pregnant, but then your body is fat…so you can’t win!”
    We all laughed with him and then I said “And yet my husband still wants to keeps me.”
    He he it still makes me smile :)
    Note my husband did NOT rescue me in that situation… he never would.
    If I complained I was hurt he would be my rock, not my empathetic side-kick. He expects more from me than to go on an emotional tirade.
    My husband doesn’t deliberately attack my ego in the same way, but if I set him up for a compliment I’d be a fool. He’d dodge that bullet with a sardonic smile or a sarcastic comment to throw me off balance.
    Meanwhile, he DOES treat me well. Incredibly well, but it’s on his terms.
    My husband will not be cornered into anything. What I get is what I get. I don’t go fishing.
    I admire and respect him deeply for his strength of character.
    He is masculine and unafraid of it – THAT is powerful attraction!

  222. Hannah

    @ Fuzzie Wuzzie:
    “Hannah,
    I like! For this to happen, somehow years of main stream media indoctrination would have to be overcome, not to mention silencing the “wacky” ones.
    By the way, I just realized that you’re being married is a good thing!”

    Thanks and yep I agree wholeheartedly :)

  223. earl

    I still can’t understand how a woman would marry a man she isn’t attracted to other than for purely selfish reasons.

    Sex is part of the deal…but staying true to one man is the biggest part of the deal. So obviously you have to be attracted to the guy.

    Women get what they pay for when they take some estrogen filled man boob to marry because they decided to be strong independent carousel girl who hit the wall and has no more options.

    [ssm: I think a lot of women marry men they are attracted to, but then the attraction wanes.]

  224. Hannah

    Ellinor, thanks for the link about the Stay At Home Daughters… I liked it very much!
    In order for this type of girl to marry well and young – there could be a type of ‘Arranged Marriage’ website formed that they could join as of a certain age (16?)
    They could then choose from a selection of men that presented themselves as interested, involving parental guidance and the laws of attraction.
    Discretion would be necessary to save dignity in the event of rejection, and modesty would need to be protected at all times….. but it’s a thought!

    Perhaps by the time our littlies are of age, I will have perfected this idea…..
    Patent Pending :)

  225. Ton

    #1, I no longer think women are capable of love, so I have to disregard the notion the more a woman loves a man _____ fill in the blank. Replace lust for with love and you have a decent working theory. One that will get you through the day

    #2, men should have as much sympathy/ empathy for women as women have for men. Which sucks for women, but will elevate a man in the smp.

    #3, a man’s value in the smp/mmp has little to do with his looks, which is why a man can elevate his standing. As long as the man is not morbidly obese and/ or freakishly ugly he can do well enough. Power, physical, social etc and the will to dominate count for much, much more. One way to express that’s is to convey a not to subtle disregard for women and the law. Do it with an attitude that is 80% humor, and 20% firm resolve with the promise of physical action. The Christan woman is a woman and her vagina tingles the same way and over the same things a secular, atheist Pagan woman etc etc.

  226. earl

    Testosterone is what intially attracts a woman…and what keeps her.

    Being percieved as powerful will bring her in. The traits of devoutness, honor, integrity, a hard worker, helping your fellow man, commitment, leadership…which are actual traits of power…keeps her.

    To her though it’s all the same.

  227. Miserman

    earl wrote, Women get what they pay for when they take some estrogen filled man boob to marry because they decided to be strong independent carousel girl who hit the wall and has no more options.

    Or when they refuse to take care of themselves, have little humility, and grab the first desperate fool they can get a hold of in hopes of getting some life out of him.

  228. Ton

    Fuzzie, any man who has not married has passed all manner of tests.

    Also laughing my @$$ off over “good mothers”.

    The notion we should not listen/ heed the advice of the Old Treatment because they are not the words of Christ is a whole boat load of wrong. it’s the kind of thinking which has lead to the modern church. In a very real sense the OT is the overt masculine part of the Bible. Christ is a lion, no doubt, but it’s easy to lose track of. There is no possible way to miss the overt masculinity of the OT. Frankly, I believe in God, worship the Alimighty because I walked away from the NT for awhile. I took awhile to grasp the fact that the kind things Christ did, like healing and casting out demons were in fact also acts of war.

    Why do so many Christians try to prohibit things that God Himslef doesn’t prohibit? To my mind, its the sin of arrogance and it’s more about people trying to control others. What really makes people like that assholes is they lack the balls to strive for hard power, and real authority and opt for the woman’s tools of deception and the like.

  229. earl

    “I took awhile to grasp the fact that the kind things Christ did, like healing and casting out demons were in fact also acts of war.”

    He referred to himself as bringing a sword for a reason. Everything about Christ…and to an extension all men is a war.

    It is for that reason men shouldn’t be afraid of crosses as they come…but take them on.

  230. Novaseeker

    many men are lazy and don’t want to put in the work, and often the return on investment is relatively small because of women’s over inflated sense of worth. Spending hours of effort to date 4′s & 5′s is not very motivating.

    Pretty much my views on that question as well. There are certainly quite a few guys who are simply lazy and can’t be bothered, but then are pissed that they aren’t successful — well, that’s obviously being stupid, entitled and lazy. They deserve contempt more or less, I think.

    I think however that there are quite a few other guys for whom the bang isn’t worth the buck, so to speak. I’m thinking here of guys who, if they applied themselves, would be hard-capped at around the male-equivalent of a 6 (if they don’t apply themselves too much they are likely ME5s, and if they “just be themselves” they are likely ME4-4.5 range). That is, due to differences in personality, physical limits, differences in peak motivation, other bell curve type issues, these guys, when going on all cylinders, cap out at around ME6. Now that doesn’t sound too bad, but if they are looking for “good girls”, the issue is that the number of these at any SMV level is very low in 2013. So what tends to happen is that the kind of hypergamy we see operating in the SMP, but not to the same degree in the secular MMP (that is, in the secular MMP, actual marrying most often takes place assortatively based on SMV levels rather than hypergamously based on SMV levels), is what ends up happening to a significant degree in the Christian MMP: there are too few good Christian girls at any level, and so the Christian guys who are looking for them tend to need to step down 1-1.5 SMV levels to get one. We see this reflected fairly often in Christian couples where they are both attractive but the man is somewhat moreso than the woman. The effect isn’t nearly as large as it is in the secular SMP, but it’s still generally a 1-1.5 step up. So for the guy who is working his MAP, his Game, hitting the weights and so on and is capping at around 6, he’s finding that the good girl Christian 6s are with male 7s and 7.5s, and the real “market” for him are the good girl Christian 4.5s and 5s. Now, for some of these guys that’s fine, and for others it isn’t – that is, some guys are happy enough to work their butts off to be at their maximum personal cap in order to secure a female 5 (because at least she is more attractive than the 3-3.5s he was capped at out before he worked to reach his own personal cap, when he himself was a ME 4.5 or 5) — quite a few other guys are simply not going to want to bother with that because they aren’t attracted enough to 4.5s and 5s to be bothered. This has an impact because the guys see around them how the other young men and women in their church are getting together, and so he can see what he will end up with, more or less. Of course, many of us would say that all of these guys should man up, get to their cap, whatever it is, and get whatever good Christian girl they can and make babies with them, whether she is a 4.5 or not. But there are a lot of guys who aren’t going to be motivated enough by the prospect of marrying a 4.5 or a 5 to work their butts off to be at their personal cap. I have no problem with that choice, but I do have a problem with bitching about it. Yes, it’s that way because the world is very screwed up sexually right now and that impacts Christians, too, but at the end of the day you only live in one time period, and you have to choose how you want to deal with the challenges of that time period without endlessly bitching about them. If you can’t be bothered, that’s fine, but don’t whine about it — do something else with your life and leave the 4.5s and 5s to the male-capped 6s who want to marry them.

    Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration.”

    •No substitutions, please: Oral sex or stimulation can never be used as a replacement for sexual intercourse, but oral stimulation can be used to lead a couple to vaginal intercourse.

    Which is what I was taught when I was a Catholic as well — that is, “dining at the Y” is fine to female orgasm as long as that act takes place within the context of a larger sexual encounter that involves male orgasm inside his wife’s vagina. No quickie female oral orgasms that take place outside that context, however. That nuance is largely missed, I think, by many people who seem to argue that there are no rules at all about female orgasms as long as it’s the husband who is doing the stimulating — which isn’t exactly the moral idea.

    what if the wife is pregnant? Is THAT ok to deliberately engage in oral that deliberately results in male climax, since the fertility part already got fulfilled for at least the next 9 +/- mos.?

    No. The form of the act is also important. That is — the sexual encounter must include orgasms only inside the wife’s vagina regardless of whether there are natural reasons for a pregnancy not occurring from the ejaculation (could be already pregnant, could be infertile, could be post-menopausal). The idea is that there cannot be any artificial barrier to conception — either condoms, or the human act of orgasming outside the vagina. Natural obstacles to conception are recognized, but they don’t impact the moral licitness of human individual actions, all of which must conform to the same principles regardless of whether there are (even known) natural obstacles, on either side, to such ejaculation being procreative in fact.

  231. Ellinor

    I think sexual attraction is important. But if we want our daughters to be pure, virgin brides how can they know what to look for? This thread made me think back when I first met my husband. I was 19, had never dated, never kissed a guy and my plan was to finish my education before getting involved with with a man. There had been several who had shown interest, but none really rocked my boat. So I really had no clue. I had no idea what I wanted, but in retroperspective I at least know what I did NOT want: a whimp or a mama`s boy. I also despised guys who acted effimate or “super cool” in a unatural way. I was attracted to men who were reserved, a bit mysterious and smart. The first sentence I wrote in my diary, commenting on my husband-to-be was: “He certainly knows what he stands for”. And that was the reason I fell for him eventually; his strength of character.
    So what should a young woman, who has never been with a man, who is in a way not yet sexually awaken look for? (made me think of Song of songs: Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.)
    Anyway, reading here made me thankful, that it was my husband who made me his and now, very close to fifteen years after our wedding night I am more attracted to him sexually than then… but then I still had no clue how much stronger than me this man really was. ;)
    (Excuse my poor English, I am not a native speaker)

  232. Ton

    Novaseeker, man you did a great job filling out my rough idea. Thank you

    The guys who do all the bitching aren’t the stoic or men of action type so I am afraid we’ll all see/ hear / read a lot more bellyaching. Best to learn how to skim posts and ignore them. ignore a particular poster would be a very useful blog feature…

    I have a small disagreement though, almost all men can pull an 8, at least for the short term, if the man really fixes his shit. The problem is, most men just do some minor window dressing and call it good. Even the more long term improvement ideas, like at return of the kings, is mostly weak sauce and only surface changes.

  233. Farm Boy

    He’s kind of a jerk, which is probably why I’m still hot for him after all these years.

    Tingles again.

    [ssm: Is that a bad thing? He’s my husband, after all. It is okay to tingle for one’s own husband, no?]

  234. sunshinemary Post author

    Novaseeker, thanks for that explanation. That makes perfect sense.

    In a way, it would be nice if men in the Church knew that. If they just knew that even with a lot of work, they’d only get a certain level of female, then they could make a decision and own it. They could just decide, “Yes, I’m willing to make the effort for that” or “No, I’d rather stay single,” and then move on with their lives.

    What I think is very interesting about the loud complainers are that they, too, could have a virgin Christian bride, it’s just that she would be ugly. But somehow, they don’t even consider these “butterfaced” girls as possibilities…all their complaining about how women choose men based on attraction cues doesn’t seem to translate into what’s good for the goose being good for the gander. So, it’s okay for them to blow off the ugly chaste girls and then bitch about, “Where have all the hot virgins gone?” It’s just like the 30-something women moaning about “Where have all the good men gone?” In both cases, it’s just that they aren’t sexually attracted to what they are able to get.

  235. sunshinemary Post author

    I received a comment by email from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous. He writes:

    I would like to ask you a question about something you wrote in your “Should Christians be concerned about generating sexual attraction” discussion. On June 21 at 4:56 pm you wrote “Let her experience some fear.”

    You and most of your commenters profess to be Christian. Do you see any theological problem with this? The oft-repeated metaphor of marriage/Christian relationship comes to mind. St. John wrote in I John 4:18 “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear. . .” The immediate question that arises then is this: Where is “love” in this elaborate system of games and maps and lamps and dread being played? If fear or “dread game” is needed then there is not love, not according to me, but according to the disciple whom Jesus loved.

    All of this brings to memory another verse, one about whitewashed tombs containing all manner of uncleanness. Now, if you are admitting that the female is actually incapable of “love” in the sense it is commonly meant, then the difficulty vanishes. (However, you and many of your commenters have denied that proposition repeatedly.) Otherwise, what you have is a very elaborate system of behaviourism which is utterly unChristian. You cannot have it both ways.

  236. Sarah's Daughter

    So what should a young woman, who has never been with a man, who is in a way not yet sexually awaken look for?

    Ideally, (and likely if she is a Christian virgin) she has parents who will assist her in this. They know her best. If they have been paying attention at all to her unique personality, interests, temperament, and weaknesses, they will be able to guide her.
    We can already tell that our daughters will marry men with different personalities, temperaments, and strengths because they are so different from each other. They also have a deep respect for their father’s leadership and guidance. He and I will likely be very influential in whomever they marry.

  237. Deep Strength

    @ SSM, anon

    I honestly don’t think about “dread game” in terms of “fear.” It’s basically a form of peri-selection instead of pre-selection.

    For example, if I’m single and I’m talking with other ladies and getting them to laugh and then I approach a single woman and she has seen this it will be a simple form of pre-selection. I already have elevated power/status because other women have validated that I am attractive by laughing at my jokes, etc.

    However, if say I’m attached to my theoretical girlfriend or wife and I’m talking with the ladies and getting to laugh that is called “dread game” if you’re in a LTR/marriage. It’s really a form of peri-selection — I am confirming that within my relationship I am still attractive to other females.

    This is not sinful in and of itself. The fact that your natural interaction with women confirms your attractiveness to your wife and makes her more attracted to you is not really “dread” or “fear” per se in the classical sense of the word. The theoretical wife/gf probably doesn’t even really go through that rationalization consciously.

    If I was flirting/fishing for attraction with other women and my theoretical GF/wife is there that’s getting into sinful territory. If I am just conversing regularly and still getting laughs/tease that’s not going to be in the sinful territory.

    Additionally, it also depends on the personality of the wife/GF. There is a line where it may be her fault if she is irrationally jealous. But there is also a line where if you’re committed via marriage et al to your GF you shouldn’t be flirting much with other women. But that doesn’t mean you should shirk away from your masculinity either.

  238. donalgraeme

    Regarding Christian men having to look down in MMV to find a potential bride, a couple of points:

    First, I think that Novaseeker understates how far down in MMV most men will have to look. It is going to be way more than 1 to 2 points, at least from my experience. This represents a real problem for a lot of middling men, as he notes. For one, they may have to turn to women who they are not attracted to, nor could they ever be attracted to. Any marriage that arises out of such a union would be on shakey ground. Also, I believe that Rollo has pointed out before that when you have a significant SMV gap between partners, the relationship will not be stable or secure. So these unions invite potential disaster.

    Second, I would like to point out it is much more difficult to measure a man’s SMV and his MMV than it is to measure those stats for a woman.

    Third, somewhat related to my first point is that those women several points lower on the SMV scale who are still chaste may not be marriageable. They may still have problems with toxic hypergamy, EAP syndrome or may have ugly personalities to match.

    Fourth, those middling men might not even be able to attract women lower than themselves in SMV value, because of hypergamy. Remember, those girls will still be attracted to the same hot guys that the 7s and 8s will be attracted to. So even if they work their asses off, that still might not get them female attention.

  239. Paul

    grey_whiskers,

    Your C S Lewis quote is a flawed example. In your example, the spouse who was never in love is talking to someone whom she feels might be in a position of authority. When I said of divorced Pastors who…

    …just picked the wrong spouse…

    …make no mistake, that spouse would not (under any circumstances) see that “Director” in your quote as any position of “authority” over how they should or shouldn’t live their married life. That is the whole point I am making, the point your are missing, the point that completely invalidates the whole premise of your well thought response.

    If it has already come to divorce, it (quite often) is not a failing on the part of the spouse being divorced that he or she could have done something different to save the marriage. Quite often they just picked the wrong spouse because they did not get enough “information” about their spouse before they said “I do.” Man’s law regarding no-fault-divorce is the ultimate exit clause that works for all our lives on this planet (even if we will be judged by that in eternity.) As a Christian, this is the hardest thing for me to take on Faith, because I have seen entirely too many marriages destroyed this way. And these destroyed marriages have (in turn) destroyed the same Faith in Christ.

  240. Ton

    What’s wrong with fear? Are we not supposed to fear the Lord our God? Work out our salvation with fear and trembling? Isn’t fear of the Lord the beginning of wisdom? Seems like a little fear of losing a man’s love, protection etc is called for

  241. Sarah's Daughter

    I would like to ask you a question about something you wrote in your “Should Christians be concerned about generating sexual attraction” discussion. On June 21 at 4:56 pm you wrote “Let her experience some fear.”

    You and most of your commenters profess to be Christian. Do you see any theological problem with this? The oft-repeated metaphor of marriage/Christian relationship comes to mind. St. John wrote in I John 4:18 “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear. . .” The immediate question that arises then is this: Where is “love” in this elaborate system of games and maps and lamps and dread being played? If fear or “dread game” is needed then there is not love, not according to me, but according to the disciple whom Jesus loved.

    SSM had said:
    Stop being so afraid of your woman, O Christian Man! Let her experience some fear.

    1 John 4:17-19 reads:
    17 Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. 19 We love Him[b] because He first loved us.

    Where is love? Love is when a husband knows he can not be her God. When he knows he can no longer be her go between. He can not give to her what she must choose herself. He can not give her her faith. He can not be her faith. Her faith can not be reliant on his perfection, his love, his catering to her needs, his supplication, his promises etc. He is fallible. And even when he is upright, life happens (see Job).

    The verse says perfect love casts out fear. It does not say that protecting her from fear is perfect love.

    When a woman experiences fear (fear of loss – dread game), she must confront this on her own with God. She must choose to embrace fear or faith.

    Men who coddle their wives in such a supplicating manner as to have her never confront fear deny her the ability to grow in her faith. I am so grateful that RLB loved me enough to have me “come out of the tent”, face fear, battle with the enemy and choose faith. It was only then that I was able to surrender to God, and obey His commands. Until then RLB attempted to take away my fear with words and actions that were supposed to bring assurance. But by doing that he was denying his own fallibility, he was writing checks he could not cash, making promises he could not keep. Even if he was able to be perfect and infallible, life happens (see Job) and a woman not abiding in God will question and turn against her husband (see Job’s wife).

    When I had to confront fear, one on one, I was able to delve in to my very own personal relationship with God that was independent of RLB. Only then was I able to love him as a child of God’s, a brother in common faith, pray for him to continue to abide in his faith, Respect him as God commands me to, Respect his headship and authority in my life, and submit to him as God commands.

    RLB’s wisdom of what love is, his commitment to loving me as Christ loves the Church, and his unwavering adherence to this no matter how uncomfortable he saw it was for me, was exactly what was needed to cast out the fear.

    Here’s a tangible example:
    I was insecure and fearful of his faithfulness. I asked him if he had cheated on me. He told me “no.” I told him I didn’t believe him. He told me there was nothing he could do about that. At a later time I asked him again, “have you ever been unfaithful to me?” He said he’s already answered that question. I told him I need assurance. He said he’s unable to give me that. At a later time I asked him if he’s ever thought about being unfaithful to me. He told me “yes.” I threw a fit. He told me to get over myself. He said, “I’m not going to lie to you. Do you really think I’ve never been tempted? Get over yourself.” He would not participate in my fit and walked away from me. I had to have my fit with God alone.
    This went on week after week.
    Fast forward a few months. I said to him, “I will never leave you. I am your wife forever. It does not matter what you do or do not do, I have made a promise to you and to God. You are not only my husband but a fellow Christian living in a world influenced by the enemy. You could have an affair and I will not leave you, I will hurt for you and your having succumbed to sin, I will pray for you but I will never divorce you.”

    His love allowed me to confront fear which allowed me to know love and cast out fear.

  242. empathologism

    There was more to that email than the part about fear. I understand the anonymous emailers charge about behaviorism. It doesn’t utterly lack merit.

    [ssm: Can you elaborate?]

  243. ukfred

    @ Alte Ask whoever said changing your blog tagline was a sin to point you to the Scriptures which make it so.

    @Rosa, SD, SSM I was recently looking at some orthodox Jewish teaching on sex and for them, all ejaculation that is not in the vagina without a barrier contraceptive is considered sinful.

    I have to agree with Donal et al who look at the LAMPS mnemonic as descriptive, not prescriptive. It makes sense as a descriptor but it does not, nor can I see how it can be any more.

    The problem with churchian teaching on manhood and masculinity is that it seeks to feminize the men in the church. It ignores the instructions to the people of Israel in the Old Testament to clear a land of all of its inhabitants. It ignores the Jesus who went face to face with the Temple authorities and cleared out their ‘nice little earner’ with the sellers of animals for sacrifice and money changers. It is not the whole gospel. And the command to Joshua quoted by Looking Glass above tells us that we need to not deviate from God’s Word, either to the left or to the right. We need it all.

  244. donalgraeme

    Re: Behaviorism

    At this point I am convinced that a man’s love for a woman is vastly different than a woman’s love for a man. How exactly they play out is unclear.

    Right now I think that when a woman loves a man, it results from the confluence of respect for the man, and attraction for the man. Those two things together (desire + respect) are the building blocks of female-to-male love.

    Male love I think is based on investment or commitment. We come to love a woman whom we have invested money, time and other resources in and she returns on that investment with her affections.

    At least, that is what I think now. I’ve been changing my mind on the subject every week it seems.

  245. grey_whiskers

    @Paul June 23, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    I appreciate your response, but I think we’re talking past each other here.
    Maybe I should have emphasized it more, but to me, the key in the passage from That Hideous Strength was in the lines

    “I don’t know,” she said at last. “I suppose our marriage was just a mistake.”

    The Director said nothing.

    “What would you-what would the people you are talking of say about a case like that?”

    “I will tell you if you really want to know,” said the Director.

    “Please,” said Jane reluctantly.

    “They would say,” he answered, ” that you do not fail in obedience through lack of love, but have lost love because you never attempted obedience.”

    See also sh!t tests, submission, and woman’s desire to rule over her husband…

    g_w

  246. Cail Corishev

    Or what if she’s past menopause? I read on a Catholic blog recently that sexual activity should stop when the wife reaches menopause because there is no more possibility of procreation.

    Not so; we have specific examples from Scripture of women who were barren or past childbearing age miraculously becoming pregnant. Also, though procreation is the primary purpose of sex in marriage, the secondary purpose is unitive, and the need for that doesn’t end with menopause. That blogger is just stupid.

    I have thought before that maybe pregnancy should give a couple a temporary “get out of jail free” card. After all, they did their procreative duty, and they can’t get her more pregnant (in fact, it’d be a medical disaster if they did), so shouldn’t they be rewarded by getting to deposit it wherever they like for a few months?

    Well, no, I’m just kidding, and Novaseeker gives the reasons why not.

  247. Farm Boy

    He’s my husband, after all. It is okay to tingle for one’s own husband, no?

    You tingle because he has bad boy attributes. You should tingle because he is the father of your children and provides for you and them. Perhaps that is an aquired taste in tingle, but it is as it should be.

    Last weekend, I went to a family get-together. My under 30, very pretty, cousin let the latest bad boy move in. She is a nurse with a fine home and job. He is 35 and never has had a job in his life. He d

  248. Farm Boy

    (continued) He does cage fighting on the side. He has a revoked drivers license because of too much drunk driving, so she buys him a fancy new truck. They have a baby together, and he decides to take off. She comes from a very good family, and should know better

    This is what happens when the attraction for bad boy qualities rule.

  249. sunshinemary Post author

    Well, I can’t say for sure why I am so attracted to (tingly for) him. Maybe it is the fact that he is a good provider and the father of my children. But I don’t think so, though.

    In all seriousness, Farm Boy, what are women supposed to do? I can’t help what turns me on. I can choose not to act on my attractions, of course, and women should learn to do this to some degree; your cousin’s bad boy, for example, is much badder than my bad boy, who doesn’t drink to excess or get in trouble with the law or refuse to work. But I can’t help being attracted to his aloof jerk qualities anymore than you can help feeling sexually attracted to a 20-year-old hottie in a bikini.

  250. Farm Boy

    SSM said, “He’s kind of a jerk, which is probably why I’m still hot for him after all these years.

  251. Farm Boy

    I can’t help what turns me on.

    In the olden days, when unmarried women lived the classic spinster life, the ability to provide was a turn on.

    Also, women were taught to respect men in general, and especially men who were or would make good fathers. Bad boys, like sluts, were shunned.

    [ssm: Well, money can be a female attraction vector, as Donal notes, but it is the weakest vector at present because we live in a time of abundance. It’s probably no use being irked about that, either. This is the time in which we live, so we have to do things differently than our grandparents did. Provisioning is not scarce, so it’s no surprise that women value things like status and power more. I’m not saying I like it, but this is the world we live in.

    I can’t imagine finding a wealthier man more attractive than my husband.]

  252. donalgraeme

    @SSM

    You are right that Money (which I used to represent general provisioning ability) is the weakest attribute/vector right now. Women generally don’t need men to provide for themselves, thanks to changes in the labor structure, as well as the role of the State. The truly rich are almost always high status as well, which is where the attraction for them comes from. In fact, for a while I was highly tempted to just roll Money into Status.

    In the olden days, when unmarried women lived the classic spinster life, the ability to provide was a turn on.

    Also, women were taught to respect men in general, and especially men who were or would make good fathers. Bad boys, like sluts, were shunned.

    Which just goes to show the importance of the environment a woman grows up in. A woman whose father spends time with her and who instills in her a strong understanding of good and bad traits in men is more likely to choose wiser than your cousin. Unfortunately, that hardly happens anymore.

  253. Novaseeker

    What I think is very interesting about the loud complainers are that they, too, could have a virgin Christian bride, it’s just that she would be ugly. But somehow, they don’t even consider these “butterfaced” girls as possibilities…all their complaining about how women choose men based on attraction cues doesn’t seem to translate into what’s good for the goose being good for the gander. So, it’s okay for them to blow off the ugly chaste girls and then bitch about, “Where have all the hot virgins gone?” It’s just like the 30-something women moaning about “Where have all the good men gone?” In both cases, it’s just that they aren’t sexually attracted to what they are able to get.

    I think this is true. The hard part, for such people, is that they are well and truly screwed in life. They typically are not “called to celibacy” (I don’t think such a calling is based on not being attracted to what you are capable of attracting yourself), but they can’t attract what they want. So they’re stuck between choosing to marry someone they are not attracted to, on the one hand, and staying alone in a way that is only technically voluntary, because, as you say (and which I agree with), we can’t really choose what attracts us. It’s true that for men, the “floor” is much lower than it is for women — but the floor still exists. I would say that most men –regardless of how attractive they are — are just not attracted to the bottom 25-35% of women, particularly given the current health situation. If that’s what they’re stuck with, they’re going to be unattracted to them. Some may marry them anyway to get some perfunctory sex, and be in bad marriages and be bitter about that. Some may stay single and be bitter about that. But the problem is that the wide-open attraction-and-love based SMP/MMP really has no place for these people. I also think it is counterproductive for them to be bitter about this — it just destroys them — and the whining is irresponsible and weak. But I do understand the predicament they are in, I think — it sucks to be them, really.

  254. Novaseeker

    One additional point on that last comment — I do think that for men it is a bit harder, pardon the pun, than it is for women to marry someone to whom he is not attracted. A man does not have the option to “lie there and think of England”, for example. Now, I am not saying that this is a *good* option for women — it isn’t. But it is a possible one. Not so for a man. A man cannot perform sexually with a woman to whom he is not at least somewhat attracted. It’s a myth that any woman can make a man perform with the proper stimulus — not really true.

    [ssm: So it isn’t true that beauty is only a light switch away? Or that p-ssy has no face? Or that every girl looks hot with your d-ck in her mouth? Or (fill in the naughty man-meme)? :) ]

  255. Farm Boy

    Which just goes to show the importance of the environment a woman grows up in

    It is not just the father’s influence, but society also. It would seem that it was done on purpose to force women to choose for sustenance, not tingles. Of course, society as a whole benefited from this.

    [ssm: It seems to me that, for all the complaining, very few men actually want to go back to that system. I think we should keep that in mind.

    Also. Tingles feel rather nice. It’s not that we want want to mess up society and everything. It’s just hard to ignore that feeling. I’m not justifying it or say it’s right. I’m just trying to explain it.]

  256. Farm Boy

    I can’t imagine finding a wealthier man more attractive than my husband.

    That is because having “way more than enough” compared to “more than enough” does not have a big impact. Compare “poverty” to “enough”.

  257. Farm Boy

    very few men actually want to go back to that system

    It kept both women and men in line. Today, we can afford the inefficiencies and immorality of the current system. Or can we?

  258. Paul

    They would say,” he answered, ” that you do not fail in obedience through lack of love, but have lost love because you never attempted obedience.”

    See also sh!t tests, submission, and woman’s desire to rule over her husband…

    Whatever. My point still stands Grey Whiskers. He (or she) picked wrong. Obedience, tests, submission, some women are simply not going to do that and for good Christian men, it is almost impossible to find that out before he says “I do.” He has to take much on Faith. Pick the wrong woman, she destroyes your life, and (well) that could cost you your Faith.

  259. Novaseeker

    ssm: So it isn’t true that beauty is only a light switch away? Or that p-ssy has no face? Or that every girl looks hot with your d-ck in her mouth? Or (fill in the naughty man-meme)?

    Different men have different floors, of course, but most of those comments are about guys who are 8ish with women who are 5-6ish. In other words, not 2s and 3s, so above an objective “floor”, but in the lower attractiveness range for these guys. It pretty much never applies to the girls who are below the “floor” of a particular man.

  260. Deep Strength

    @ SSM

    ssm: So it isn’t true that beauty is only a light switch away? Or that p-ssy has no face? Or that every girl looks hot with your d-ck in her mouth? Or (fill in the naughty man-meme)?

    IMO it’s the fact that obesity is a major problem — more than 33% of women are obese and 70% are overweight. This is a major problem in a lot of churches, especially since it seems the Churchian and even Christian folks are unconcerned about exercise and watching what they eat even MORE than the secular world. It’s sad.

    However, check out some of these transformations that were posted on reddit:

    Not only does obesity change your body, it drastically changes facial attractiveness for the worst. So yes, if you’re obese, your facial attractiveness is definitely something you can change to a certain extent.

    If you’re ugly and thin, well, you lost the genetic lottery. If you’re very good with makeup this can be mitigated to some extent just like males can mitigate their looks with power/status/etc.

    It’s not the worst genetic lottery you can lose though — you could have gotten cancer as a kid, or been born into a destitute family in Africa where you don’t know where you’re going to get your next meal. It can always be worse.

    [ssm: Obesity is the biggest problem in terms of female attractiveness, no doubt about it. Thanks for posting the images – that should provide motivation for any overweight women to keep trying.]

  261. jamesd127

    Christians are supposed to sexually gratify their spouse. So, should make themselves attractive to their spouse.

  262. Farm Boy

    Tingles feel rather nice. It’s not that we want want to mess up society and everything

    Leftists believe that people are a blank slate, and that if given a chance, they can project their awesomeness on humans. In reality, there is human nature, which explains why so many liberal ideas never work.

    Christianity has a much better approach. Rather than assume that human nature is infinitely malleable, the assumption is that possible changes are much more limited in scope. Things like “lust for bad boys”, gets translated into “desire for a strong provider”. Not totally altering things, but enough change such that society as a whole benefits

  263. grey_whiskers

    @Paul June 23, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    You are completely wrong. You have obviously never read That Hideous Strength:
    the conversation about marriage was because the Director had invited the woman to meet him,
    because she was clairvoyant, and his group needed her gift to help repel a coup led by a group of scientists who worshipped a demon-possessed decapitated head, which issued their orders.
    The problem about marriage came up because the woman’s husband was a low-ranking member of the sinister organization, and the Director would not and could not order her to rebel against her husband; instead asking her to use her status as his wife to *ask* her husband to leave the organization voluntarily. Read the freaking book rather than talking out of your ass.

    @Paul June 23, 2013 at 11:28 pm
    Again, you are wrong: just because women are mired in disobedience, rebellion, and the sin of Eve, as a group, does not excuse them for continuing in rebellion, NOR does it mean that obedience will not work to cause them to tingle more for their husbands. Ask some of the women, whom you otherwise pedestalize, and they will confirm this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s