There is a pretty impassioned hash-out going on at Boundless on the topic of why men don’t ask women out. (Yes, Boundless went to that well again. As they say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.) As per usual, it’s a veritable cornucopia of insights into the modern evangelical female mind and young, evangelical relationships (or the lack thereof) in general.
One point that was brought up in the comments is that men risk their reputations when asking out women from a certain church. If a man screws up his courage, asks out a woman, and she shoots him down, he is then socially obligated to wait an undefined period of time before asking the next woman out from the same group, lest he be pegged desperate, creepy, or undiscriminating (i.e., a wannabe player). The risk factor is high, because one wrong move can decimate his chances with anyone for a long time. No woman wants to be some man’s back-up plan when the most attractive option flames out.
When the topic has arisen on my blog, usually the proposed solution is just not to date women from your own church, thereby sidestepping the possibility of social ostracism. (Of course, if you happen to find someone from another church, the single women at your own church will just despise you for not finding any of them up to your lofty standards. Or, if they find the girl not up to snuff, they will decide that you like to slum.)
Given women’s hypergamous natures, however, I started wondering if more church women would say yes to a date with a man who had just been out on a date with another woman from the same church group. Getting rejected by a girl in the group serves as a pretty unavoidable and obvious DLV. If Jim Bob asks out Sue on Sunday for a date on Tuesday, and she rejects him, there is a very tiny probability that Wendy will say yes if Jim Bob asks her out on Wednesday after singles group.* Wendy would likely cite the abovementioned reasons for rejecting him, but isn’t her hypergamous hamster the real reason? Conversely, getting accepted for a date would be a big DHV and make a man more attractive to the other women in his social circle. If Jim Bob asks out Sue on Sunday for a date on Tuesday, and she accepts, wouldn’t Wendy be more likely to accept a date from Jim Bob as well when he asked on Wednesday? Someone needs to do a study on this.
* Exception: Wendy has a pre-existing crush on Jim Bob and is doing the happy dance on the inside that she’s finally getting a shot at her dream guy.
Haley's Halo 
This is why when I was single, the singles group would have a quasi-secret dating culture. Instead of Jim Bob asking Sue out in front of everyone, it would be done in secret as much as possible. That way, rejection wouldn’t stigmatize the guy too much and the girl, if she so chooses, can say yes and deny that it was a date later. The key was making it just ambiguous enough that it could be interpreted either way.
So advice to those women that are not getting asked out… Maybe you should be a bit quieter about your dating life and not spewing who’s asked you out to anyone who asks. Also, play the game a little bit. KEEP IT AMBIGUOUS! Less public => more “dates” in the group => more dates for everybody.
Of course if you’re not a very attractive woman, go become a bit more attractive. It’s not rocket science. Lose weight => more dates. Better skin => more dates… etc.
Maybe my experience in Utah was different because our Singles Ward had upwards of 300 people in it and there seemed to be an ever-rotating door of new people, but I never even considered a negative stigma with asking out different girls too closely after each other.
That also may have added to my appeal and been a contributing factor to the fact that I dated a ton of girls at Church before I finally married one of them. Maybe I was more of a cad than I thought, but I never let the fact that I’d been out with one girl from church deter me from asking out another.
“Given women’s hypergamous natures, …”
Do women really have a hypergamous nature (any more than men have a promiscuous nature (*) )? Or is that largely, or mostly, social conditioning or expectations? — women certainly seem, on average, to have a sheepish nature with respect to the expectations, no matter how odd, of their social circle.
And, whether women do have a hypergamous nature, doesn’t doesn’t tje nature of what constitutes “marrying up” vary by social conditioning or expectations? And, if it is women’s nature to “marrying up,” how can societies in which women are expected to “marry down” last from generation to generation? (many American Indian people, including the Aztecs and Mayas) I mean, how can a society fundamentally at odd with the natures of either women or men endure?
And, if women have hypergamous natures, considering that in modern-day America most black-white interracial pairings are between a white woman and a black man, does that mean that in modern-day America black men generally have higher status and better prospects than white men? Or, does it mean something else … like say, that the “social elites” constantly portray that pairing as most desirable … and women tend to do what they’re told they’re expected to do?
“Given women’s hypergamous natures, however, I started wondering if more church women would say yes to a date with a man who had just been out on a date with another woman from the same church group.”
Women are competitive with other women. Also, they’re humans … and as humans, they tend, especially when more immature, to most want what someone else already has. So, a man that no other woman seems to desire will be seen by most women as undesirable … it has next to nothing to do with his qualities, but ratehr with the perception, which doesn’t even need to reflect reality, that *other* women want him.
(*) I’d meant to speak about men’s “promiscuous nature.”
The common belief that men are promiscuous by nature — that is, the belief that men in general, and by their very natures, are promiscuous, and markedly so in comparison to women – simply isn’t true. It’s a “scientific” myth invented in the 19th century by some sociologists/anthropologists to justify and encourage promiscuity in society … and so to thereby weaken the social bonds between Christianity and western societies.
Consider – when a son, even a fully adult son, discovers that his father is cheating on his mother, whether it’s systemic or just one incident, is his natural response something like, “You da’ man!” … or, does he feel betrayed by his father, and perhaps even threatened? We all know that it’s the latter, not the former. How does this *fact* match with the belief and assertion that men are naturally promiscuous?
You’re pretty much right on the money. Having a girl accept a date with you is a group DHV that positively increases your odds of going on another date with a girl in the group. Similarly, breakups/rejections often function as a DLV that diminish your odds.
Several months ago I was flirting with several girls in the same church group and went on dates with three of them in quick succession. Heck, I think I even asked two of the girls out on exactly the same day. I didn’t know this at the time, but two of those girls were best friends. It all worked profoundly in my favor.
Of course, the simple fact of it is, alpha males aren’t particularly concerned with social stigma, ostracism and rejection. If I become unattractive to one group of girls, it doesn’t bother me in the least since there are countless other girls and countless other groups that will (rightly) perceive me as attractive. The fact that one certain group of girls has a skewed perception of me because of their sheeple mentality isn’t my concern and doesn’t really affect me in any significant way.
The solution is simply not to care about what other people think.
Mystery is 100% right about approach anxiety. You have three seconds to open a girl on meeting her.
You don’t try and win a particular girl, you try and win the group. Soon enough one will present herself as interested in you.
“You don’t try and win a particular girl, you try and win the group.”
This.
Ilion’s point about competitiveness (as opposed to hypergamy) reminds me of how I started dating my wife. I was at a party, and, as the party was breaking up, I said to another girl, “why don’t we have lunch sometime.” (The other girl wasn’t really a romantic interest, but I was trying to get married, so I was on a campaign to have dates with everyone. You have to kiss a hundred frogs to find a prince, you have to have a hundred lunches to make a sale, etc.) Anyway, my wife was piqued that I hadn’t asked her. I actually didn’t know her very well, which is why. So she said, “What about me? Why aren’t you asking me to have lunch?” So I got her number and later I called her, because obviously a girl you don’t know very well is a better prospect than a girl you have already written off as a romantic prospect. The rest is history.
As my wife said later, her original motivation was not a strong feeling for me, much less a hypergamous impulse, whatever that would mean in this context, but pure competitiveness, that a guy was asking another girl out, and not her.
“[H]er original motivation was not a strong feeling for me, much less a hypergamous impulse, whatever that would mean in this context, but pure competitiveness, that a guy was asking another girl out, and not her.”
And that is why they call it Game. A textbook example.
But “Game” is still BS, including its textbooks.
I was one of the Boundless commenters who brought up that point, though no one in the thread responded to my particular post.
I suppose one can work around the problem by dating outside of the church singles group, but for many people, that defeats the purpose, since whether they admit it or not, their reason for attending the church group is to meet someone to date.
Might one intentionally employ this strategy in dating? That is, let’s say there’s some 7 I’m interested in, but I’m not getting any clear IOIs from her. Meanwhile, there are several 6’s I know would date me. Would it behoove a guy to go on a few casual dates with a couple of the 6’s, to boost his status with the 7?
(I shudder to think of the browbeating I’d receive from the Boundless crew for even considering such a thing.)
If you’ve met her, you’ve already opened her.
That’s a rule for nightclubs for those with AA, i.e. beginners.
If you no longer have AA, the rule becomes detrimental.
Hermes, did you pray and ask God to show you if you should ask out a specific 6 for a date? Did you seek the wisdom of married men in your church? Have you taken ample time to observe the character of these 6s? If not, you have no business asking out any of these 6s. If you do, you are showing a lack of leadership by intentionally defrauding these women. So man up and keep treating them like sisters in absolute purity until powers much greater than yourself give you the green light to pursue. /Boundless advice
More seriously – I would ask if you had been interacting with the 7 at all. If you’ve been admiring from afar and hoping she will magically see how much better you are than all of the guys who do talk to her, I would say get over your approach anxiety and engage her. If you’ve been talking to her and she is friendly but not giving obvious IOIs, just ask her out very directly, with no wiggle room about your intentions. That much alpha can cause previously ambivalent women to become interested. (Of course, it can also backfire and she will think you’re creepy; that’s where ability to flirt and be playful matters.) In the meantime, it wouldn’t hurt for her to see you chatting up and enjoying the attention of the 6s. If the 6s think you’re pretty neat, the 7 probably will come around to that opinion as well. (As Roissy recently tweeted, plain jane social proof is better than none at all.)
Yeah, talk to the 7 a bit, and see if she comes around. Maybe she’s shy, or maybe, as Haley said, she doesn’t know you exist because you don’t talk to her. You could probably get away with going for coffee with all of them. Ask a few of the 6’s first so you have some street cred going as you move towards the 7.
Coffee is a great date. It’s low key and gives you a chance to talk, but the girl still knows what you’re there for, and if you ask multiple girls to coffee, you won’t be perceived as “cheating” like you might be if you asked them to the movies or dinner. Also, unlike dinner and a movie, most girls won’t turn you down for an innocent cup of coffee.
I really like this blog entry, as I think it is probably the most important aspect of church dating that isn’t widely discussed in mainstream game blogs.
I understand that we all like to get a big collective laugh from the clueless people over at Boundless, but hey, it is a problem. Christian men are collectively gutless, and Christian women have princess complexes. I’m not a Roissy-style hedonist, I actually do care that my Christian-peers do get married, don’t suffer too much damage in the process, and raise a new crop of kids who will do the same. I want to live among civilized people and civilized behavior, and if it takes some self-sacrifice to get there, so be it.
I dislike singles groups. Singles groups are basically for people who are too clueless or scared to date people by themselves. Church, lest we forget, is for the worship of God, and fellowship among believers. If you’re going to church to mingle, you may want to re-evaluate your priorities. Secondly, don’t get stuck in the single’s ghetto. In church-think, if you’re not married, you might as well be in nursery school. Make friends with married people, people of different ages, and stay friends with those who have gotten married. Be involved with the church in a real way. This doesn’t mean becoming the “youth group guy”, but just being comfortable and confident talking to anyone in church. Can you speak to the pastor, or deacons, without being sheepish? This is real DHV, and women will be attracted to your confidence. Win the group. You don’t want to be just the alpha-king of the singles anthill, you want to be the gateway to church-respectability. Maybe it’s different in your church, but the ultimate DHV you can give to a traditionally-minded girl in my church is an invitation to dinner, as your date, with a group of already-marrieds from the church.
So my approach would be something like this. Don’t get stuck in the small world of church singles. It’s death if all your friends are her friends and everyone knows everyone else’s secrets. News gets around fast. Join this single’s groups if you want, but don’t make it your world. Ask women out, don’t do the lukewarm, awkward, hanging-out dance. Make it explicit and above-board. Manage her expectations. Don’t apologize for or try to explain past unsuccessful dates. Keep your relationships friendly and consistent, even if it doesn’t work out. If she makes a big mess of it, that’s on her, not you.
On another thread, here, I asked what you meant by “Game is BS”, and you declined to answer…unless you waited several days.
I ask again.
This is very funny, Haley’s first paragraph. I was skeptical when she announced the other day that she was very funny, but now I agree.
Our pastor does that satirical “evangelical-speak” sometimes. (He’s pretty funny too.) It’s interesting because most of the people in our church, including me, didn’t grow up in evangelical churches, but I read enough magazines and blogs to recognize the language. (Also, of course, if you read John Winthrop, you can see the roots of this language.)
Christian men are collectively gutless
Church, lest we forget, is for the worship of God, and fellowship among believers. If you’re going to church to mingle, you may want to re-evaluate your priorities.
Counterpoint: this attitude is often part of the reason men don’t ask out the girls. How many times have we had to listen to the girls complaining about church groups being a “total meat market” etc? What they really mean is not “I don’t want to be hit on” but rather “I don’t want to be hit on by him.”
Unfortunately, a lot of Christian guys hear these attitudes and try to “take the high road” (listen to what the women say they want, be uber-spiritual to the point of being “above” all that dating stuff) to their later chagrin.
I think the rest of my response should answer the apparent contradiction you raise to your satisfaction.
Alpha cred duly noted!
Seconding. Women resent men who pretend they want to talk to the whole group but ignore everyone but their target.
Unfortunately, a lot of Christian guys hear these attitudes and try to “take the high road” (listen to what the women say they want, be uber-spiritual to the point of being “above” all that dating stuff) to their later chagrin.
Case in point: the follow-up post at Boundless, where this time they talked to women instead of men about being asked out.
Most of the women are saying that they don’t want to be asked out “right away” by some guy they hardly know, and the guys are, understandably, resentful. What is glaringly missing from the discussion is the issue of comfort-building in attraction. I would bet that most church men who are getting shot down with “I need to get to know you first/let’s be friends for a while” haven’t built enough comfort with the woman before asking for a date. The faster you can build comfort with the woman, the faster she’ll say yes to a date and the less likely she will decide you need to be “friends” first.
While comfort-building certainly is important, and calibration is also crucial, the very fact that women aren’t as comfortable with the idea of going on dates makes them less datable.
For example, if there’s a church girl that I’ll have to spend extra time building comfort before she’ll go on a date with me and a non-church girl who will be more willing to accept a date after our initial encounter, you can probably guess whom I’ll go on a date with.
This is especially true if the church girl is less physically attractive and/or if there’s a chance she wouldn’t go on a date even after more comfort building. It’s generally not worth the effort.
Or in other words, “Girls who makes themselves hard to get will find them themselves not often gotten.”
If you’re going to church to mingle, you may want to re-evaluate your priorities.
False dichotomy. There is nothing wrong with going to church to meet likeminded potential mates. That’s part of the reason the church community exists.
Christian men are collectively gutless, and Christian women have princess complexes.
Very true.
Church Dating: Like High School but with a collection plate.
For example, if there’s a church girl that I’ll have to spend extra time building comfort before she’ll go on a date with me and a non-church girl who will be more willing to accept a date after our initial encounter, you can probably guess whom I’ll go on a date with.
But that’s if you’re okay with dating non-Christian girls. A devoted Christian girl would see your willingness to date “outside the flock” as a DLV, i.e., you are not serious about your faith and therefore not good husband material.
But mingling shouldn’t be the only or top priority. Church groups get the meat market label when their members are more interested in warm bodies than God.
“A devoted Christian girl would see your willingness to date “outside the flock” as a DLV, i.e., you are not serious about your faith and therefore not good husband material.”
That is certainly a very superficial way of evaluating the seriousness of someone’s faith. Matt. 7:21-23. Probably not a good way of evaluating someone’s quality as a future husband, either.
We should have an internet alpha male support group where each person stands up and says, “My name is [XYZ], and I’m an alpha male…. on the internet.”
Then we can each tell stories about how we were so alpha with so many ladies, we can pump up our own heads until it blows up with pride. Then, we’ll be even more alpha cause we think we’re so hot.
A devoted Christian girl would see your willingness to date “outside the flock” as a DLV, i.e., you are not serious about your faith and therefore not good husband material.
It works both ways. I would see a girl’s narrow and superficial criteria for determining husband-worthiness as a DLV. If she has such an entitlement complex concerning whom potential suitors should or shouldn’t date then she likewise will likely be somewhat legalistic and pro-institution in other ways. We probably wouldn’t click well at all. I don’t like girls who take themselves or life too seriously.
Random thoughts on ‘Game’
It’s not superficial for a woman who wants to marry a devout Christian man to think unfavorably of a man who professes to be a Christian but spends a lot of time dating non-Christian women – women who by biblical injunction are off-limits to him as wife material. A devout Christian woman knows that in marriage she will have to submit to her husband’s spiritual authority over her; assessing a man’s spiritual fitness by examining the fruit of his life is therefore not an unreasonable or superficial endeavor at all.
High School always happens whenever you have a small society of people where everyone knows everyone else’s business.
(Similarly: Work: Like High School but with a paycheck.)
College: high school with ashtrays.
“women who by biblical injunction are off-limits to him as wife material”
Well, that is where we disagree. American evangelicals have, on this as on many topics, built immense edifices on a handful of ambiguous scriptural verses, edifices which rest more on the mores of a particular American subculture than on anything contained in the word of God.
However, this is not a discussion that can productively be had in blog comments. So I will concede that a Christian woman who devalues men who fail to manifest love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, gentleness, and self-control may, if the Spirit so guides her, also devalue men who date non-Christian women, as long as she looks first and foremost for a cup which is clean on the inside, not the outside.
Agreed y81. The Israelites were allowed virgins taken in conquest, as long as the conquered culture’s religion was not particularly odious.
I would never date a chick who was deep into some other religion, but one who was simply blank is often much better than one who’s been Churchianized. Way way better.
For one thing, you’re never going to have a disagreement about @#$@#% doctrine. I can’t imagine how enraging that would be coming from my lover.
DLV my @#$.
So a guy who can’t catch a break at Christian youth group because the girls want to wait 3 months for a coffee date goes out with a Muggle to pass the time and all of a sudden he’s off limits forever? That’s rather harsh. I would say that the Church girls drove him to it.
As with marriage, if you don’t want a man to stray, you need to give him some attention.
How can a man stray if you don’t have him in the first place?
Also, why is the man wasting time on a woman he can’t marry? If the primary point of dating is to find a spouse, then dating anyone who cannot become a spouse is kind of pointless. I didn’t say that one date with a non-Christian is enough to write a man off forever, but if a man is habitually dating non-Christian women to kill time, then that says something about his character as well.
“… but if a man is habitually dating non-Christian women to kill time, then that says something about his character as well.”
Indeed.
“If the primary point of dating is to find a
spouse, …”
That’s courtship; and I think it would be better, and certainly for Christians, to go back to using that term.
“Dating” is to “courtship” somewhat like (as in your recent post on the matter) a “stealth date” is to a date.
“Dating” is “maybe I am and maybe I am not courting you” and “maybe I am and maybe I am not accepting your (possible) court.”
Yeah, it says that he’d rather spend his Friday nights enjoying the company of the opposite sex instead of sitting in his basement playing computer games and waiting for the 3 month mark to hit so that he can ask some Christian girl to spend time with him.
Yeah, it says that he’d rather spend his Friday nights enjoying the company of the opposite sex instead of sitting in his basement playing computer games and waiting for the 3 month mark to hit so that he can ask some Christian girl to spend time with him.
Translation: Any warm female body will do, doesn’t have to be a Christian. DLV.
Why not throw a get-together and invite the target? One-on-one pressure is off, plus social proof to boot.
a handful of ambiguous scriptural verses
They’re not ambiguous.
dating anyone who cannot become a spouse is kind of pointless
Not so sure about this. Sometimes dating for practice is legitimate. In order to learn how to properly deal with women you need experience, so sometimes it is best to just go out with anyone who will go out with you. I have a few caveats to that though: don’t use less attractive women for target practice, don’t do this for more than a handful of dates, and, of course, don’t sleep with anyone. A lot of Christian “courtship” people talk about not leading a girl on, but with most 7+ girls that won’t be an issue. Unless there is sex, girls actually fall in love pretty slowly and most 7+ women will have enough high quality future suitors to make them forget about you. That combination makes it extremely unlikely you will do her any permanent damage. The less attractive the girl the more quickly you should cut things off though, sometimes to the point of not going out with her in the first place. Use your judgment.
Translation: I’m a man who is serious about having one on one interactions with women, not organizing group games nights in the hopes that the object of my affections who refuses to date me alone will deign to present herself.
You guys do have a princess complex.
Christian women have princess complexes.
To be fair though, Christian women are, in general, vastly superior to the alternatives.
Thursday, where is an average guy going to find a bunch of very pretty girls who will be willing to go on practice dates with him? It seems like a circular problem.
Uh, you’re not going to get decent with women unless you get out there, try some different stuff out and do some practicing. That means getting shot down alot and sometimes making an ass of yourself. I wouldn’t advise doing that in a social circle.
While I’d like to think I’m not “an average guy,” I probably am. And, whether or not I am one, I’m sure that even “average guys” will object to being practice … you know, in much the same way that the “average gal” will object to being “the back-up plan.”
For instance, many, many years ago (possibly before you were even born), after college graduation, a friend from college fixed me up with a friend from her hometown. Now, this woman looked amazing like (the then star) Heather Locklear. I also met her mother, and so I thought there were good odds she’d keep her looks over the years.
Yet, I “dumped” her … because I decided that she wasn’t truly interested in me, but only in having some guy handy for going out with until “something better” came along.
And, for that matter, I expect any “average gal” with any self-respect, much less a “babe,” will also refuse to be preactice.
The first question is disingenuous. Church girls are quite capable of collectively refusing their affections, in fact that is their default behavior, and the courtship ritual begins well before exclusivity.
There are very good reasons FOR A MAN to date non-church women he isn’t going to marry. Female variance is lower than male. Practicing on target dummies improves your accuracy with the real thing, and at no social circle cost.
You’re abusing pickup terms. DLV doesn’t mean whatever you don’t like. It means a tingle killer. Not a rational brain obstacle. Don’t try to snow us that church girls’ tingle-ometers are aligned to godly values, we’re not that dumb.
That depends on how allergic you are to the Churchianity that infuses their pretty little heads, and the decadence that infects their American Imperial souls.
I tend to break out into a full body rash.
Self protecting disqualification doesn’t make you cool, Ilion.
Practice makes perfect at the most unexpected times; its unforcedness breeds success; and humans are great at translating ambiguity into hope.
All reasons why you’re wrong – you’re on quite the streak!
More seriously – I would ask if you had been interacting with the 7 at all. If you’ve been admiring from afar and hoping she will magically see how much better you are than all of the guys who do talk to her, I would say get over your approach anxiety and engage her.
Oh, I do talk to everyone at least a little. Attractive girls, ugly girls, guys, everyone. I still have the problem, however, that I can’t really engage girls I like. I think I’m so worried about playing it cool and seeming nonchalant, that I hold back so much in conversation that I don’t establish a connection at all.
If you’ve been talking to her and she is friendly but not giving obvious IOIs, just ask her out very directly, with no wiggle room about your intentions. That much alpha can cause previously ambivalent women to become interested.
I don’t know. You may be right since we’re talking about church circles, but AFAIK you’re going directly against the core teachings of the seduction community. They would say just brazenly expressing interest and asking a girl out without having “gamed” her to the point of getting IOI’s is a major DLV and a recipe for failure. Doubly so because we’re talking about a social circle here and word gets around.
(Of course, it can also backfire and she will think you’re creepy; that’s where ability to flirt and be playful matters.)
You said it. I think that my “natural game” is actually good at the attraction phase, but I have ZERO ability to move on to comfort building. Whenever I meet a hot new girl, I have no problem going right up and talking to her, cracking a few jokes, teasing her a little bit, just getting the sense that she’s starting to be interested in talking to me… and boom, right there, I blank and totally run out of material. I’ll have her undivided attention, her interested piqued, I can tell, and suddenly it’ll be all I can do to go make a beeline for the refreshments.
One of my fundamental problems is that while my social life is active enough, I never initiate any activities or gatherings–I’m entirely dependent on people who invite me to do things. So any time I do contemplate initiating something, whether it’s a date with a girl or just hanging out with the guys, I feel like it’s a Really Big Deal and will inevitably come across as try-hard, so I don’t do it. It’s kind of a vicious circle because I need a bunch of experience doing it in order for it not to become try-hard.
I still feel like with a coffee date, you’re expressing interest; as you said, the girl knows what you’re there for. And if she’s not already interested in you, you get the LJBF response.
The Israelites were allowed virgins taken in conquest, as long as the conquered culture’s religion was not particularly odious.
Reference?
So you would eschew social proof and try to impress her all on your own from the get-go?
I only crib from the best!
Seriously Haley, how do you not know about this? It’s one of my favorite parts of the Bible.
“Moses instructed the Israelite soldiers to kill every Midianite woman, boy, and non-virgin girl. Only the virgin girls were not killed and the virgin girls were shared amongst the soldiers. (Numbers 31:18)”
There’s one reference. I seem to recall reading this kind of thing in multiple places. There were a few times when this practice was forbidden, i.e. kill everyone including virgins, and that was usually because of the conquered nation’s abominable religion, IIRC.
Memory, it appears, has not failed me:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (New International Version)
Marrying a Captive Woman
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Another little relevant quote:
If the salt has become unsalty, how can it be made salty again? It is good only to be thrown out.
American Churchianity is salt that has become unsalty. Better a fallow fertile field than one that’s played out.
Yeah there’s a remnant of decent women, but they’re all still tainted at least a little.
Mr Dantes, I really don’t give a damn about your refusal to reason properly.
I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe . . .
O my goodness, I love American imperialism. Every day, my wife and I walk around New York City thinking, “Finance capital rules the world, and this is its headquarters. Our stores are packed with the products of the whole world, shipped through the canal we built, on sea lanes guarded by our navy, in ships financed by our banks, and it’s all for us. Meanwhile, our movies, our software, and our culture permeate the rest of the world, although of course, sadly, they can never be us. How lucky we are that our ancestors came here, instead of languishing in the ghettoes and peasant imbecility of Europe. Concededly, we are just minor cogs in this vast imperial machine, but what a thing to be a cog in!”
I can’t imagine marrying a woman who didn’t share those sentiments.
That just shows you either have no discernment of the times or no idea what I’m talking about. Either way, you could start by reading some Sir John Glubb
http://josephsblog.typepad.com/shorts/2010/09/decadence-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-city-on-a-hill.html
Yes. Social proof is for when you’re trying to approach strangers in a nightclub. I am quite comfortable building rapport one on one with somebody. Plus, if you’ve been puttering around the church for a while, you should have a little social proof built up already.
On a more practical note, if you are the kind of guy who can’t impress a lady one on one, you’re not the kind of guy who will be able to dominate a big group night out enough to impress her.
*grin*
On a more practical note, if you are the kind of guy who can’t impress a lady one on one, you’re not the kind of guy who will be able to dominate a big group night out enough to impress her.
You are extrapolating that being good one-on-one is a prerequisite for being good in large groups. This doesn’t strike me as a rule. Just because someone’s the life of the party doesn’t mean he’s going to be as interesting or fun when you get him alone, and many people are good one-on-one or in small groups but can’t dominate large groups.
Go get ’em, Lone Ranger! (And report back.)
Having a high-comfort threshold is not necessarily a bad thing – it shows that she takes relationships seriously, has self-preservation instinct and emotional maturity.
Obviously, her level of reticence should be calibrated with her physical attractiveness, but I don’t see any problem with a woman extracting the maximum effort out of a man that her attractiveness can inspire.
Haley, thanks for stopping by my blog. I replied to your comment.
I endorse Josh’s and Thursday’s comments above.
Y81, if you’re attempting to satirize my position, your joke makes no sense. First, Europe is a satellite of the American imperial era, not a backwater. Second, American imperial prosperity extends from the age of commerce, and isn’t a feature exclusive to decadence. Third, calling America an empire is not a comment on foreign policy or patriotism, but an observation of a period of singular national wealth and power. Such national periods share common traits throughout history, including decadent phases.
If you and Ilion are giggling about decadence, or fail to see the decadence of the times, then you’re both idiots.
Augustine, I added you to my blogroll.
Translation: Any warm female body will do, doesn’t have to be a Christian. DLV.
This is a blatant twisting of ASDF’s words.
Why not throw a get-together and invite the target? One-on-one pressure is off, plus social proof to boot.
That’s a disingenuous and mostly self-defeating proposition–especially for people who already have ample social proof.
There are several reasons for this. First of all, you don’t need to presently be in a group to establish social proof. Simply telling a couple stories about your various activities with friends during the past week will be more than sufficient to establish the fact that you’re a connected guy who has a vast social circle (or a close group of friends, whichever the case may be).
Secondly, the entire point of a date is that it necessarily entails one-on-one interaction and one-on-one pressure. The point of a date is to see if the two of you mesh well and enjoy each other’s company. This objective cannot be easily met in a group setting. Period. This is especially true if you are a group alpha and scarcely have a moment to spend with your target because of all the other wonderful people you wish to connect with.
Third, by inviting a group over with non-group intentions, you establish poor expectations and a likelihood that you will not fully enjoy whatever group activities are occurring. James’ epistle has something to say about double-mindedness.
Fourth, the truly social fellow often wishes to spend time with a woman on nights that he doesn’t wish to be social and outgoing. When one has a full social calendar, it’s quite nice to spend time with someone in a non-group, low-expectation context. This can’t occur when you’re expending energy being the social alpha and entertaining others.
Heather Locklear?
Old age is such an inconvenience. I have no idea how I turned ‘Morgan Fairchild’ into ‘Heather Locklear.’
Just to be clear, I’m not being satirical (though perhaps a bit hyperbolic). Our life here, at the capital of the American empire, is great. Our city is great, our church is great, our women are great. People have been saying since I was a boy (which, believe it or not, was before there were personal computers, much less an internet) that America was evil and/or American was in decline and/or American women were awful. I don’t share those views or even take them seriously.
Why is a woman who is not actively part of a (particular) church automatically not a potential spouse for a believing member of that church? Religious belief (and practice) falls on a spectrum – not everyone outside the church is a fallen heathen slut. Who should a church man date: a church woman who plays hard to get, or a decent, kind woman who can be gotten, and who may be amenable to joining the church because of the example the man sets?
Why not throw a get-together and invite the target? One-on-one pressure is off, plus social proof to boot.
This is actually very good advice. Plus, you can always find ways to talk more to the target than to the others. It is often easier to peel someone slightly off to the side of a social gathering than it is to get them out on a one-on-one date and you scarcely lose any ability to discern your chemistry by doing so.
Simply telling a couple stories about your various activities with friends during the past week will be more than sufficient to establish the fact that you’re a connected guy who has a vast social circle (or a close group of friends, whichever the case may be).
Real time demonstration of social value is vastly superior to telling stories about yourself.
If all a man wants is a “good” woman who is open to attending church, then by all means, he should go after her. But a man who is looking for a woman who takes her faith seriously should be starting his search in the church. Church attendance is not a foolproof proxy for devoutness, but it’s a fairly good superficial barometer. The early church in Acts was devoted to meeting together; I would question how seriously a woman took her faith if her church attendance were not regular.
Also, missionary dating is not usually a good idea because feelings, especially those incurred as a result of physical involvement (doesn’t have to be sex), make it very easy to compromise values. The Bible is filled with men felled by the vagina.
This is true in America, land of the Christianized if not Christian. Elsewhere the arguments I’ve advanced apply.
One additional obnoxious point about devout churchgoing women: They do not give their undivided spiritual loyalty to the man, but much of it goes to the church and that community and its teachings. Which is extremely obnoxious to someone like me. Husbands are supposed to instruct their wives, nobody else.
They do not give their undivided spiritual loyalty to the man, but much of it goes to the church and that community and its teachings. Which is extremely obnoxious to someone like me. Husbands are supposed to instruct their wives, nobody else.
I find this crazy. I want a woman who has principles. Pragmatically, a woman who gives her undivided loyalty to a man not to any abstract principles or to her community is a woman who just follows her tingle. And what the tingle giveth, the tingle taketh away.
All these guys who want women to be blank slates remind me of the main character in Moliere’s School for Wives who kept his fiance hidden away from the world until marriage. Quite logically looking for such things leads to disaster.
You’re missing my point completely.
Spiritual authority, spiritual mentoring, should be first done by the father, then the husband. Not the pastor, small group leader, church community, bla bla bla.
I love a woman with strong Biblical principles. She’s better than a blank slate. But a woman with a mix of real and faux-Biblical principles may be worse than a blank slate. That’s my point.
A sheltered young virgin is a mystic treasure, if she is also refined.
“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
The community has claims.
A sheltered young virgin is a mystic treasure
Not too sheltered. Marrying someone of untested virtue is a spectacularly bad idea.
The community has no claims on MY wife or MY children, you Commie. The verse you cite supports God’s claims, not the community’s claims. You’re full of it.
Untested virtue? Please. Given the nature of young women, if her virtue’s been tested, she probably doesn’t have any. Demureness and noble self sacrifice are the marks of high female character, not the ability to float lotus-like in ponds of scum.
Furthermore, once she marries me, I’ll see to it that her boundaries of depravity are given a slow, steady healthy stretch. It’s the best insurance against indiscretion. Now where would the fun be if she were immune to temptation? You lack imagination.
The community has no claims on MY wife or MY children, you Commie.
Of course it does. Your vision of atomistic nuclear families has nothing to do with the social vision of Christianity. Religion in about community.
As for the Commie thing, well, Edmund Burke wept.
Given the nature of young women, if her virtue’s been tested, she probably doesn’t have any.
Uh, do you seriously mean to say that if a woman has ever had a conversation with or even gone on a date with a player, she’s probably a whore.
You don’t know if she has a propensity for something until she is exposed to it. The ‘innocent’ girl raised away from temptation who awakens to find she has a taste for adultery once she meets the right man is proverbial. You may be heading for a cuckolding, monsieur. Read The School for Wives, read Madame Bovary. Read and tremble.
This is why I wouldn’t recommend marrying even a Christian girl until she is at least out of college. I want to see a track record. With younger girls, you never know whether they are genuinely virtuous in their core being or just haven’t been exposed to temptation yet.
Strictly speaking: Madame Bovary had a taste for highly emotional experiences; not adultery per se.
Maybe the best book I ever read.
This is why Jesus and Paul recommend never marrying…at all.
If people are weak at 16 they’ll be weak at 25. Get ’em young, I say.
Hey, a naked assertion! What a surprise.
I’ve read Burke. You’re no Burke.
Since you currently have zero scriptural support, whereas I have the Biblical principles that husbands are to instruct their wives and parents their children, I’m winning. So let’s shift the score to 4-0 by quoting Genesis:
Therefore a man shall leave his father’s house and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
and
her desire will be for him, and he will rule over her.
I look forward to your scriptural support for, “and the Lord spake saying, yea, it takes a village to raise a child.”
Hahaha, you’re an idiot with no game.
I’m among the least likely to be cuckolded, because I understand how to lock down a woman into gaga-eyed love, and keep here there. You obviously don’t. That’s GAME old codger.
Not to mention the additional layers of insurance religious conviction provides, and virginity, and non-Americanness.
My perspective comes from battle tested PUA advice on maintaining e.g. multiple LTRs with super hot women in super competitive modern sexual markets.Yours comes from 200 year old hackneyed erotic literature. It is to laugh.
And, idiot, I already answered your “innocent’s first taste of debauchery” scenario, you were just too dense to catch it. She won’t be tempted because I’ll be the one supplying her fix of debauchery at steadily increasing volume.
Having the opportunity to demonstrate core character in the absence of disguising external influences != exposure to temptation.
with no game.
So sure of this, are you?
She won’t be tempted because I’ll be the one supplying her fix of debauchery at steadily increasing volume.
The likelihood of a woman divorcing you depends on both:
1. Your qualities, including your game.
2. Her inclinations.
Therefore, if you want a successful marriage you need to both:
1. Work on yourself, learn game etc.
2. Choose your mate wisely.
Note that these aren’t exclusive strategies and a prudent man will pay attention to them both.
Furthermore, as Doug over at Roissy’s has noted, some women are a cheating risk even for the most alpha of men. They get bored of anyone. Your game won’t necessarily save you and it isn’t a substitute for screening.
Most deadly of all are the fake good girls, many of which are what Alias Clio has called Eternal Ingenues. Here is Roissy on the type:
“Their beautiful romantic gestures will capture your heart. Their craving for intimacy and their wellspring of empathy will draw you in. And then right at the moment you fall deepest for her you will catch her one night frenching a half-shaven DJ at a seedy club.”
non-Americanness
I see trouble here as well. The cues for discerning truly good girls from fake good girls are quite subtle and differ from culture to culture. A man requires extensive experience to make them out. There are quite a few stories of non-American girls taking up American mores once exposed to an American lifestyle. Not to mention many that just cheat with men from their own culture.
Yours comes from 200 year old hackneyed erotic literature.
If you are referring to a certain blog post of mine, you are among the worst readers of all time.
I’m not.
If your LTR game was tight, you’d know how possible it is to lock down a girl. So yeah, I’m sure.
Verify few American girls will cheat while locked down, even if they’re just one of a harem. If you’re talking about religious virgins who come from traditional cultures, that number drops to near zero.
Game WILL save you, you just don’t know what’s possible with LTR game. Read hvren.wordpress.com and Daniel Rose.
Screening is more for compatibility than cuckolding. The real problem for a PUA with strong LTR game is inability to sustain sincere interest and/or tolerance for the girl.
Cuckolding is MASSIVE LTR failure. Real PUAs will walk away from serious LTR relationships long before that point, disgusted by much smaller manifestations of relationship instability. The fact that you don’t know this suggests you have no clue about game.
Roissy has never written about girls deeply in love cheating. If anything, the opposite. Your quotation is therefore wrong.
As for alienness and opacity of foreign cultures, duh. However they are learnable and navigable, given time and experience.
Roissy has never written about girls deeply in love cheating. If anything, the opposite. Your quotation is therefore wrong.
Dude, he actually did write that.
If you’re talking about religious virgins who come from traditional cultures, that number drops to near zero.
Like the virgins Roosh bangs in South America.
Real PUAs will walk away from serious LTR relationships long before that point, disgusted by much smaller manifestations of relationship instability.
Like Mystery did in The Game.
husbands are to instruct their wives and parents their children, I’m winning.
Husbands have authority, but there is nothing in the Bible that says they have exclusive authority.
1-0 for me.
Therefore a man shall leave his father’s house and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
Non-sequitur.
2-0 for me.
her desire will be for him, and he will rule over her.
The statement is descriptive, not proscriptive.
3-0 for me!
I’m not.
Since you’ve represented my blogpost as saying the exact opposite of what it says, you are.
4-0 for me. (Wow, this is fun!)
[I]t takes a village to raise a child.
Anyone who knows Burke, knows he would have agreed wholeheartedly with the above statement. Left liberals take it to mean, “It takes a state to raise a child,” but that is neither here nor there.
Again, I call into question your reading ability.
P.S. Judith Rich Harris has shown that “instructing your child” is pretty useless on it’s own. The most effective thing a parent can do is choose which community of teachers and peers will do the real raising of their kids. Apparently, you really do need a good community to raise a child in.
5-0 for me.
————————————
The signals distinguishing “good girl” and “fake good girl” are difficult to discern within your own society. They are doubly difficult in a foreign society. Even more difficult when she is from a society where everyone ostensibly has traditional values and thus the codes of hypocrisy and subterfuge are that much more subtle.
Roissy also has written about how quickly “good girls” from traditional areas learn how to whore around once they get into the city.
Anyway, you aren’t worth arguing with further, so good day.
You totally confused me by referring to SfW and MB as erotic literature. That is a fairly bizarre way to categorize those books, but OK.
Anyway, I discuss the limitations of the classics here:
http://manwhoisthursday.blogspot.com/2010/07/literature-of-courtship-and-seduction.html
The classics are pretty good at observation, but not deep theory or specific tactics.
Yes. Roissy’s talking about when YOU fall in love with an eternal ingenue. I’m talking about when SHE falls in love with YOU.
Roosh doesn’t bang devout Christian girls. Few PUAs do.
Touche on Mystery. Your point begins to expose the evolution of Game. Mystery was Game v1.0, which had little to no LTR component.
When I talk about “getting” game, I mean v2.5
“Husbands have authority, but there is nothing in the Bible that says they have exclusive authority.”
You admit husbands have authority. Then you move the goalposts by referring to exclusive authority. You must prove the community also has “claims”. That was your initial argument.
“Non-sequitur.”
Because you weren’t smart enough to follow the logic. This verse establishes the concept of Leaving the old family’s authority and forming a new independent unit.
“The statement is descriptive, not proscriptive.”
What a stupid thing to say. Here’s your prescription (with an E): Wives, submit to your husbands, just as the church submits to Christ.
“Since you’ve represented my blogpost as saying the exact opposite of what it says, you are.”
I do not recall ever visiting your blog.
“[I]t takes a village to raise a child.” “Anyone who knows Burke, knows he would have agreed wholeheartedly with the above statement.”
Burke would’ve been amazed, then, at all those children throughout history who managed to grow up outside of villages. Idiot.
Good girl vs. bad girl signals are easy to discern in your own society and simple observation over time suffices in foreign societies. Again you’re displaying your lack of game, and common sense. A person’s character inevitably outs over months and years regardless of culture. Plus, an experienced PUA develops an intuitive feel for female sexual history and character, as Roissy has stated many times.
Roissy’s writing about e.g. foreign au pairs emphasizes that they stay fresh IF they are plucked early and locked into loving LTRs. Again you fail to interpret Roissy correctly.
Anyway, in case anyone wonders about the basis for community, the authority of community, and how the Christian is to perceive the community, these are some of the most pertinent verses:
Hebrews 13:17
Community has authority.
Hebrews 10:25
Community is mandatory.
1 Corinthians 12:27
All, including presumably women, are members individually.
Rom. 12:4, Eph. 4:16
Everyone is a member of everyone else. (A very Burkean metaphor of intense organic connection, I must say.)
So we’re to obey our leaders, meet together, and the church is a body.
God of course has claims above a husband’s, and these are in part mediated by the church.
But it’s easy to see, on Earth, which claim is higher. To wit, the father can justly take his family and leave one church for another, but the wife or child cannot justly leave the family and go to another.
Patriarchy is the original Biblical unit of organization. When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Isaac didn’t ask “the community” or his wife. Killing his own son was his unilateral right. God confirmed this by rewarding him.
Just to show how absolutely, irredeemably wrong you are:
Jesus Christ himself postponed his Father’s already-begun business that he self-evidently “must” be about out of submission to parental authority.
If God’s mission to redeem mankind defers to the authority of the family unit, it’s safe to say that the community of men has no right to intervene.
Patriarchy is the original Biblical unit of organization.
We live under a new covenant. You can’t just uncritically accept Old Testament practice. Dashing infants against rocks et al.
God of course has claims above a husband’s, and these are in part mediated by the church.
I win. Thanks for playing.
Jesus Christ himself postponed his Father’s already-begun business that he self-evidently “must” be about out of submission to parental authority.
See Luke 2:41-50.
Going home with his parents was less important for Jesus than his teaching role in the temple.
If God’s mission to redeem mankind defers to the authority of the family unit
Uh, Jesus said that relationships among believers take precedence over familial relationships.
Matt. 12:46-50
Not to mention that natural descent is denigrated in favour of spiritual descent.
John 1:13
Spiritual family takes precedence over natural family.
“Spiritual family takes precedence over natural family.”
That is the logic that the Church/Christianity uses to promote mass third-world immigration, making it an enemy of Western Civilization today.
If God tells you to dash infants against rocks today, you do it. No difference. You obviously don’t realize that Jesus’ speech was literally an Old Testament pastiche.
As for your declaration of victory, you’re just continuing to demonstrate your failure to grasp logic. I clearly explained that the patriarch’s claims overrule community claims.
Re Luke 2:41.
You idiot, clearly the verses state that his mission was a “must.” Ergo more important. Rather, the answer to why he obeyed is to be found in the rationale given to John the baptist: fulfilling all propriety. Hence my point.
Re Matt 12;46:
Yeah, God’s claims trump family. I already said that.
However, this verse does NOT liberate wives from husbands or children from parents. Nowhere does the NT do this; quite the reverse. You’re twisting scripture… again.
And if metaphors were literal, you’d have oatmeal between your ears.
Directed at Thursday, not ASDF. I liked your point ASDF.
Thursday… what kind of a Christian picks the name of a false god?
ASDF:
Spiritual family takes precedence over natural family, but clearly does not obliterate it. Just so with nations. Those outside our family, nation etc., particularly those of the same faith, do have large moral claims on us. Whether those claims entitle them to unrestricted immigration to our countries, however, is another question.
Anyway, the main thing I’ve been arguing against the, quite heretical, assertion that a husbands authority over his wife and children radically supersedes that of the church over the married female members and children in its midst. The claim was that the community had _no_ authority over them. That has been shown to be false.
You’ve shown nothing of the kind.
The Church can ATTEMPT to represent God’s will. The individual is free to determine whether it in fact does so, and obey or not. Its maximum level of enforcement is ostracism. Which doesn’t even rise to the father’s right to corporal punishment. Your argument is a non-starter.
You’d be much better off arguing your communitarian case under the old covenant instead of the new, although you’d still lose there anyway.