I recently read Lori Gottlieb’s book Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. Because of the title, the book has been criticized for telling women to take whomever will have them just so they can be married. Having now read the book, I can definitely say that this isn’t what the book advocates. Rather, it reads like a cautionary tale not to let excessive pickiness keep you from getting married, or, as Gottlieb points out in the book, if you let an 8 go in hopes of snagging a 10, you’ll most likely end up with only 5s as your options.
In a way the book had a dual personality. On the one hand, it was a sort of quasi-memoir where Gottlieb portrayed herself as a delusional elitist who couldn’t accept that as a 41-year-old single mother (by choice through artificial insemination), her dating prospects, especially in L.A., were rather limited and that her options from professional matchmakers and dating websites generally were balding divorced men. On the other hand, it was like Gottlieb stepped outside of herself to offer an objective voice about her situation. I would like to believe that Gottlieb actually, genuinely learned from the experiences chronicled in the book, but she IS still unmarried, so….I don’t know if that’s because she’s older, or because she fell back into the bad habit of wanting AMAZING CHEMISTRY!!11 from the get-go.
While reading the book, I found myself wanting to shake Gottlieb for being so unreasonably picky. She would discount men for the most insignificant reasons, like naming a movie she didn’t approve of as his favorite. She basically had it in her head that she could only relate to and be attracted to men who fit a very narrow profile (basically that of a fashionable, sophisticated, secular UMC Jewish SWPL with all the “right” tastes who still had his hair and wasn’t more than a few years from her in age). With her discounting men for the slightest of reasons, it was no wonder she had gone through life without ever marrying. Actually, what I found the most disheartening was not that she had dated a bunch of guys that were not marriage material – it was that some of them HAD been marriage material, but she dumped them for not fulfilling her ideals. It would have been one thing if she had only dated cads – but she didn’t.
As I grew frustrated with Gottlieb’s bullheadedness, I started thinking that modern Christian women have been taught to think like Gottlieb – to be what she calls “maximizers”: people who will only accept the absolute best. The fear of settling for a less-than-totally on fire for God man is implanted in Christian girls from at least junior high on, both in church and in Christian media. How many times have Christian girls been warned not to marry a man who doesn’t TOTALLY LOVE JESUS WITH ALL HIS HEART, with dark implications or outright warnings that life will be TERRIBLE otherwise? How many times have Christian girls been told that the man must be the Spiritual Leader, with the implication that if he’s not leading the charge to go to Sunday School and lead devotions and pray all the time, that he must be disqualified as a potential husband? Conversely, how often have Christian girls been told to give Christian men encouragement to grow in their faith and to have patience with them if they weren’t as “strong” in the faith as the women? The bar has been raised so high that hardly any Christian man can be marriage-worthy. (See: The Earl of Piety.) And it’s common enough that even my readership has experience with this.
It’s not that Christian singles don’t get married. Christian singles generally marry younger than the population at large, or at least the college-educated population at large. But it’s obvious that there is a significant percentage of Christian singles who are having trouble not just getting to the altar, but getting to a point where getting to the altar is even a consideration. The problem isn’t solely the fault of the women – but the church really needs to calm down with the ON FIRE FOR GOD GUY standard, and encourage women to consider men who are not so obviously on fire for God but still take God seriously. I don’t know if this would work, since it would require people giving up hope that they will be an exception to the rule, or at least giving up enough hope to act pragmatically, but it really seems that the church has screwed over young women by telling them to hold out for God’s best and making it seem like God’s best is some SUPER ON FIRE FOR GOD GUY when in actuality, God’s best might be a low-key guy who happens to believe in Jesus.
P.S. Gottlieb never instructs her readers to settle for a guy to whom she has zero physical attraction. She only asks them to expand their definition of what they find attractive so that they can end up with someone instead of no one.
Haley's Halo 
You know, I find myself more and more relieved to by a guy lately. Determining male attractiveness is really hard, which is why preselection is a thing (don’t know the answer? cheat off your neighbor!).
What if the person God intends to be your “one” is not someone that you could be paid enough to marry, i.e. Hosea and Gomer?
One of the biggest lies of this age is that marriage is all about personal fulfillment and pleasure. Last time I read my Bible, marriage (if God wills it at all for you) was all about completing some objective or purpose that God was using you to carry out. It may be something sweet and romantic and wonderful, and it may not.
One other comment to make–it’s far from just Christian women that pass up outstanding mates because they are holding out for someone just “a little better”. Believing men do it all the time, too. Trust me, I’ve done it.
There is no “One”.
Satan has worked overtime to destroy families since The Garden and what better ways than to fill the minds of Churchian women with these ideas. It’s binary – a man either loves the Lord or he doesn’t. If he loves the Lord, God will sanctify him to meet the Lord’s needs. A woman of faith needs to trust in God completing the work and no some legalistic, Churchian measuring stick.
“The fear of settling for a less-than-totally on fire for God man is implanted in Christian girls from at least junior high on, both in church and in Christian media. “
The evangelical American princess. “God is not a man that He should lie”. “For I know the thoughts and plans I have for you; plans to prosper you and give you a future.” (Jer. 29:11) “God is preparing and raising up the One Perfect Man for you and he will be absolutely perfect for you in every way.” “You are a perfect Daughter of the King; God’s Special Princess.”
All of this is misunderstood as meaning that The One Perfect Man For Her will meet every single one of the 463 bullet points on her checklist. If a man meets 462 bullet points, he is not The One and must therefore be rejected.
What is annoying from the quieter guy’s perspective is the insistence on how the guy’s faith is expressed. Always the worship-leader, never maybe one of the sound or video techs…
You describe exactly why I have always been irritated with Gottleib’s Atlantic article based on the same premise. It’s not that “Mr. Good Enough” isn’t good enough, I just thought that a lot of the choices she made were about her own character issues. And she wrote as if were about the men in question rather than herself. I wanted to hear her confess that her attitude was immature and wrong, not that she should have “settled.” Maybe she does that in the book?
And I 100% agree with the point about spiritual standards being way too high and unlikely to be fulfilled by most Christian men, even if they are sincere in their faith. I don’t even think Christian women came up with that standard, though. It seems to be the product of so many “How God wrote our love story” type books and incessant warnings against missionary dating. Not that anyone should missionary date, but the attitude should probably be more like a basic filter for minimum level of spirituality rather than expecting the most fervent, zealous, pious man out there. I was just talking to a young man about a relationship he was trying to get off the ground and he said, “She’s trying to turn me into a monk!” I had to laugh, but even though he was involved in church, even preaching, he felt pressured to be more spiritual than he is.
And like I told my sister, even if a man knows God, he might not make the greatest husband as far as a woman’s desires for marital peace and happiness are concerned. Jacob would be one example, David would be another. John Wesley’s story is another cautionary tale.
@Martin L. I think your point is important and reflects that it’s not just young women who are seeking a certain thing to make them happy, but men are as well. The idea in Christian men’s minds is not that they are going to marry a woman for whom they will have to love as Christ loves the Church (which is, essentially, the love of a pure God for an impure Bride, who works to sanctify her); but rather that they will find the best woman for them who will be everything for them that they want her to be. And the thing is that men actually get away with this mindset more easily than women do, so it often goes unchecked. But no one wants to hear that.
My experience is that even Christian Guys who fulfill all the Biblical fantasy requirements don’t make the grade. That’s what women say they want, but that is not who they actually go after. For example, unless they are in the mood of I Have To Start A Family Right Now, they are not really be looking for some guy who would be a good father and family spiritual leader, even if they say they are. And often by the time they are in that state, those guys either have found someone else or are not interested in someone who has been through ten other prior relationships before they suddenly decide they are The One.
This is exactly Christian hypergamy and women need to repent. We, as the church, also need to repent of creating a false and narrow ideal of what male Christian spirituality looks like. It’s not just the worship leader, pastor, and extroverts who lead in prayer that are spiritual. It’s much broader and diverse and we need to celebrate those men – the sound guys, the artists, etc. as role models.
@ar10308–If God wills for someone to get married (that is a big if), he has an ideal person in mind if we are obedient and paying attention.
This is another example of feminism that’s infiltrated the church. It’s feminists that demand perfection, claim every woman can “have it all”. This “must be super holy” stuff is a Christianized version of that.
Let’s also note that dating is a very recent phenomenon (100-150 years old). Before that, your parents set you up and it was more about families that got closer, not all about romantic love as it is now. So of course, when you have a choice, you’re going to want the best in romantic love, whatever that means to you.
This is an unintended consequence of a variety of social factors, not the least of which is feminism.
Isn’t it really just a symptom of a broader cultural trend — maximalism? I mean, we want huge houses, exotic vacations, meaningful/impactful/important work, mind-blowing (special, not routine) sex, extreme cross-fit workouts, perfectly sculpted physiques, well-above-average kids, constant feelings of fulfillment, happiness and well-being, etc. The antes have been upped across the board. It seems only natural that this also is applied to mate selection when it is being applied generally to everything else.
I don’t think many Christians are very different from this in general — many simply throw Christianity on top of this, or somehow try to integrate it into this, but still the overall theme is all maximal, all the time. Full on. It’s a broader cultural trend that, like many others, has its impact on Christians as well.
“Average is over”, as they say.
And–as I think Novaseeker has pointed out elsewhere–there isn’t much motivation to change, because the current system actually does work well enough for too many people. We can sit around lamenting in blog comments sections that modern Christian women are too picky and are going to wind up as crazy cat ladies. But our moment of schadenfreude all too often never comes, because a reasonably attractive woman, at 29 or 30 when she finally gets realistic, can usually still find a decent (i.e., greater beta) guy to marry her–and she may even get her Earl of Piety. Heck, a girl I dated in my late twenties, for whom I was an insufficient Earl of Piety, broke up with me, and I thought I’d have the last laugh–only to learn that she got married, 18 months later, at age 30, to a 28 year old guy who’d already spent time overseas as a full-time missionary and was then in seminary to become a pastor.
I like how Hermes is “your readership”. Hehehe.
Lori Gottlieb will probably never be married. She is afterall a 41 year old single mother. For a man wanting children of his own, she is a very poor choice for a wife as it is highly unlikely that she’ll be able to bear his children. Perhaps she can be a warning to young women everywhere to be realistic in their choice of partners lest they end up like her.
That aside, my other complaint is that Ms. Gottlieb’s advice on “settling” will be misinterpreted by women, such that they will feel that they have to marry a man they do not love. The typical result is a divorce after 10 years or so of marriage. For all their supposed piety, the divorce rate for Christian couples is roughly the same as for secular couples. The tragedy being that with today’s corrupt family court system, the man will not only be taken to the cleaners but be devastated both emotionally and financially. Add an unsubstantiated charge of abuse and the hapless shmuck will even be denied access to his own children while still paying a mountain of cash for support. I’ve seen the cruelty of so called Christian women to good men and it’s almost enough to make one abandon religion all together. For an example, have a read of the Jenny Erikson saga and weep.
My advice to men, Christian or otherwise, is to avoid the Christian singles scene altogether. There are still plenty of good young women out there who are not caught up in their own holiness.
@Aunt Haley
“As I grew frustrated with Gottlieb’s bullheadedness, I started thinking that modern Christian women have been taught to think like Gottlieb – to be what she calls “maximizers”: people who will only accept the absolute best. ”
Is this your honest thought and reaction, or just some BS discussion bait for your blog?
Oh well. I’ll bite this time.
My experiences and resultant skepticism causes me to doubt the sincerity of any Christian women who claim to have any lightbulb moments of spiritual revelation.
I’m not calling you a liar, but I don’t actually trust you either.
That’s what happens when the majority of Christian women become what you call “maximizers,” and mistreat the majority of Christian men. You (any given Christian woman) could claim the Holy Spirit convicted you of all your sins, and put on sackcloth and ashes for a year, gnashing your teeth in anguish over your sins against men, and we would just stare blankly back at you and probably laugh with total doubt and indifference.
You have doused out the flames of many of those “on fire Christian men” with the water of your “never ever good enough” hate, blame, shame, and rejection, and now many of us who still held on to any semblance of our faith just want to be at peace with Christ, because can’t bear the repulsive thought of dating or marrying anyone like you (“Good Christian Women”)
If you find great Christian men who love Christ, seem “really on fire,” and they want nothing at all to do with you, then you have nobody to blame for it but yourselves.
Arguing that most Christian men are “immature” or “not marriage material” is just another self-righteous (Feminist) claim, because Christian women are equally if not more guilty on both counts – you’re just too prideful and blind to see it!
You should focus on fixing your own issues, and “pulling the log out of your own eye first,” before declaring yourselves as “better.”
Clearly, there isn’t enough space left in your hearts for you to love anyone but yourselves, let alone a Christian man or Jesus Himself.
Put down the hand mirror and pick up a bible.
Once again, Deti Fan demonstrates that he has zero reading comprehension skills.
Thank you, Hermes, for your insightful analysis!
I’m convicted thoroughly by the need to read and comprehend each and every idea coming from others before daring to share my own unrelated and semi-related thoughts – something for which zero reading comprehension skills are ever required.
I don’t think it is about high spiritual standards. I have been Christian girls falling in love with unbelievers, as long as they are alpha. It is about high attractiveness standards. Christian women are “daughters of the King” (which is the Christian way of saying “princesses”) and deserve a prince. God will give them the perfect man.
Isn’t it really just a symptom of a broader cultural trend — maximalism?
Novaseeker, as usual, nails it. But it is impossible to eradicate maximalism from modern women because:
1) Casual sex and dating without connection to marriage have made these woman date men who are out of their marriage league. Why do they have to date lesser men if they can date more attractive men. Would you date Oprah if you were able to date Scarlett Johansonn?
2) Hermes nailed it. When a woman comes to her senses, there is always somebody (usually a greater beta) willing to marry her. So the system works peachy for women. They waste their prime years (dating with alphas and trying to have a shot with them) but they get marriage and kids (the same as the women of yesteryear). They have the same benefit but paying less. Why should they change?
Any Christian woman who is a fornicator has zero business complaining about “lack of spiritual maturity” in Christian men.
Hey princess, I suppose you think Jesus is going to wink at your sluttery just because the Christian guys don’t bring The Tingle?
If I had one wish, it would be that these women could see themselves as they are, deeply stained by their sexual sin, and unworthy of the Kingdom or marriage until they come to full repentance.
No slipping in the back door. Full-on “Prodigal Wife” repentance.
I agree with imnobodyoo in that I think Christian girls *do* have high spiritual standards, but only for men they are already attracted to. If a guy fails to measure up, if a girl is really attracted, she will more likely forgive him, or try to compromise. Case in point…the Earl of Piety girl in Boundless…who ended up with a new, seemingly great boyfriend right after her last prospect didn’t meet her standards!
I think if girls give some spiritual reason for breaking up with a guy, it’s usually because they aren’t actually that attracted to him.
About “settling”…I think the fact that Lori Gottlieb talks about it, but has never actually done it, is telling. I don’t think very many people ever actually settle for someone they aren’t really attracted to, even if they very, very badly want to be married. It’s much more likely for a Christian girl to ‘settle’ for a non-Christian guy than the Christian man who they aren’t attracted to.
Hana I think you are correct. The “not spiritual enough” argument is an excuse and indeed there are many so-called Christian women that seem to prefer unsaved guys to men who belong to Jesus. I have to wonder how many are real believers.
Undeniably, satan has targeted women–including those of the church–for brainwashing. It is part of his plan. Christian women who walk around thinking they are “princesses” are no different from black who think they are “African royalty” and “kings and queens” because of the brainwashing of the affirmative action movement.
That doesn’t mean that believing men are that much more mature, or don’t make similar mistakes in large numbers.
Deti Fan,
About a month ago, I mentioned that a girl was finding me to be an insufficient Earl of Piety–i.e., rejecting me from consideration for marriage (a rejection which is now complete, BTW)–and you responded by assuming she was trying to rope me into marriage. And now you’re taking Haley’s matter-of-fact description of Lori Gottleib’s book, along with her statement that Christian women are too picky, as an act of heaping “blame, shame, and rejection” upon men. Doesn’t seem to me that you are reading what people are writing.
Also, the usual suspects are again overstating the degree to which evangelical women are on the carousel. No doubt some are, but as The Man Who Was has repeatedly pointed out, devoutly Christian women really are different from worldly women in several important ways. That’s not to say that attraction isn’t important. Both attraction and the “Earl of Piety” factor are at play. If you take Amy Seed as an example, in her post about rejecting that guy I definitely got a flavor of her simply not finding him attractive enough, but the way she writes about her current fiancé makes it clear he’s also much more in line with her on the spiritual devoutness scale. But that’s what makes church dating so tough for Christian guys. We’ve got to meet both alpha-attractiveness standards and Earl of Piety standards. But it’s not as though these devout evangelical girls are out there riding the carousel in their twenties because they care more about attractiveness. Rather, they’re simply remaining celibate, rejecting all comers, because they’re holding out for a George Clooney Earl of Piety.
Hana–
About “settling”…I think the fact that Lori Gottlieb talks about it, but has never actually done it, is telling. I don’t think very many people ever actually settle for someone they aren’t really attracted to, even if they very, very badly want to be married. It’s much more likely for a Christian girl to ‘settle’ for a non-Christian guy than the Christian man who they aren’t attracted to.
Gottlieb never says in her book to marry a man you are not attracted to. Her advice is to reevaluate what qualities are actually necessary for attraction because if your standards for what you will even consider are too narrow, you will most likely end up alone.
I think Christian girls who do marry non-Christians look at the sacrifice they are being asked to make: either have earthly love, companionship, and a family…or be alone for the next forty or so years.
AH, it is a myth that there is a massive man-shortage in the church. What is far more likely is that large numbers of them have been written off for being too old, geeky, poor, homely, or any other number of reasons. My former college pastor–a fit, strong, confident, mature, intelligent guy–didn’t find someone until his mid-forties and he found her internationally. I do not believe that the majority of allegedly believing women that deliberately take unbelievers for a spouse had absolutely no expressions of interest from saved guys, or no opportunities to meet any.
As someone who “maximized” in marriage (would not settle for marrying a woman who was anything less than a 10 to me) I can certainly empathyze for those who choose to “maximize.” I did it. It would be unfair and not right for me to tell someone else not to do so.
But my willingness to “maximize” was with the understanding of the deal I made with God. At my loneliest moment in life, I prayed to God and said to Him that if I didn’t find a 10 that I could love and loved me back, that I would do as Paul said and not marry. I asked for a sign. I did not get one until many years later when God brought my wife to me.
Hermes – I also think the “carousel-riding” of Christian women was overstated, but I’m not sure that girls really reject men they’re *attracted* to because of “Earl of Piety” reasons. I think that attraction also has to do with compatibility, and sometimes when girls give a long list of ‘spiritual’ reasons why they’re not sure about someone, compatibility is the problem. Living out your faith the same way as each other is part of compatibility.
I’ve seen girls question past whether their boyfriends were godly enough, but then they soon end up marrying another Christian guy (like your ex-girlfriend did)! Sometimes the past boyfriends *were* new or immature Christians. I’m not sure they always deserved to be rejected…but the girls, ordinary-looking girls, found other men to marry, so I don’t think women usually end up single because they’re rejecting men for not being devout enough.
I am not an expert on dating and don’t know all the reasons why people are accepted/rejected, but I’m pretty sure the girl you were seeing wasn’t looking for perfection…she just grew up with a different way of seeing Christianity lived out, than what she saw in you, so she never felt totally comfortable with you. Either that, or she sensed that you weren’t actually that compatible as boyfriend/girlfriend, and was trying to articulate why.
Let’s call a spade a spade. For 95% of Christian singles, being hunky/hot/beautiful and of mediocre spiritual quality is better than being of outstanding caliber and mediocre appearance. Just saying!
All I know is that I’ve been active in evangelical churches for more than 10 years (I wasn’t raised in a Christian home) and I’ve never seen one of these hyper-devout evangelical girls (“Countess of Piety?”) settle for an attractive guy who was not himself an Earl of Piety, even less so a guy who was not a Christian at all. Usually they either 1) marry an Earl of Piety they’re attracted to while still young and attractive themselves, 2) wind up as lifelong-single cat lady/missionary/endless ministry-volunteers, or 3) finally decide in middle age that they want some companionship, and marry a guy who is not an Earl of Piety, but only long after they have hit the wall and lost any physical appeal. That was my point in mentioning the girl I dated in my late twenties–she did reject me for not being godly enough, and it paid off for her, because she got her Earl of Piety!
The just-plain-Christian but non-Countess-of-Piety girls may be a different story.
If you consider compatibility as a facet of attractiveness, you may have a point. I admit this more recent girl and I never really “clicked,” and part of the reason for that was the very fact that she was one of these people who is just constantly reading the Bible, praying, reading devotional books, volunteering with various ministries, etc. and I’m just not like that.
Hermes – yep, I was considering compatibility as a facet of attraction. It seems like the girl didn’t click with you because you lived out your Christian faith in different ways.
You might have a point too – maybe I know ‘ordinary Christian’ girls rather than ‘Countesses of Piety.’ There *was* one such girl I met once…she said very earnestly that ministry itself could be a distraction from God. She was very attractive. She ended up marrying a professional hockey player (an ‘Earl of Piety’? I don’t know, but definitely one in her eyes!)
Enjoy the decline.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-feminist-rationale-for-young.html
Now, I’m sure the chick in this story is not Christian, but you get the idea.
I eagerly await the wails of anguish coming from the women in my age group.
So, I met this guy in a forum, and we started kind of flirting. We ended up talking and skype-ing, and having some pretty deep conversations. He’s a total pagan, but I learned a couple of things from our interaction. One thing that I learned is that often times, you’ll meet a guy who seems really friendly at first, and he’ll be a huge d-bag, but the guys who seem like d-bags at first are actually gentlemen in disguise. Another thing I learned with this guy, is the importance of sexual compatibility, which we don’t always talk about in the church. He told me that I probably wanted a guy like him, who had a higher drive and was more dominant. He said, in his experience, this one of the biggest issues in a relationship. A good way to determine sexual matchability, is to watch the way a guy approaches you: if you want someone with a higher-drive, you should consider the dude who comes on a little strong. Anything lower than that, you should play the hot and cold games.
I think, short and sweet, this is what people need to look for:
1.Meets you at “the essentials”, beliefs-wise
2.Is respectful
3.Has the same sex-drive
Two and three seem to be the most difficult points in the church (two, I’m sure, is due to three much of the time: people with lower-drives tend to play power games and act coy). I’m pretty forward, for a woman. I smile and joke and flirt, but at the end of the day, I want a man who can more than keep-up. If I’m showing more interest in a guy than he is me, I’m bored. I like feeling a little cornered. That being said, if you have more of the “alpha female” qualities, don’t feel like it’s your responsibility to protect these fellows emotionally. Date around guys who match your type, and if you find yourself more drawn to a particular guy, be honest and polite. Be honest with every guy about how much you like them, how much you enjoy their company, what you like about them, etc. If you get rejected for liking a guy before/ more than he likes you, your sex-drive might be higher than his. I’m a very attractive woman, and this still happens to me often, but it’s cool.
^ I should probably point-out that I was a good girl during our conversations, and we respectfully acknowledged that our conflicting values put us in different partner-spheres.
A summary of Red’s comment:
– I want a confident alpha with a high sex drive.
– Douchebags are gentlemen in disguise. Nice guys are douchebags in disguise.
A better example of the hamster is difficult to find.
I’m not philosophizing, I’m going on what I know. “Holier than thou” is what it does.
The truth is, most of these high spiritual standards are just another way of saying he didn’t meet a major requirement. For example, the ideal life for most Christian women is immediately marrying an eligible man out of college and becoming a stay at home mom as soon as possible. The problem is, most of the men today do not earn enough to fulfill this requirement – not to mention all of the other material needs of the princess.
Not in my case, Mike. I plan on working for a while and possibly not having kids ever. Which, what business do *I* have not producing offspring? :P
Point is, people should basically be marrying for sex. Yes, for forever, but for sex forever. You’re lucky God lets you have it. You don’t need all this other crap: a game-plan, financial stability, a good job, a ton of friends, endless achievements, etc., etc… what do you think this is? When you make a friend, do you ask for their resume? Marriage is also a friendship, but with sex. Sorry to dash the pedestal of perfect.
I experienced a “Sunday Morning Coming Down” moment late yesterday. (Johnny Cash)
On my way home, I noticed a dad and his little tiny daughter running around their yard with what looked like a new puppy. There is nothing like seeing little kids have that kind of joy.
It is an experience that I always thought I would have, until I woke up one day and realized that it was not going to happen. It really wasn’t my decision.
It was decided by the Christian maximizer virus that has corrupted the souls and minds of the women in the Church.
Women no longer want to build a life together. They want a pre-finished man with prestigious occupation, solidly alpha so that they need not experience anything less than perfectly satisfying attraction. Total customer satisfaction – or his money back (in family court).
I’m sure somewhere there is a woman who would – under more sensible circumstances – have married me and raised a family. I never met her, and have no idea what she has done with herself these two decades. All I can say is that I hope her life is as lonely as she made mine.
And I hope she feels remorse every time she sees a family – that she could have had, if not for chasing the almighty tingle.
Gee, jack, have you no empathy? Yes, as a matter of fact I do. My empathy begins when her pride and arrogance is completely gone. Until she despises even the most “favorite mistake”. This requires such a woman to completely humble herself with regard to her past.
Okay, if a woman is there, and you like her, what do you do?
a. Make sure she likes you, then cautiously make a move
b. Do nothing
c. Swoop in there and hit on her*
If she says “no”?
a. Walk away, hurt and bewildered
b. Neg
c. Keep chatting her up*
If you look like an idiot?
a. Tell God you’re sorry, because it wasn’t his plan
b. Give up
c. Practice until you’re not an idiot any more*
If she’s a horrible meanie?
a. Run away with a bruised ego
b. Get revenge, because this is serious
c. Good, you found out; learn something new and move-along*
The problem is, “the system” is now obsolete. Men are concerned with following the Focus on the Family Community Standards, when it comes to dating. They can’t risk the possible ostracization of disobeying the established social-rules of taking *everything* from flirting to hanging-out to sitting next to someone *really seriously*. If they make a healthy move on a woman, someone will probably not like it. If they don’t, they’ll die single. They’re waiting for that perfect person, the woman who you can just tell will be your wife just by looking at her, and she knows you’re the one too, especially through prayer, and also because you’re irresistible. They sit, they wait, they rot. Because this isn’t reality.
If it were up to these poor, ashamed men, they would make a move on the person they deem most attractive, not the most compatible, and so they would be more motivated. But this would be selfish: think of “her heart” you’re “guarding.” You can never be too careful with the frail, demure feminine psyche. Only think of your compatible wife lustfully, and after you’re married! Showing interest means marriage-mindedness, which should be reserved for one person. And all God’s people said “Amen!” Do what the sheeple say is gospel, or I’ll tell my pastor on you, you wayward boy. You creepy stalker. You.
I’ll never worry much about a woman’s heart or feelings again, after learning ow cold, selfish, and materialistic they are. After all, they could not give two cents of care about most men. All they care about is the selfish fulfillment of their attraction and security “needs”.
They are not interested in working toward anything, only harvesting something someone else made.
This is how they justify ignoring good men for years while they ride the carousel. They get to sate their lust, then good old steady Eddie is finally established enough in his career for her to jump off the carousel and into the safety of whatever career he has made for himself.
Men are nothing more than consumer products to most women.
“On my way home, I noticed a dad and his little tiny daughter running around their yard with what looked like a new puppy. There is nothing like seeing little kids have that kind of joy.”
If what you really want is marriage and kids, that’s very easy to do just not with an attractive woman.
Get off your moral high ground. Bust your ass to be more attractive and have the balls to go against the modern day Christian society.
Moral high ground?
For not wanting to marry a woman with a notable sexual resume prior to marriage?
If you’re suggesting that I marry an overweight woman, not gonna happen. I work hard to stay in very good physical condition. I expect the same. This is a very reasonable requirement.
Funny thing, even the chubby ones all want their prince charming, I guess they never figured out from the movie that Cinderella was a slender and attractive girl.
If they are not a Cinderella, they need to stop looking for their prince charming and start looking for mr reliable. But the fairy tale of being redeemed by an attractive prince complete with triumphant victory over her female rivals, keeps their egos implacable.
What I was saying is what you want is kids and marriage and you’re so distraught that you don’t have it, then that goal isn’t too hard.
You want marriage and kids with an attractive woman and don’t have the goods to back it up, the same as these Christian spinsters.
Just be honest that you want a hot girl first and foremost and not the family man thing and I’ll respect that. That’s what rustles my jimmies about these girls, they act like they are all moral and just want a family when they want a hot guy first and foremost and are hypocrites. Just admit it, be open about it. Don’t like a little angel.
Maybe if they admitted it then they would actually put in the work to make their hopes a reality. It’s the first step.
Admit to yourself you want a hot girl and then put in the work to get her. Focus on money, charisma, and aesthetics to the best of your ability and put it into action.
“For not wanting to marry a woman with a notable sexual resume prior to marriage?”
Nah you want a hot girl. If the right looking woman showed up you wouldn’t even care. Just like the girls, when the stud shows up all prereqs fly out the window.
Wah, my pick avi is gone.
Ferret, I wonder if *you’re* hot. You’re just meeting so many prereqs…
I’ve never tried for hot girls. Just average ones.
A solid 5 with a very low N is all I needed. If I was “too picky” in any area, it was my desire for a girl with a strong intellect.
The problem was not the looks. The problem was the low N. The only low-N girls I could get were indisputably unattractive (read: fat).
Any girl of even minimal attractiveness who was still low-N was unattainable.
I could get all the cute tramps I wanted.
Jack:
1. Don’t be so fox and grapes with the hot ladies
2. Don’t shame women for something they aren’t doing, just because fox and grapes
3. A “slutty” woman wouldn’t’ want a guy like you; they’d want an “experienced” person like themselves.
4. So you’re the one dating the fives? Unless you’re a three, might I suggest pulling an Opposite George? Unless you want to date “slutty” ten ladies, of course, because we all know they go for holy, virgin threes…
Well Jack, the game is the game is the game. It’s not going to change anytime soon.
So realistically your choices are the holy landwhale vs a decent looking sloot. Me personally, if some guy shoved a shotgun next to my head and said I had to get married, I would take the hot whore vs the frumpy prude neurotic church girl every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Plus the N thing can be overcome if you know how to be attractive. Frump and prissy never goes away.
I think the problem with both genders in the church is the inability to go, “Most people aren’t that into me,” and react accordingly. Everything has to be like a movie, and everyone wants to feel like the protagonist. I wonder if it’s linked to testimony culture, with the church alphas talking about how “screwed-up they were, and then, and then they met Jesus.” Everything has to be like a movie, what the heck…
Other than Josh Harris, when do “tramps” (really?) ever pursue “good boys” for more than recreational purposes?
“I think the problem with both genders in the church is the inability to go, “Most people aren’t that into me,” and react accordingly. Everything has to be like a movie, and everyone wants to feel like the protagonist. I wonder if it’s linked to testimony culture, with the church alphas talking about how “screwed-up they were, and then, and then they met Jesus.” Everything has to be like a movie, what the heck…”
Church culture is run by old women idealizing how things should be even though they most likely didn’t even do them back in the day. End of story.
Almost all men in church are either straight gays or some type of All-American Boy image which they don’t actually do. Any other man either opts out of shit deal or is run out by the puritans.
“Other than Josh Harris, when do “tramps” (really?) ever pursue “good boys” for more than recreational purposes?”
Josh Harris is an unattractive phaggot. He is about the prime example of a situational alpha in that his attractive qualities are due to his position not his innate tratis. He knows absolutely nothing about human sexuality and should never had his book taken seriously. All he did was parrot what a middle aged neurotic church lady told him to say.
The whole thing with “All American Boys”… yeah, it took me a while to figure-out that “kissing references” were code for “sexually active, are you smart-enough to read between the lines?”
The situational alpha a.k.a. superproducer phenomenon… I loled. That so much.
But seriously, I’m going to use the Pringles reference from the 90s to explain why “tramps” don’t date virgins, and without using too much biology, it’s a mixed-scenario for good girls, for physical reasons. So, it’s not that the concept of virginity will actually get you anywhere in the worldly world.
Also, church ladies are scaring this poor lass.
I think that the problem often stems from Christians thinking or believing that they need to do things completely differently when spouse selecting than “secular people” do. Of course some things *do* need to be done differently, like maintaining chastity outside of marriage. But in terms of “what are looking for”, Christians are going to be looking for many of the same things everyone else is in a spouse, plus the Christian part.
So, yes, everyone is looking for the hottest spouse they can pull off. Everyone. Male and female. That doesn’t change just because you are dealing with a group of Christians.
And, everyone has their floor of attraction, below which they won’t go (even if it is around the same level of attractiveness as themselves – floors are hard floors, and not variable based on the individual’s own attractiveness level).
So in a group dynamic which is relatively small (as all church settings are, even the biggish ones, compared to the world at large), the same social dynamic is going to come up. Everyone is going to try to get the hottest ones of the opposite sex. At the same time, a good many people will be simply written off because they are either below the floor, or close to being below the floor and the person thinks they can do better in another pool – perhaps on the internet, for example. That’s just how it works. So in that dynamic, very much like in a nightclub, the only ones who can really benefit are the hottest people of each sex. Everyone else kind of gets looked past to one degree or another. It’s just how the social dynamic plays itself out in such settings.
When you add factors like “wanting a low N” into the mix, of course it gets even worse, because then there are more reasons to exclude (same with the earl of piety nonsense), and it gets to the point where everyone who isn’t a standout gets overlooked. This is one reason I have never tried to meet a spouse in church, personally.
I do agree that compatible sex drives are important – a marriage will be under a tremendous amount of strain if one spouse has a substantially higher/lower than average sex drive, and such deviation from the norm is not shared by the other spouse. It wrecks the entire marriage, potentially. So someone, man or woman, who is very highly sexed needs a spouse who is similarly highly sexed, whereas the less highly sexed also need that in a spouse (yes, there are men who are less highly sexed than average, too), given the central and critical importance of sex in maintaining a stable marriage. Christian relationship culture can make this hard to suss, given that we don’t sleep with each other outside of marriage (at least not licitly). I think the best approach is to know your own proclivities (and how they relate to the average, rather than assuming your own proclivities are average because they are natural and familiar to you) and then seek someone who is obviously more sexual or obviously less sexual, or in the middle, depending on where you yourself are. This can be sussed a bit by degree of aggression in men, and degree of flirtiness/sexiness in women, because these are inherently sexual behaviors when displayed toward the opposite sex (and a reason why spouses should NOT be displaying these behaviors for those other than their spouse, but that’s a topic for a different thread), even if the people are not having sex. Using this as a proxy, you can kind of tell the highly sexed people from the moderate people from the lower sexed people – at least in a general, if at times imperfect, way (some people do behave in a way that is incongruent to their underlying sex drive due to other issues like overwhelming shyness, social anxiety, overall fitness levels and so on, and in these cases things can be masked a bit, making it harder to read).
Novaseeker, my thoughts exactly. I think what you mean by “sexed,” though, isn’t literally “sexed” but “sexual proclivity.” For the Christians who are literally “sexed,” and then converted, they’d prolly need some detox before seeing someone.
Gotta know: what is “N”?
If you are reading “fox and grapes” into my statement, then you are not understanding me.
The fox wanted the grapes, then after he could not get them, rationalized that they were probably sour, so as to mitigate his disappointment. I am not reasoning away my want for something. I am acknowledging that I was unable to get it.
I wanted an average-looking girl with a very low N who was a fun, smart person.
The problem was the low N (N=number of sex partners).
The average-looking virgins were so rare as to be difficult to find, and they could afford to be selective, because guys prefer girls with minimal experience.
I have been able to date women much more attractive than I am, but who are/were quite promiscuous.
I even considered women below my attractiveness level, provided they were low-N. Even those were very hard to find.
The only way to find a virgin (or close to it) was to “go big”. I am athletic and in good shape, and that is a deal-breaker for me, because it is controllable. For the record, I think most women are attractive, provided the personality is there.
I’m not rationalizing that the grapes were sour, I am simply stating that I was unable to get to the grapes that had not already used by someone else.
Criticize me all you like, but do not attribute my motives incorrectly.
This is weird. I’m like an 8, some people say a 9, and have a nonexistent “N”. I’m not getting asked-out left and right either. Is everyone just cheating on the rules? I thought we were waiting. There’s your problem.
Yeah, I know about the Fox and Grapes thing. But okay, I’ll take your word for it that hot women are sleeping around. I happen to know a lot who get written-off for it, but they haven’t actually done anything at all. I think sometimes, if you have a certain personality or a more exotic look, you get put into that category. Also, I have to say, women are very competitive, and I get the feeling that some of them trash the reputation of other women to get a hot husband. The problem I see a lot is people hanging in the same circle and not getting to know enough women on a personal level. They go off whatever some chicken-head said about a woman, and avoid all the cliche “friend-zone” stuff, etc., to their very detriment.
That’s a theory, anyhow.
“This is weird. I’m like an 8, some people say a 9, and have a nonexistent “N”. I’m not getting asked-out left and right either.”
I think you’re probably over valuing yourself and have an unapproachable attitude. If you’re a hot girl you are going to get hit on, a lot. Lying to yourself does you no favors.
Most guys don’t necessary want a virgin, they simply don’t want a slut.
If you really were an 8+ you would know it by the parade of attention. You might not be getting direct approaches that often but the indirects are through the roof along with a countless number of orbiters. Plus 8+ actually do get married to alpha guys as long as they aren’t crazy.
“The problem I see a lot is people hanging in the same circle and not getting to know enough women on a personal level. They go off whatever some chicken-head said about a woman, and avoid all the cliche “friend-zone” stuff, etc., to their very detriment.”
No way. You shouldn’t waste your time on girls that aren’t interested. That’s the smart play. Once you know it’s not going to go anywhere, cut your loses and move on.
You got to remember that men and women have dual mating objectives, thus The Game.
Hm, I dunno. I don’t think I’m actually a 9. Where I used to go to school, the guys my brother dormed with used to tell him I was attractive all of the time. Him, not me, but not in a rude way. I also get told that I’m attractive by random strangers, but not cute straight guys my own age. Mostly, I get complimented on my hair (it’s an unusual shade of red), like three times a day, so it’s hard to tell: I feel like I’m competing with my hair a lot of the time. :P My odds of eye-game with a good-looking guy are going to be like 60%. I dated a 9-9.5 once, and would get stopped by random strangers, saying that we were a good-looking couple. I feel like a lot of guys are kind of frozen in place, and not willing to make a move. I also think they’re incredibly hard to read. The type of dude who finds me attractive and the type of dude who doesn’t seems to be completely random. Eight seems to make sense but I really don’t know any more. Maybe it’s the places I hang out. But on the other side of it, I actually want to marry a virgin for Biblical reasons; my second choice would be someone who didn’t know better and then became a Christian. Honestly, other than that, I would date a heathen before I dated a cafeteria Christian.
It seems like men want women to be kind of aggressive nowadays, as in calling the guy hot and all this stuff. I think most vain people at church are the pretty boys: the girls all compete over the pretty one. To me, that kind of kills the mood. I always avoid the flash-mobs.
Now that I think about it, if I’m in a dynamic with an 8+, aka, a classroom-setting, shopping, whatever, there’s usually a lot of eye game and a platonic flirting dynamic. It’s this sort of back and forth eye game and me waiting for him to bust a move, and then losing interest at the lack of nads he apparently has. If I’m in a room-dynamic, I’m almost always singled-out by the most attractive fellow in the room. But it’s for boring, frozen eye-smile-games. If you think someone’s cute, just get a coffee with them, no strings attached. None of this deliberation for three weeks at a time. It’s not a marriage-proposal.
Red-
The dynamic you have described has worked well for me in dating non-crazy non-Christians.
I dated a very attractive girl two inches taller than me. Turns out she was a wiccan who had slept around a lot. Too bad, she had a sweet small-town vibe that fooled me at first.
But the “it’s just coffee, no big deal” dynamic seems utterly missing from the Church circles (and I have sampled a lot of churches).
The Church girls continually enforce a high-school like drama/weirdness/creepy script. Seriously, it is like high school all over again: the petty gossip, the obsession with height, acting weird and flighty, etc.
I’m beginning to think that most church girls are alpha widows even if they are virgins. They live in their backward little culture, dreaming about Jesus-in-Brad-Pitt’s-body JC/BPB), and reinforcing a echo chamber of “God’s precious daughter”
(Christianese for you GO girl!!!.
Not All Women Are Like That?
Of course not. The problem is one of supply. The good women marry off early, and have their choice of marriage minded men. Us second-tier guys have our choice of:
1) High mileage women
2) Plain looking “good girls” who are not realistic about their MMV
3) Single mothers with serious baggage
If a girl marries a guy when she is young and at the peak of her SMV, that is the clearest proof that she sees him as having value. Finally “settling” for that guy 15 years later after being a forni-lympic participant through college and career? Not so much.
The hookup culture is so thoroughly integrated into our society, that I actually believe that I could have sex with attractive women easier than I could find a low-N plain girl to marry.
I often ask myself why I still look.
Okay, I should prolly give a background story too. I actually asked a forum of boys why I had trouble getting dates. I even put my picture up everything. The response I got was that I was quite attractive, but my personality made it seem like I was a “slut.” Apparently, if you’re an outgoing woman and you flirt with more than one guy, you’re labeled. So, I don’t know if that carries into dating or not, because it would seem like the efficient way is for everyone to date more than one person at once, and for the *male* to actually narrow it down when he’s interested. Men seem to do this a lot, yet I’m not supposed to even flirt with more than one man at once, or I get slut-shamed.
It is high-school-like, and I’ll admit, I’ve been that high school girl. It’s part of the learning process. I don’t think that should scare anyone. If anything, act really confident about not getting a second cup of coffee with a woman, and you’ll be that d-bag that all the betas get jealous of. :P
The other thing is, though, I don’t think guys should date women they aren’t interested in. If I’m one option, cool. If you don’t really like me, don’t keep asking me out.
Something that I’ve recently realized, is that I was a bit too standoffish when I was younger. I wasn’t taught how to date, or even encouraged to date. I’ve had to figure everything out on my own. That being said, I’ve had a few times where I’ve looked-back and thought, “I think so-and-so liked me.” But then, I never knew what to look for, so I never “got it.” I probably should have been more in “the game”, or whatevs, but I was told by people who had married young that being single and independent is more fun. Little did I realize that this was not reality, but their coveted pipe-dream. It’s not even a Biblical perspective to tell people our age to wait that long. Yeah, the longer you wait, the more people you’ll have falling-away and doing things.
Up until really recently, I knew a whole ton of 7-9, godly women who were definitely virgins. Now I know a decent amount of them who still are, and a good amount of question-marks. So this doesn’t add-up, because my side is saying there are no Christian men. Where do you guys even hang-out?
So, I’m a bit lost about the abbreviations: “MMV, SMV,” etc. What does it all mean??
MMV=Marriage Market Value: How fit for a long term relationship.
SMV=Sexual Market Value: How fit for a short term relationship.
First Tier and Second Tier wives… That’s a very interesting concept, Jack. Your whole post (the most recent one) is solid gold, but I want to pontificate for a bit on the differences between the two classes of ladies you just identified.
First Tier women are, as you pointed out, swamped by marriage minded men. Their defining characteristics are (at least, in my eyes) their application of the standards of a biblical marriage: Supporting their husband and family, being gentle and well spoken, and, as they get older, having a delightful combination of intelligence and maturity to accompany their innocence.
Second Tier women would be anyone in/over the mid-20s, as well as the younger girls who place themselves in the “undesirables” category via virtue (haha) of their promiscuity, attitude, obesity, and other outward signs of not caring about what (good) men actually want (multiple/obvious tattoos, excessive drinking, vulgarity and sarcastic attitudes come to mind). There are a few girls who have mistakenly fallen into step on the feminist life-plan, who legitimately sought a good degree, or may have spent their prime years with the wrong person, but by that point their most attractive and marriage-formative years have been frittered away. Usually, if they are intentional about becoming Godly women, it’s obvious that they could potentially be good wives, but it will be an uphill battle, and they will lack the charm, innocence and elegance of a woman from the First Tier who made the right choices when she was younger.
The main problem the Second Tier woman will face is convincing a man to accept her in this state, one she chose for herself (a clear majority of the, anyways). Men, by inverse, mostly start at Second or Third Tier (for MMV, at least) and begin to experience their rise to First Tier as they pass into their mid/late-twenties, if ever. I can account, for example, the girl who in her youth (and potential to be a First Tier woman) rejected me. Yet, the week after I became Dr. Seth, she called to me, asking me to accept her in her now Second Tier (having had a child and other self inflicted problems) state. It became very obvious that I was a First Tier (MMV) guy, due largely in part to the overwhelming numbers of mothers/grandmothers trying to involve me into their daughter’s/granddaughter’s life. Knowledge, however subtle I may have had it, kept me from engaging in the dating arena, because these girls were, without a fault, a Second Tier or First Tier squanderer-in-progress. One young lady who had the potential to capture my attention, who went as far as to ask me on a date, had all the right credentials (indeed, far exceeded my baseline requirements for a marriage partner) but for one fatal flaw: Her “In A Relationship” status on Facebook (and boyfriend who worked at my office).
As you said, Jack: I often asked myself why I was looking. Really, I didn’t feel like I -was- looking. At all. I knew the score, and I simply disengaged unless “something magical happened”, I just wouldn’t take any interest. Saved myself a lot of time, stress and money. I took a year to decide if I wanted to be married, and what I was willing to do to find a spouse who was matching me in my efforts to be First Tier, and decided to try the overseas thing. Coolest experience, ever. There are tramps, prostitutes, gift seekers and immature women, don’t get me wrong. But there are also a lot of women who have focused on being First Tier women (and wives), continuing even after the age of 23-25. The reason is simply that there are not enough First Tier guys to marry them. Just as there are not enough First Tier women over here in the West.
At Red: I’m not sure you can imagine the amount of pressure that calling for a “no pressure” date involves. Western men live in a society where looking at a girl in a way she finds unattractive can get you shunned from a social circle. We live in a society that we lock our doors because a wandering female could come into our house, start breaking my dishes and yelling at us and have us kicked out by calling the cops and claiming to be our girlfriend. In some states, women have so much power after a divorce, that they not only can they demand a share of the ex-husband’s wages, but also a share of his new wife’s wages. Couple that with a society that teaches you that you are not necessary (indeed, a detriment) to a society of morally pure, intelligent female beings that deserve only reverence, and any slip-up could potentially cause you the wrath and/or shunning of your co-workers/church group/social group and you can begin to understand that there is, indeed, pressure in a “no pressure” date.
The only way a man can get over this is to simply not care. Two kinds of men start not caring at an early age: Those who have solid masculine and feminine role models (an increasingly lower probability) and those who don’t care about society’s norms (and thus display caddish behavior). Men are so used to being rejected by assumption, that to receive ANY kind of social validation can make them unnecessarily needy; they’re trying to make up for all the lost time. Unfortunately, not many men make it out of that stage fully, but those who do usually make it for one of two reasons: 1. Personal development and subsequent (inevitable) eclipsing of women in SMV and MMV, and 2. Relocating to another place in search of a quality wife, making domestic women inconsequential in that respect.
To flip the supply/demand male/female script once again, I only have to reference my recent trip to Ukraine. In the same way that many good men (of various flavors of Beta) strive to improve themselves in the MMV arena to ultimately receive little/no validation, women in Ukraine are shown the same treatment in their gender arena. Walking down the street or sitting in a cafe, if a woman catches you looking at her, she turns her head (and often shoulders) to return you gaze, and has a serious, almost quizzical look on her face. Is this man checking me out? Could he be noticing me and how good I look? Is he appreciating my beauty? Will he ask me on a date? As model-esque as women look over there, men do not pay attention to them, even to look at them. In the same way that average, hard-working, well behaved men are invisible to women over here, an “average” (5’6″, 115lbs, high heels, hose and tight clothes) woman is invisible to men over there. They have to install mirrors in the walls of clubs so the girls can know that at least one person is looking at them dance…themselves. At least there, they have a chance to practice being a desirable woman early on (the one advantage of having your SMV peak so soon).
As I had mentioned before, prior to looking seriously overseas, I knew I was a First Tier man. I did an objective statistical analysis of myself, using the 2010 census data, and to find a man as well groomed, achieved, and with my morals would be one in ten-thousand. Accounting for my young age would probably have placed me even higher. That wasn’t enough for the local ladies, however, because MMV does not cause tingles. After returning from Ukraine (and a week or two of female validation), the script flipped entirely. Now that I didn’t want dates, women (American and otherwise) started crawling out of the woodwork. The good (or, at least, better) ones I would take on a date, just one, to get to know them and to give them tips on how to make themselves more marriageable. Appearance doesn’t matter, I just look for a heart for God and a sincere desire to improve. Despite the clarity of my message (strictly platonic) and the honest critiquing (borderline insulting if taken out of context), every girl ends up asking/subtly assuming/demanding for another date. They’re obviously attracted to me, the hair-flipping, arm-grabbing, lid-flapping, boob-grazing vixens. I have to tell them no, because my heart is no longer here, and playing them is not my intention. I shall not adopt the mindset of “you had your fun, not it’s time for mine.” For me, there will only be one girl in my life, and this First Tier man will settle for nothing less than a First Tier woman.
Okay, the thing is, you’re only going to get the woman by seeing other women. You can’t tell who’s who: it’s a masquerade ball. You have to do what works, regardless of mess; I honestly think there’s an agenda of religious-cleansing right now that stacks things against Christian marriage. You have to cut through the system with a blunt instrument. This is no time for people to fantasize about princes and princesses or to “maximize.” This is no time to hide in the prayer chamber and make a laundry list. You have to take every red lobster at red lobster to coffee and read between the lines to find a good woman there is the smallish spark with. So, do it. Don’t worry about the croc tears; I had a dude literally cry because I was breaking it off. I felt bad, so I called him back; next date, he promptly lost me for another woman. It’s largely emotional bullcrap and egoism, which is made worse by the lack of dating opportunities. When are we all going to start dating? When we’re 80? I don’t care if you’re not enthused about dating and the baggage with it, it’s like your societal duty.
Ever worked a crappy job? If you can put up with that bull, you can date. I just had one dude call me an underachieving noob (instead of ending it nicely), which really upset me, as I’m an artistic and my career is taking a while. Wanksta gave me, a woman, a man’s insult. But you know what? I was quickly over it. He was not very aggressive, so we’d have made a bad fit. He was giving me lots of numbers: the word-count of his newly-started book. You just take a day to let the angries process, and move on to the next one. It’s all a big joke at the end of the day.
One thing I’d like to know: why do so many people think disinterest is sexy? It’s lame. If you’re unavailable, I’m not interested, because 0% chance of future sex.
*I don’t want to sound like a complainer. There are decent men out there, and I make a point to talk about them in only a positive light, regardless of why it didn’t work-out. Just be polite.
Ok, Red, you won me over. Let’s get married. You better like pina coladas/getting caught in the rain…
@Red
You sound like a Christian version of the subject of this post Lori Gottlieb. You seem to do alright with getting attractive guys to take you out and then you disqualify them for one reason or another.
Plus you want a super alpha that’s a virgin. LOL. Good luck with your spinster goals of 2014.
I also think that you and Jack are flipsides of the same coin. Wanting some kind of very rare specimen to appear and be willing to choose you over all the others even though it seems that both you have some flaws to seem to be deal breakers for that person.
Have fun with your double-standards. I’m not the maximizer, here. Seriously, it shouldn’t matter whether a guy is an alpha or a beta: it’s the beliefs thing. Also, why should I have to pay any penalty? I haven’t done anything bad, I’m fairly attractive, and have a low list of requirements. I don’t need some bloody doctor. I want a cute guy who’s friendly, sexually compatible, and actually does what the Bible says to do. This should be fairly simple: a lot of people have put off marriage for various reasons, especially due to the economy. The biggest problem is dudes foregoing what the Bible says and blaming it on their organs. And then, as a faithful Christian wife, this person is supposed to “lead” me, essentially give me moralizing lessons based on his past “experience” until the day I die. Just like church.
FuriousFerret, how’s life in the peanut-gallery? Where’s your trophy wife? Stop acting superior.
In the far-corner, Jack, a bitter, near-celibate whose lingering resentment colors his every word.
In the near-corner, Red, a self-proclaimed horny horndog with highly unrealistic alpha expectations, which are topped only by her generously inflated SMV self-perception.
Can two anonymous Christian blog commenters carry on a conversation without getting snippy? Tune in tomorrow when our humble hostess chimes in with calming words, a clarifying opinion, and a glass of ice water for Red.
If I were a man, would the butthurt even be here? Sorry for having a healthy sex-drive. I promise I’ll save myself just for you, Hudson… or try to have sex with exactly two men. You don’t even need to buy me an ice-water, as I’m not materialistic at all.
Haley should post something new, because Seth just went crazy. And because everyone’s bored. http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdk85i6fIM1qmdkcso1_500.gif
Resentment ‘colors’ my every word? My words are nothing but distilled resentment.
That’s like saying coal is ‘colored’ black. Oh yes, and ‘bitter’ as well; let me congratulate you on a successful double-play of feminist shaming language:
Why not go for a triple and tell me how much I’m ‘scaring’ you or whatever?
The fatal flaw in your argument is that it presumes that resentment and/or bitterness are never justified, and that the presence of same is somehow an automatic disqualification of the individual’s words.
I resent how screwed up the Christian girls are. Were I to deny my faith, I would have no problem finding someone. Maybe too much Evango-Princess magical thinking ruins them?
Perhaps a few good old-fashioned pumps-n-dumps helps smooth out the jagged edges of a girl’s ego? Perhaps I’ve been wrong all along and I should be seeking someone who has had the foolish dreams alpha’d out of them, rather than a so-called “innocent” who still casts furtive glances at carousel?
This is a point worth pondering. Selah, or something.
Jack and friends, if you are going to go around virgin-shaming, shaming virgins who want *other* virgins, shaming women who were equally promiscuous as you because they are women, using phrases like “sexual market value,” negging nice women, virgin or not, to lower what you all call “sexual market value,” and then assigning us roles as feminists, which no surprise, you are against, you can just leave the church. Why don’t churches put their feet down ever? You don’t guys don’t sound like Christians, as you obviously have expressed a disgust for Christian values and those practice it, making there no reason for you to even be going.
On a side note, reality is, and I quote, “God’s forgiveness saves you from hell, not rent payment, credit card bills, or a diminished MMV based on past ‘sluttiness’ [ even though I don’t like the term “slut”].” I’m sorry, but this isn’t a gender-discriminant statement. You also might want to read that article about the Pajama Boy of Boundless, as you are saying exactly the same thing.
In your scenarios, you are responsible for your own lives, and I say unapologetically, you get what you get.
Sad reality is that men like you mistakenly lose their way to church, and then end-up in the isles. Us women go, “That overconfident d-bag with the ‘testimony’ is trouble,” and you call it riding the carousel. Worst. Ride. Ever.
So, Haley: I agree that the whole “Man of God” phenomenon is pathetic, and fake, and I never fell for it. Also think that maybe you’re underestimating the fault of men who go to church, leave for a while, or don’t, go through a “phase,” and come back all “Man of God” or otherwise, demanding perhaps not the perfect wife, but a woman who is still considerably above them. And then, what do we have here, threats to go back to secular society, where the living is very easy, when you’re a man. If you’re a woman, your biology gets called “neediness,” and your “SMV” diminishes: how you like them eggs?
“Other than Josh Harris, when do “tramps” (really?) ever pursue “good boys” for more than recreational purposes?”
When they’re ready for the legitimacy, status, and financial security that rockbanddrummer or harleymcbadboy can’t provide.
FWIW, I have seen it play out so many times it’s not funny. Sloot wants kids and marriage after years of screwing the hot, unreliable types, suddenly finds God and gets tons of “nice guy” attention. She doles out lots of sexual favors (if not outright PiV, everything but) while dating, swearing she never does that kind of thing – or at least doesn’t anymore. Grossly under-represents her N in the process.
She eventually marries the most eligible chump, pops out a couple of kids, then proceeds to drip feed him sex for years afterwards. His resentment over the bait and switch she pulled on him builds to the exploding point, until he flips his shit. They then get divorced and she goes on to wallow in her church friends’ sympathy, complaining to everyone who will listen about what an abusive asshole her ex-husband was.
How is this different from basically every man?
Haha, gather round y’all. I’mma tell y’all a story: There once was a bird named Kakapo that lived off an island by the land of Middle Earth. Kakapo once shared the land with many of his own kind, all of whom ate from the fruit of the rimu tree. Overweight, odorous and flightless, Kakapo’s only hope of surviving the wrath of the raptors who scourged the skies was to do these things: stand still, rely on his green complexion as camouflage and live his days during the night.
All went well for many years, until a bipedal beast came with his pet, Cat and his pest, Rat. Cat and Rat with their keen sense of smell found that Kakapo possessed a delicious scent. So they hunted him. For years Kakapo’s hiding had always been a boon, but now it, along with his herb-like odor had become his bane. Many of Kakapo’s kind were helpless and they were devoured.
However, the best revenge was to thrive and prosper, to live a fruitful and joyful live, for the future belonged to those who show up for it. Ultimately love would save the day. Only Kakapo was not so skilled in the art of love. When the rimu masts every three to five years, was when Kakapo sought his muse. Upon a top of the mountain he would venture on foot to dig a hole at the top. He would sing a lengthy song in bass. His deep bellow would travel the far reaches of the island, and eventually find the ears of his beloved. But the source of low frequencies proved difficult to find, and the lady still must wander for miles up a vast hill to find her man. In the end, the lady never found Kakapo. His kind is now at the edge of extinction.
Ps there is a point to that story.
Hey Red, you really do need a glass of ice water. You’re steaming up the place… ow ow. Let’s get out of here and get some cyber ice-cream.
Asterix, that was randomly interesting and *almost* made sense. D’awwwe, I’d get ice cream with you. >_<
I think you have me confused with someone else red. I only slut shame, never virgin shame.
Careful Red, at this rate we’ll be getting ice cream together for real.
Now about the story. It’s basically this: like New Zealand’s kakapo parrot, we in Western Civilization, especially Christians, are in danger of being eaten by metaphorical cats and rats. Our modern reproductive strategy is as disadvantegous, men and women alike. We should adapt instead of pointing fingers, to face the trouble that lies ahead. Even a few weeks ago I may have boarded the angst train myself. Maybe from here on in we can brainstorm solutions instead.
@Asterix, we’ll see, we’ll see, there’s that 24 hour rule… I take ice cream dates very, very seriously, dude. :P
In all honesty, though, my edginess/ frequently-changing POV was me trying to resolve a good system. I’m a bit torn-up about the whole thing, because there are lots and lots of demographics here. You basically have three categories that you’re looking at:
1. Sexual history
2. Shared beliefs
3. Everything else (attractiveness, temperament, sexual compatibility, personality, etc.)
Category three is what actually makes people want to be with each other in the first place. Even though everyone has their own sliding scale of what’s acceptable in category three, it’s never a very big sliding scale at the end of the day, and anything outside these boundaries won’t happen.
You have sexual history, which is a really complex subject. Ideally, well, ideally ideally, no one has any. Obviously, this isn’t the case. So then, ideally, people will pair-up who share about the same sexual history. There are two caveats: virginity, which is it’s own sub-category, and men who are grossly maximizing in the sexual history department. Realistically, I think many men should lower their standards on sexual history, to allow the woman equal to slightly more former promiscuity than what they’ve experienced. I should also point-out that men are often much more “experienced” than women in the church.
As for virginity, most virgins will only date other virgins, so there isn’t really a “ballpark,” a.k.a. “I only did it once/ twice.” The exception to this rule would be the hard luck, 95% of the time man, who was kicked around since he was born and then, after seeing the world, found Jesus. And this is idealism, which is held-out 70-80% of the time where at least one party is a virgin on his or her wedding night. A lot of the time, you’ll see either someone this category, usually a woman, “compromise” expectations on a spouse to avoid being forever alone, and people in this category who are forever alone.
So, on to the shared beliefs category: are we too picky? Granted, we will likely be raising children with the person we marry, so beliefs are important. But which beliefs and how important? I think this standard is the one that needs to be examined the most. What denominational differences, political differences, et cetera, are holding us back? What things should we bend on and what things should we prioritize? Basically, everyone should be forming their own personal marriage manifestos.
Of course, in the third category, there is a *LOT* of cosmetic overhaul that your “Contemporary Christian” could accommodate for. Boundless Webazine, Exhibit A. Would *we* do us? :P
By cosmetic, I don’t necessarily mean “looks,” though that always helps. I’m talking about men who don’t know how to flirt or are saving that for their future wife. I’m talking about women who cook their crush a casserole. Just…. overhaul!!!
Red-
Female promiscuity is strongly correlated to infidelity; once a woman has slept with two or three guys, a lot of damage gets done.
Worse, they often don’t want to approach marriage with a repentant attitude about their sexual past, instead they want a free pass for it, as though it was some sort of sexual internship. Sin that one does not repent of is sin one will likely repeat.
The other problem is the “alpha widow” issue. The more partners a woman has, the more likely she will have experienced at least one real “alpha” male.
The men that will put a ring on your finger will never be as hot as the men who would be willing to bed you. Therefore, you can develop an appetite for men that are within your sexual market but not marriage market.
This will never lead to true contentedness for you, and it will lead to practically guaranteed hurt and/or resentment on the part of your husband.
Sure, it’s easy for YOU WOMEN to say “just get over it already”, but for the Christian, they need to understand that promiscuity defrauds their future husband of his rightful place in your heart.
The internet is full of such stories. I suppose if a very selfish woman (like there’s any other kind..) does not care about how men feel, or feels that she is entitled to belittle and scorn their feelings, then or COURSE she should fornicate to her heart’s content and then stubbornly insist that some other guy marry her so she can have the security she craves.
This is the heart of an exploitive narcissist. I got mine, screw you. Have an issue? Here’s a tissue!
The craven heartlessness of women never ceases to astound me, and I must say that every time I read some story about how some a-hole took advantage of a woman and left her broken-hearted and crying, I can only grimly take satisfaction in knowing that she is experiencing the correct harvest of pain and loneliness that is her rightful due for her actions.
“”Haley should post something new, because Seth just went crazy.””
…
Wow.
I still think you need to have an open mind about such women. So she wants to cheat? So do married men who had been out and about, and they’re very proactive about trying, sadly. You might need to be more realistic about marriage now. There will always be that temptation for you and whoever you marry. You will have to work around that temptation for your marriage to work out: it’s that idea of gauging out your right eye. I also think that the chance for any member cheating gets less and less as you learn more about your partner, but you can’t be pointing fingers and blaming them. You need to be proactively trying to understand the person, but also knowing where to draw your own boundaries. A lot of the early churches were made up of converted fornicators. If they could do it, so can modern Christian men and women.
Another thing, maybe 90% of women out there who have slept around won’t be faithful partners. But maybe 10% would be… that’s a few more women that you could potentially hit it off with.
I also think that it’s unfair to presume that a virgin man is a naturally less-attractive man. I think we’re all just so spread-out, that it’s difficult to find someone that we have good chemistry with. That, and men in the church haven’t received enough instruction about how to appear attractive to a woman. Because these men aren’t going by experience, they *need* instruction. Both genders need to learn how to date, however. There’s a big lack of common sense, which is actually a lack of proper training, yes, from church. Community in church is always always an issue nowadays, so the only alternative is the utopian approach.
I can see where Rico Suave Guapo is coming from. Yeah, this happens too. It’s like gun-control: only the law-abiders will follow it. Virgins are super careful and follow every command from old people and whoever else wants to give them “instruction” so that they aren’t “fools” to refuse it. They get trained to be Paul. Eventually, their sex-drives show up when someone with a pulse actually flirts with them. Like lambs to the slaughter.
@Seth, sorry, but it was a rather odd post: “First and Second Tier Women | Western Women Suck.”
@Red… 24 hours? Well at least you’re showing some resistance. I like that. Stick around and you’ll get to see yourself break from my charm.
Now to the matter at hand: you’ve been edgy I’d give you that. But I’d say you’ve been consistent with your POV. You just sound like a woman that’s trying to do the right, biblical thing, but you’re fighting your body and the fight’s getting harder. I get that.
That being said, your study is on the right track and I am inclined to plagiarize your work to conduct the next phase in my social experiment. Hehe, it helped me come up with an idea that I will share in part. See what you have created here is the framework for an individual’s profile. And profiling has been done for eons in match-making whether by friends or online. But the draw back of both approaches is that they have been rather artificial and forced and little to no chemistry is generated. One word summary: awkward. Note: the broad demographic I would focus on are Christians.
What if we can use profiling/match-making AND generate genuine chemistry? I believe this can be done in a Christian way. Key formula: adventure + danger + mystery = romance. There are many studies that correlate dangerous scenarios with attraction (i.e. the rope bridge experiment)
The life of a Christian if lived correctly is dangerous, adventurous and mysterious (alpha). If lived incorrectly it is passive and boring, read: beta. Living Christianity correctly means taking risks in order to fulfill the Great Commission. If you want to add variety include helping people.
Now there are many careers that are related with these mission tasks. You have your typical social workers, missionaries, volunteers, etc. An air of harmlessness (beta) is exuded from these groups most of the time when compared to certain high-octane career paths that reek attractiveness (firemen, cowboys, astronauts, men in uniform, etc). Yet we as Christians have always been named soldiers of Christ. Soldiers, men in uniform, danger = sexy. What on earth happened?
That brings me to my next point. Spies, mysteries, chance encounters, damsels in distress. These are common escapist, fantasy tropes that occur in our media marketed towards men and women alike. Why do these things have to be relegated fantasy in real life? Hear me out. They do not have to be. Many of these fantasies are a reality for risk-takers. We simply have to export this reality to the passive.
How do we export this reality? We must convince a suitable church to assist in the creation of a multipurpose agency. A spy agency. Then we could justify profiling single applicants (based on sexual history, beliefs and the nitty gritty) without seeming the typical dating agency. Then we train them to be attractive and skilled. Then we pair up opposite sex couples seemingly randomly/objectively so as to simulate the “chance encounter” (like how James Bond or whomever is randomly partnered up with some sexy female agent) and then throw them into the deep end. Should the pairing fail, send the weaker party in for retraining and pair them up with someone new. Rinse and repeat.
@ Jack. I hear you bro. If you be a male virgin I say you have every right to fail every non-virgin woman, even if they were born-again Christians. You forgive them and God forgives them, does not mean you have to marry them. It’s simply practicality. But I am inclined to say that non-virgin males even the born-again ones could not exercise this right from the moral high-ground because hypocrisy.
Now detecting a non-virgin woman is a bit harder. But thanks to the internet you can google search the signs of sluthood. Of course not all non-virgins are sluts. Still it is good to start with the basics. I am beginning to think that even though woman tend to lie about their partner count, they are less skilled than Christian men at hiding their sexuality or being open about their own sexual natures.
I have met multiple Christian girls not put any effort in not seeming pervy. For example I accidently run my hands past a girl’s behind at a bible study. A genuine accident. I apologized. Her response? a sultry, “Don’t be,” My jaw dropped at the cognitive dissonance. Another time at another bible study. We played jeopardy on world religions, something about hinduism came up and some girls were shouting as their answer, “kama sutra!” “sex!” “Sex!” and I was thinking of how thirsty these women must have been. And there was another story about a girl who fronted the anti-porn ministry who was herself addicted at one point to teh prons. A. girl. addicted. to. TEH. PRONS! I thought I was beginning to understand women.
On the other hand, I once knew some Christian men who saw a brazilian woman in a bikini performing some dance during an international cultural dance festival. They ran off because they saw her as an evil temptation. I thought to myself, “where art thy dick, brother?” Since when have women become the horndogs and men the Victorian prudes who vilified sexuality? The answer is when feminism, probably.
Now before someone tells me that there are virgin women who are really horny. Yes. I acknowledge that. And so I admit cannot tell the difference between them and the non-virgins. Perhaps the answer is that the prudish girls are the ones with something to hide…
You need to be retrained about the meaning of “24-hour-rule.” I guess I’ll give you a little more time, as art takes time sometimes. Better be good ice cream.
I personally don’t see Mr. and Mrs. Smith as being a model for BIblical marriage.
“Should the pairing fail, send the weaker party in for retraining and pair them up with someone new. Rinse and repeat.” Please define “fail” and explain to me what is being “rinsed.” It also strikes me that too much repetition of the process might have an inversely negative impact on the weaker candidates. I think quiet meditation might be a better alternative. Also, the 124-hour-rule must be implemented for successful processing. Anything above that, however, must be recovered.
Our current VBS-theme is centered around spies. This test is run on fat volunteer women and skinny, asexual volunteer men. To have our plan approved, the men must be attracted to the women enough to eat an entire serving of their casseroles. We’re also studying the effects on small children, i.e. how many boys between the ages of 4-8 will be disciplined by their parents for kissing girls between the ages of 4-11, and told to apologize. We had to abandon this test at Catholic centers. Awkward turtle.
Apparently, Chinese males were quite successful with increasing their SMV prior to conversion, to the point of fighting injustice with Batman. Edit: Batman assisted them in fighting injustice. Perhaps if you put an asexual in China, he would be able to join couples-league Sunday School classes in less than a year. Putting an Alpha in China is not advised, with the exception of Chuck Norris.
Asterix, no, Jack’s… no. He just has teh doubel standards.
That was weird with the Bible study thing, and also, I see what you did there.
The girls who were like “kama sutra” were likely not themselves promiscuous. It can be counter-intuitive. They probably thought along the lines of how “toilet” was funny when they were seven. Yeah, it was inappropriate, desparada-style flirting. Like a woman I knew who kept telling guys that she’d never been kissed… and she meant kissed, not “kissed.”
I think every man just wants to meet that special woman who makes him feel like a princess.
Also… gah, stop saying “slut” ahh. That word and the word “bitch” need to die.
Struck a nerve when I said the word huh? You’re starting to fall for me.
I’m having doubts as to if you’re yoke-able.
Hey Red, I’m on your side. I am probably not yokeable, let alone your type. But you gotta admit, the word’s been used rather often here. You didn’t really lay down the law earlier. So I thought maybe you expected more from me, as if I were ya know… more yokeable ;p.
But back to the matter at hand, you said that you didn’t think Mr. and Mrs. Smith is a good biblical model of marriage. They are not a good model because of their profession mainly, which involved violence, being secretive and not working with one another.
What I am advocating involves none of these things, rather I am espousing is building romance through teamwork and adventure, allowing the man to lead and take charge. To let the dopamine and adrenaline surge as the pair take on endeavours related to edifying and building up the church. The spy theme was not meant to be taken literally. I know of one cute couple part of our church that sold everything to move to a slummy part of the city to start a church. Now of course many people are not willing to take suck risks and so we would plan our program accordingly and cater to their level of strength, but eventually they will be built up to take on more difficult challenges. When I speak of “rinse” I am referring to pairing them up with someone new when the pairing “fails” and by fails I mean nothing good comes out of it for example, they argue and fight and don’t get along and cannot even be friends. This is not likely if we did our profiling correctly unless the man fails to be assertive and take on the leadership. But more likely the pair will simply completely platonic and a case of unrequited love occurs… that’s when things get dicey and I think some planning needs to be done.
Now regarding retraining, prayer and meditation would certainly be involved and so would discipleship with other men, some alone time away from the ladies so they can get back on their feet. We are not going to destroy their self-esteem with some degrading boot-camp. Before I misunderstand another hour rule, you’re gonna have to explain yourself. Are you saying that the pairing should assume activities together for at least 124hrs before we collect feedback? Overall, I am quite impressed with your enthusiasm and feedback. If we work together we could really come up with something solid.
You’re going to have to elaborate on the VBS spy theme. I wasn’t aware that they were concerned with adults or attraction. Also, you’re going to have to elaborate about Batman in China. Batman’s real now? I am gullible like that.
I’d have to explain with fiver math.
Happy Easter Red
Please elaborate on my alleged double standard.
Also, Asterix, I am not rejecting these women out of moral superiority, not in the least.
I am rejecting them not because I would be unable to love them, but because experience has taught me that as a woman’s N rises, so does the likelihood that she has had a sexual/romantic relationship with a man that was, essentially, out of her league. Hence, the alpha widow philosophy.
Being a former “nice guy”, I was treated to a lot of my female friends telling me about how that “one guy back in college” was “the one”, etc.
If a woman spends 15+ years chasing the “wrong kind of guy”, following her carnal impulses all the way, then her emotions and sexuality are all too often burned-out, sad, and disappointed.
Now, she has to take those feelings and at the same time start dating and considering marriage with boring billy beta, the “niceguythinkofyouasafriend” dude who is sooooo sweet, but “just not her type”?
Out of bio-clock panic, or just a sense of “let’s try something new”, she marries him. But he never really captivates her heart the way her college crush did.
On top of it all, she got to play the field and fornicate recreationally, only to play the “grace card” later, meanwhile poor billy has spent 15 years building a career so as to finance her expectations.
End result:
Girl gets 15 years of carousel-riding fun and liberty, culminating in a non-judgmental end.
Girl still gets provider guy – right on her schedule, but without having to waste any of her fun years on him.
Guy gets to build his life alone, with sparse female companionship and assistance, going home to an empty house, living a life of solitude, and being a “team of one”
Guy gets to take the fruit of those lonely years and purchase the fading glory of his woman’s former innocence and looks.
Bad-bay lovers get all the freshest of her youth and beauty, freely given, often with no cost or commitment required.
Women who sleep around and then look for a good man to marry later are frauds of the lowest order. Too bad men need sex more than they need self-respect, otherwise these women would become the lonely old women they deserve to be.
How’s THAT for resentment-colored words?
No Rings For Sluts! ™
I understand Jack. I’m in the same boat as you are. After all, I am unyokeable ;D
But you’re going to have to accept that even a virgin, plain-Jane Christian girl could leave you for someone else sometimes even if you were a massive stud muffin. It’s life. It throws curve balls at you. There is no such thing as true security in this world accept through Christ Jesus, brother. Find it in him. The only thing you can change is yourself and the only way to change for the good is through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Satan has done a thorough job in destroying marriage. He’s been unleashing cats and rats upon us. What you are seeing today is a repetition of the Garden of Eden strategy. It is because today we live in what amounts to an Eden-like paradise as far as material concerns go. But remember that Jesus has already overcome him. Also remember that there is no marriage in heaven, which is eternal and so in the grand scheme of things it’s irrelevant.
I know you are angry. I feel the same anger you do all the time. But you can’t let it consume you. Don’t let the enemy turn your hatred into a weapon.
Here’s a question for you Jack. Contrary to what Red said about marriage (it being about sex. It’s not. That is unbiblical. It’s purpose is for teamwork in order to multiply and be fruitful, to be stewards of the earth, and to serve God’s purposes), have you prayed about the purpose and calling God has given to you? Once you have found it, make it your own and give all the glory to God. Focus on that and forget about the women (good things and bad). Leave it to the Lord to decide whether you need a helpmeet or not. You’ll notice yourself grow and become “alpha”.
I hope this helps.
“Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 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. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-16
Everyone acts like this is my own opinion, but clearly, clearly no. Let’s be real.
“Everyone acts like this is my own opinion, but clearly, clearly no. Let’s be real.”
She’s totally right about that. Asterix is wrong.
Call a spade a spade. That’s one of the reason I have nothing to do with any of the Christian groups is because it’s rife of nice = good or worse nice happy ideals = holy.
The thing is that that bible verse in my experience even though it spells it out in pretty blunt terms doesn’t mean anything to the evangelicals. It can and will be subverted to mean something else. “Scripture interprets scripture” and all that. Basically the Bible means whatever THEY want it to mean.
If it were not for sex, most men would have little desire for marriage. After all, if one only seeks a bit of female pleasantness (always a good thing), then friendship beats marriage any day, since you can end a friendship if people change.
But marriage is to the end. Without a whole box of scooby snacks, I’m not venturing into that spooky house.
Well blimey I am wrong. How could I have missed that verse. Sorry Red. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m the typical evangelical. Although I have been immersed in such groups as of late. Wow, I never thought the day would come where I’d think like one. I should probably refrain from patting my back.
I’m amused.
Red how old are you?
Mid-twenties >_>
@ Red
That would explain your sassiness. =P
You sound exactly like my type but you don’t want kids and want to work. Unfortunate.
^ This is typical.
Honestly, I don’t even know anymore.
Red,
So you need a man to set you straight because you’re indecisive. That can be arranged. ;)
Reading my blog to learn about me. Then leave a comment with a valid e-mail so I can contact you.
Your blog is weird. It describes exactly the type of thing that I do not need in my life. You might want to try looking in the Mormon crowd… or let the Mormon crowd find you, as is their M.O. Another thing, if you have to keep asserting that you’re not a nice guy, which is basically the theme of your blog, you’re doing it wrong on so many levels.
Red-
DeepStrength is probably a very good person. Unfortunately, there is almost zero margin for error in being a good person without falling headlong into some variant of “nice guy”.
I prefer to err on the side of complete jerk. I am unapologetically combative and more than willing cross lines that many Christians do not wish to cross. Nonetheless, I consider myself a Christian, but one that is recovering from Churchian views.
I thought the article about the nail was weird. It seemed like it could go in a cult-direction.
Red,
The purpose of my [manosphere] blog is both mindset and practical advice for Christian nice guys who have grown up in the feminized church. That is why I hammer home why being a nice guy is a bad thing.
God’s blessings in your journey then.
You guys, just be real, but don’t be a doormat. It’s just like life.
Jack,
You are correct. There isn’t any margin for error.
However, I find that if someone isn’t interested then no worries. You can’t force someone who isn’t interested into liking you. Even if you could they will just resent you in the long run.
Red,
Ah, yes. Just be real and don’t be a doormat. Why not say “just be yourself?”
Please, don’t offer such horrible advice and platitudes to men again. It’s condescending especially because women have no concept of what it’s like to be a man.
Sure, I like my platitudes, but only the few that make it to my top, I dunno, five. It’s not about being yourself. It’s about being straightforward (and I would hope honest). That’s the way men used to be. Even reading a modern etiquette book, men are told to give an accurate estimation of someone’s personal character, whereas women are told that if you don’t have something nice to say about someone, don’t say it. Unfortunately, this isn’t practical advice for the modern woman, given the sexual nature of society: we constantly must be on our guard, especially in the workforce. But more than that, men aren’t acting like gentlemen and doing their job. They are the ones assuming the best of every guy out there. A man should be straightforward, even with his nicey-nice feelings, but know when he’s being used. In a healthy relationship, both parties will be able to talk about their bad day, without weird psychological trickery.
And honestly, my advice was kitsch, but there was nothing bad about it.
To the men,
Red: “But more than that, men aren’t acting like gentlemen and doing their job.”
Ah, finally. The true colors are exposed.
Let me explain all of this.
Red makes a post like this denouncing FotF standards and telling man to man up.
Okay, fine, I’ll buy what she’s selling because it’s true. FotF is part of the cult of nice rather than Christianity. In doing this, she attempts to set herself away from the herd.
Yet, when someone approaches her online to talk — not even in real life where it’s more difficult for men — instead of being gracious in declining if she wasn’t interested she uses the approach to take jabs at the approacher:
“Your blog is weird. It describes exactly the type of thing that I do not need in my life. You might want to try looking in the Mormon crowd… or let the Mormon crowd find you, as is their M.O. Another thing, if you have to keep asserting that you’re not a nice guy, which is basically the theme of your blog, you’re doing it wrong on so many levels.”
“I thought the article about the nail was weird. It seemed like it could go in a cult-direction.”
This is precisely why men are disillusioned with Christian (or should I say churchian) women. They say they are looking for a good Christian man but don’t respond in a Christian manner. They say they’re not getting approached, but when men approach them they have attitudes and responses like this situation. Such responses not only turns that man away but also turns other men who hear of it away from them as well. It’s self sabotage. This is followed up with the subtle man up statements and attempt to justify it like it was nothing bad.
Red, I want to thank you for the good object lesson. I am not attacking you personally but rather your behavior. I apologize if I am coming off too harsh, but this is a good opportunity for us to all learn and grow.
No, I mean sorry I was definitely rude. When you said I need a man to “set me straight” because I was “indecisive”, that crossed a line. I don’t think that’s appropriate. Maybe you meant it more sarcastically? It’s hard to tell online. In real life, if a man were to tell me that in a non-joking manner, I’d feel threatened.
And some of the things in your blog concerned me. You seem to advocate high levels of passive aggression that I think could border on abuse. There’s really no way for me to go, “Hey, thanks for asking tho” and also say, “Eh… your blog’s a little weird”. Unfortunately, I can’t change from a woman to a man and back to make those points.
You have to realize that what men say has a big impact on women. Maybe you’re just trying to figure things out. But the moment you adopt a philosophy, and then you decide to implement it, it’s not just playing around in your head any more. You would actually do these things.
Red,
1. “Maybe you meant it more sarcastically?”
I said: “So you need a man to set you straight because you’re indecisive. That can be arranged. ;)”
What did you think the wink was for?
2. I don’t advocate any passive aggressiveness on the blog. I advocate direct actionable advice.
How’d you get that impression?
Maybe I didn’t get the context of the relationship you were describing. I should probably do another go at reading it in more detail. Fine fine fine okay okay okay Da Da Da.
Christian women (and women in general) need to realize that they can’t just tell men to “be good” and then date charming jerks, expecting ‘those other Christian girls’ to date the good men.
Christian women need to either woman up and date the good men, or abandon all advice-giving and just admit that they are either fornicating with or wish they were married to the proverbial bad boy.
Once a Christian, I give a girl the following margin of error:
1) More than two non-Christian boyfriends – shut up forever about what Christian men should do.
2) More than one non-Christian sex partner – shut up forever + one day about what Christian men should do.
Men should give the ugly girls a chance to warm their hearts.
If you’re insinuating that I have a history, you are quite wrong.
Was not referring to you red.
If you say you have no history, I will take you at your word. I was referring in general to the substantial number of churchian women who do fit description: saying one thing and doing another.
That’s the right thing to say to a real gangsta like meh.
If you can find a Christian woman in my age range with a very low N, physically fit, and not a closeted feminist, send her my way. I’m willing to compromise and marry a girl in her late 20s, of course…
Well, Jack, good luck to you.
I think the real question is… where is Haley? Iz she did?
Maybe some Casa Nova lothario dood charmed her into the sunset, and we have no idea.
@ Red:
I’m surprised no one picked up on this before now:
“a lot of people have put off marriage for various reasons, especially due to the economy. The biggest problem is dudes foregoing what the Bible says and blaming it on their organs.”
Eh, no. You couldn’t be more wrong about this.
WOMEN have put off marriage because they want to date around and have lots of fun hot yummy sex with fun hot yummy men. And that includes Christian/churchian women. I know many, many women who claim Christ who are/were sexually promiscuous. As for the remaining nonpromiscuous women avoiding marriage? This is mainly for two reasons in my view:
1. They’re too unattractive; or
2. More probably, they’re holding out for Mr. Perfect.
Men are not the ones avoiding marriage. WOMEN are.
The biggest problem is NOT men, or even Christian men, having premarital sex. Most men can’t get even get Susie Sunday School Teacher to even look at them, much less have sex with them. Most men can’t even get Samantha Slut to have sex with them. So to say that there is widespread sexual immorality on the part of men is not even close to stating the problem.
The biggest problem here is women avoiding marriage and their wildly unreasonable expectations of men, of marriage, and of life in general.
@ Red:
Another thing is this: If you really were an HB 8 or HB 9, you’d be getting lots of interest from a wide variety of men. You’d be getting hit on. A lot. Every day. Everywhere.
In this SMP, a Christian HB 8 or 9, N=0, has her pick of men. She should be able to select whichever man she wants, pursue him, and lock him down. If you can’t do that, you’re not an 8 or a 9. Period. Full stop.
Any reasonably attractive woman in this SMP can have pretty much whatever she wants, when she wants it. If she wants sex, she can get it. If she wants a relationship, she can get that. If she wants a husband, she can get that too. He might not be the most attractive man, or the richest, or the kindest, but she can get a husband. On her timetable. Whenever she wants.
Nearly all women who are complaining about not being able to find a husband are not looking hard enough. Or, more commonly, they don’t want to get married badly enough.
Here is wisdom.
Let us count the number of the girl. And the number of the girl is six.
That would be the looks-rated number of the average Christian girl. Not her N. Well, maybe that too…
If y’all are freaked out to see what I look like, that’s fine. I’m cool with objective criticism. Either people are too freaked-out to tell me I’m a six, or something else. What’s your emails?
I’m prolly a little higher than a six, because I asked a forum and got only positive feedback. And forums are pretty brutally honest. The consensus there was that I probably came across a bit loose with my flirting-style.
@ Red
Oh I want to know. I’ll straight up tell what you are to me.
bearsfan98769 at yahoo.com
“And forums are pretty brutally honest. The consensus there was that I probably came across a bit loose with my flirting-style.”
LOL. No there not. Any girl that’s not ugly gets white knighted. Just look at Reddit.
@Red
You’re a 7. You’re a good looking girl. Very cute but I consider 8+ to be in realm of magnetic sexiness.
However, I can see why you would have high standards. Thin. Red hair. Cute face. Legit good looking but not good looking enough that you can expect the top men to commit without you upping up your girl game.
@ Red
Are you Scandinavian in ethnic background?
Wat? No, I’m Irish slash German slash Russian slash other crap. Makes sense, and I appreciate the honest opinion, albeit, I was expecting an email. :P
Scandinavian, what is this, I have eyebrows?!
Second that. Red, send me your photo.
detination42 at gmail.com
I’ll give you a straight up honest assessment like Furious.
Kay, I don’t even know if he’s a Pimp or something irl, he calls himself Mary. :P
Wat fen!
A seven is nothing to sneeze at. There are practically no 10s, a handful of 9s, and the 8s are somewhat more plentiful, but really don’t show up much in daily life.
Also, there is no age-adjustment.
For example, there are no 75 year old 9s. There are no 90 year old 5s. And so on.
Perhaps a few men have wife-goggles that are three inches thick and would disagree, but there are no “hot” old women outside the delusions of married men and the lies of others.
Woman may not be interested in wall. But wall interested in you.
Think of it this way:
7s are the upper tier of real-life women. Bronze medalists.
8s are silver.
9s are gold.
10s are unicorns.
As far as mens goes, I don’t even know if tens are reals, or if they’re Illuminati-generated conspiracies.
Red:
Furious is spot on. You’re a 7, easily. You’re very cute. You’re not what PUAs would call hot or sexy. You should have absolutely no trouble whatsoever attracting most men.
I’d say you get very regular male attention but you’re totally oblivious to most of it. You consider yourself out of the leagues of most men who approach you. The occasional player Macks on you but quickly moves on after discovering you won’t put out.
If you set your mind to it, you could be married inside of two years.
It’s like this:
When men do hit on me, it must be subtle, because I cain’t tell. Yes, I’m oblivious. I’d say other sevens or whatever act pretty… shyish… and not so very inspiring. It’s a confusing number to be. Prolly, you got one guy who thinks he’s like a ten, who’s never tried, and the tail-between-the-legs guy who thinks he’s a five, and will never try again. They’re all very statuesque in carriage.
I do get hit on by married men, especially at church, though, and still get sexually harassed at work, so I get all those perks.
The first guy I ever ever dated was a nine. I think I maximized there pretty well. He was also objectively retarded, so…
I must say, this thread has been highly entertaining. There were a few times I thought popcorn would have been appropriate. Red, FurriousFerret,I admire your bantering/flirting skills. They were quite impressive, especially since I am mostly familiar with the social style of engineering grad students.
^ On a forum, she said I have game. It must be true. Level *popcorn* good, mind!!1!
Red:
If you really wanted to be married, you could be. Right now.
Yeah, I completely believe you’re oblivious to the male attention you get. I sense that most of the male attention you get is from men you consider unattractive. When you talk about “sexual harassment”, I’m reasonably sure what you’re talking about there are unattractive men looking at you, talking to you, asking you politely for coffee or drink dates, and generally lingering juuuust a little too long around you.
Yeah, 7 is a tough number to be. You’re right in the PUA/player sweet spot. PUAs and players love 6s and 7s because such women are cute/pretty/hot enough for fast/free sex and there are lots of you. To 7s like you, players are impossibly attractive. And most of the men that 7s find attractive are players because they can be. Most such women only date good men after the players chew her up and spit her out.
Christian 7s (C7s) like you have it even tougher, because players are the ONLY men they find attractive. C7s don’t like the good Christian men they go to church with because they’re unattractive and boring. Your average C7 has tried dating those good Christian men and she can’t get excited about them. But true to form, she’s known many of those Good Christian Men for years, many of them orbit her, and she considers many of them “friends” (though she NEVER socializes with any of them). C7s don’t like “NiceGuys” because they’re creeps. And they don’t like players because they won’t have fast sex.
In my experience, most C7s (and C6s) eventually give up and have premarital sex with a player.
No, there are zero men who will live in my friendzone (bad for professional networking), and the “nice guys” are like fives who place a high premium on their modest man parts. Also, they are intentional (read: inexperienced at making moves/ can’t be bothered to). Don’t underestimate how men add an extra three points to their looks.
You would be surprised at how little men can be bothered with flirting or anything, though. Women are expected to do a lot of the initiating, which always always kills the mood.
When I’m talking about sexual harassment, I’m talking about feeling intimidated by someone/ hands on my buttocks. By intimidation, I don’t mean “looked at funny,” I mean spreading rumors, using threat-like “flirting” or “friendly” innuendo, etc. Another thing that gets underestimated is how sexually-entitled our culture is, and how often that translates into dangerous for the single, Christian woman (especially virgins). I can imagine that this must be sorta true for a man who’s at least an 8, although they can fight back. Men are more often totally oblivious about harassment. They’re more concerned with being bros, and tend to call way too many other dudes “a good guy.” If a 5+ woman goes to work, she has to prepare herself for some level of harassment. There is the stuff you don’t report and the stuff that crosses the line: at that point, you’re looking for a new job. The culture is messed-up.
This is a good blog for dudes to read. I also think that dudes who are looking to get married should read the PUA websites. Obviously, cut-out the stuff that’s morally inappropriate, but what’s on there is scientifically what works. If you combine that with etiquette, nobody will chicken-head at you: that extra touch will make women react positively, causing other women to react positively. The thing about PUAs, is they’re not afraid of failure. For every one yes, they get twelve no’s. Christian dudes hang their heads at just one failure. Game is a thing you work at to improve.
^Classic example of Red-esque Freudian-slipping.
Red:
What do you mean by men who won’t “live in [your] friendzone” (Bad for professional networking)?
What do you mean by “nice guys”? Do you mean “good Christian men”? Or do you mean what most every other woman means with scare-quote “niceguys”, which is men who pretend to be nice but who demand sex in exchange for “niceness”? In my experience, there are a few of these “niceguys”. But most men are “good men”, by which I mean Christian men with steady jobs but who are not at all attractive to you; they will leave you alone and not hold your lack of interest against you.
I think you might be guilty of lumping in “good men” with “niceguys”. To most women, there are “hot men I would sleep with” and “niceguys”, because that absolves women of (real or imagined) culpability for sleeping with hot men and rejecting “good Christian men”.
What do you mean by “place a high premium on their modest man-parts”? How do you know their “man-parts” are “modest”? Is this some kind of sophisticated, roundabout way of saying these men are small-d*cked insecure bitter losers who can’t get laid?
Red, WADR, I don’t believe for one second that you have men at work pawing you or putting their hands on you or touching you in any way whatsoever, and these men are still working at your place of employment. I especially don’t believe you have men putting their hands on your a** at work. It is inconceivable to me that this is going on ANYWHERE in 21st Century America. If these men are really doing this to you, why the hell are you not reporting it? Do you not know how many kinds of hell you can bring down on these men’s heads with one peep of any of this? Do you not know how many lives and careers you can positively DESTROY if even one-tenth of this is true? If you were reporting it, these men would be not only unemployed; they’d be IN JAIL.
The only people in this society who can in any way act “sexually entitled” are (1) women; and (2) attractive men. The beta men you work with are not permitted to act in a sexual way in any form AT ALL at their work, and in fact not in most other places.
“Christian dudes hang their heads at just one failure. Game is a thing you work at to improve.”
Because they’ve been told by their parents, by tradcon bloggers, and by all other authority figures in their lives, that being nice, kind, deferential, supplicatory and pedestalizing is sexually attractive. And when it fails, they don’t know why. So they return to those authority figures, who tell them not to use Game, who tell them to be nicer, and to go back out there and try again.
And then they fail again. Then those same authority figures tell them to be nicer, and try again.
So they are nicer.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Fail, fail, fail.
Um?? You don’t believe in sexual harassment??? It’s *ESPECIALLY* prevalent in the 21st century! Oh my gosh. There are no checks and balances now, son! You living in the sexually-liberated, morally-irresponsible, answer-to-no-one 21st century, and in about a decade, I’m nearly positive that it will be common-sense to both genders that this is taking place.
I’m assuming that you’re not a guy who sleeps around. The thing is, *EVERY* other guy out there sleeps around, and not just the “PUAs.” They don’t all go for the HBs, they go for whatever they can take: teenage girls, married women, old women, other men, whatever. But, they put on the same shirt as you and they act like okay guys. Thing is, so many people out there are addicted to sex and just have no restraint. And everyone else pays the price.
Oh yeah, call HR. Great idea. Oh course they won’t listen to a liar like me.
I have to get off now, I’ll talk address the other stuff later.
Men will not be friends with me, unless I will fall in love with them for being friends with me. This is essentially the niceguy phenomenon, and it is my life.
Nowadays, people rely on social networks to get themselves jobs. Who has most of the jobs? Who has the best jobs? Men. If men won’t be friends with you, unless this means eventually seeing you, then you have no men in your network. There’s all the awkward of avoiding that person who you didn’t go with to the middle school dance, as well.
I don’t know who I’m supposed to think is “good” and who I’m supposed to think is “nice.” It’s all so steeped in churchianity, idk.
I guess the “man parts” comment had to more do with puffed-up masculinity than it was to be taken literally. The guy version of every girl thinking she has mysterious eyes.
Your second post was spot-on. It’s the advice given to us by our parents and the elder generation, who also have testimonies. They don’t want us to have the same life of sin that they did. Love them, but let’s be honest.
Okay, now I actually must go somewhere.
Fair enough Red, but I can’t even begin to tell you the number of women who strategically flirted with me in order to gain my help in my profession, and not a single one of them meant it. As soon as they got what they wanted, see ya later.
I would have respected them more and been just as willing to help had they approached me honestly as a professional and asked for my help.
As far as being “friends”, well, it is becoming more acceptable for people to admit what we knew all along. Men and women really can’t be friends. Most of the time.
“Um?? You don’t believe in sexual harassment??? It’s *ESPECIALLY* prevalent in the 21st century!”
I do believe that sexual harassment exists. I also know that “sexual harassment” as it is currently defined, can be committed only by unattractive men.
That’s why I doubt your story that sexual harassment is rampant in the 21st century American workplace. Unattractive men who dare to act sexual in the workplace get fired and their careers destroyed — and that’s if they’re LUCKY. If it’s really egregious, they’re brought up on criminal charges.
The other reason I doubt your story is that you are describing criminal conduct. These are acts which in today’s society would unquestionably be successfully prosecuted. It’s hard for me to think of a clearer case of assault and battery. Cases like these involving a sweet young thing being felt up and pawed at work by a greasy, smelly, ugly pervert with possible mental instability are incredibly easy to prove too. (And I’m sure that’s exactly how they’re portrayed.) So no, I don’t believe it’s rampant, or even common.
Unless we have good looking men doing the feeling up and pawing. In which case it’s just “oh, boys will be boys “giggle giggle snicker tee hee”.
“The thing is, *EVERY* other guy out there sleeps around, and not just the “PUAs.” They don’t all go for the HBs, they go for whatever they can take: teenage girls, married women, old women, other men, whatever. But, they put on the same shirt as you and they act like okay guys.”
I believe there are regular guys out there. But I have a very hard time believing that “EVERY other guy out there” is sleeping around. Nope. Don’t buy that for a second. I don’t believe for one second that betas are en masse out there having all kinds of sex with all kinds of women and even with other men. That’s silly.
“Oh yeah, call HR. Great idea. Oh course they won’t listen to a liar like me.”
Horse-hockey. HR departments pounce all over ANY accusation of sexual harassment, regardless of how innocuous, slight, mundane or incredible (and by “incredible” I mean it by its literal meaning, as in “not believable” and “not supported by any credible evidence”). The workplace has adopted a wholesale “no tolerance” policy toward sexual harassment. EVERY claim of sex harassment or inappropriate conduct by a man toward a woman is treated with the utmost seriousness. If there’s a shred of evidence to support the claim, the offender is sent packing by the end of the day. Seen it too many times to think differently. Employers looking the other way at sex harassment claims has resulted in huge lawsuits, multi-million dollar settlements and judgments, bad publicity, the need for damage control, and ruined reputations. Employers can’t afford even a whiff of sexual harassment or “hostile work environments”. Bad for business, bad for publicity, bad for the bottom line.
“Men will not be friends with me, unless I will fall in love with them for being friends with me. This is essentially the niceguy phenomenon, and it is my life.
“Nowadays, people rely on social networks to get themselves jobs. Who has most of the jobs? Who has the best jobs? Men. If men won’t be friends with you, unless this means eventually seeing you, then you have no men in your network. There’s all the awkward of avoiding that person who you didn’t go with to the middle school dance, as well.”
Couple of things about this:
1. Men DO NOT always have the best jobs. This is just silly. More women in college now. And women now are on a complete earning par with men. Many women outearn men.
2. If a man is sexually interested in you (and after having seen your photos, most men will be), and you’re not sexually interested in him, why should that man be your friend? What do you have to offer him? Can you help him professionally or socially? Most of the time, when a woman says she wants to be a man’s “friend”, it’s for two reasons, and two reasons only:
a. She wants to let him down easy because she’s not sexually interested in him and never, ever will be; and
b. She wants something from him, but she has no intention of ever reciprocating and doing anything for him.
I know this because I’ve seen it.
Oh, I hear from certain female bloggers and their minions that women want to be men’s friends, so the women can introduce their female friends to their male “friends”. Yeah, right. Never once seen that happen, ever. Never once did any woman offer to be my “friend” and then really, truly act as a friend. Never once did she offer to do anything for me or help me. Never once did she introduce me to her friends. Never once did she hear me out or let me bounce ideas off her. Never once did she ever offer even to buy me a drink.
Deti, I can be naive at times, but you’re incredibly naive right now. At every point. True, though, there are work environments where this isn’t as much of an issue.
Jack: I’ll keep that in mind. You could be right. I still think it would be better to network with people who first-hand knew me well, based on character, but I’ll keep that in mind.
I had male friends that I would kind of hang out with. We’d have really deep discussions about crap: that’s what my friendships are more about, usually, more than actually networking. I think of networking as something that comes when you’re educated and already have those friendships in place: the natural fruit of your community.
These friendships just end, and not because I want them to. Honestly, what I think is:
1. Whenever you hang out with a member of the opposite sex, it affects you.
2. When I like someone a lot, I need to put some distance there for a while.
In response to 1, okay, don’t hang out every day. Hang out once every two weeks to once a month. In response to 2, okay, take a few weeks or a few months and get over it. But I could be totally wrong. It’s sad to get to know someone really well and then they fade out of your life, I don’t care what gender you are.
I think some people take it too much as a personal failure if a relationship doesn’t work with every single human being. Women and men. That’s just how it is. If the chemistry isn’t there, which it’s often not all the way there, that’s just life. Rinse repeat n all dat.
Red-
Deti is many years your senior, and a veteran of this part of the internet. Ho correctly describes what most of us have witnessed with our own eyes.
Personally, your account lacks credibility, since I have never seen a woman’s complaints about harassment or assault go ignored. Especially since most HR departments are staffed by women.
I have no idea what bizarre part of the world you may live in if your story is true, which I am increasingly thinking it is not.
I’m going to Third on what Deti and Jack have said. As filipant and uncaring as I am in the doings of American women, it is a necessity that I not seem to be giving off a whiff of what might be construed as sexual harassment. It is well known in my office that I have a very strict “no dating the employees” policy for myself, but I still have to take extra precautions. One of those is to report to the Human Resources officer every incidence of a woman employee flirting with me (not often, but teens will be teens).
A spurned female employee could potentially become disgruntled that I am not responding to her advances and fabricate a story to “get even” with me. Is it likely? No. But on the offchance someone did it could ruin my career, result in jail time/monetary loss, and make me practically unemployable.
“Personally, your account lacks credibility”
I’m especially having difficulty with the “betas are out there sexing up college students, middle aged married soccer moms, grandmas, and even each other” bit.
Nope. Don’t believe it.
Especially not the bit about a widespread, common practice of ordinary beta guys having sex with men. No. Not even.
I must have the worst ever, then, because this is my life. Either that, or my inability to tell when someone is coming on to me backfires somehow. I’m just saying what I know… granted, I’ve worked a lot of crap jobs, hung-out in academia a while and live a little outside of a rough city. I’m a little bit disappointed that everyone is accusing me of lying about this: that’s just everyone’s automatic assumption… that’s exactly my point. It’s an element of life that men don’t have to worry about, so out of sight out of mind.
I think by adding titles like “alpha” and “beta” to this, you’re just confusing it. I don’t even know how that relates to sexual harassment. There’s not magic number or formula for it. If someone is horny and someone is unscrupulous, they’ll find a way to do it, and I don’t know why. I’ve learned how to better avoid things over the years, and yes, it does have to do with being vocal. But then, that can backfire sometimes too, in which scenario, line-up another job.
*worst luck
I’m not going to solicit anyone or whatever, I’m just sharing my experience.
And to be quite honest, I’m over it at this point. I just chalk it up with things I hated about certain jobs/ schools.
“I’m a little bit disappointed that everyone is accusing me of lying about [being sexually harassed at work]: that’s just everyone’s automatic assumption… that’s exactly my point. It’s an element of life that men don’t have to worry about, so out of sight out of mind.”
Red, your story is unbelievable. You’re not describing mere sexual harassment. You’re describing being pawed, felt up and manhandled at work. I expect this kind of conduct from drunk frat boys, not from office workers earning a living wage.
You’re talking about men assaulting and battering you. You’re talking about felonies being committed on you on a regular basis. You’re talking about conduct that men DO HARD TIME FOR. IN PRISON. Men have lost jobs, lost professional licenses and experienced wrecked careers and periods of complete unemployability for doing FAR, FAR LESS to women.
If you are living that life, why on God’s green earth do you put up with it? There are entire governmental agencies with stupendously, incredibly strong power which are specifically designed to address and eradicate this kind of behavior.
Deti, I’m not talking about being hit or raped at work. I’ll go through what kind of sexual harassment I experienced:
*Being pawed at/ swiped up against (not intensely)
*Feeling sexually threatened at work
*Being verbally threatened at work
*A professor who emailed the faculty of my school to tell them that I was using ADD as an excuse and disclosed my grade
*Three other professors who came on to me: two where married, one was unmarried when I was 18. The married ones also threatened my grade.
*A fellow in my age range was spurned (I appropriately discerned that he was bad news), and cultivated an angry following of people for two years after the incident. He gave threatening glares to both me and my friends, and my friends (who didn’t initially believe me) would tell me about this. It was not technically stalking, but it was riding the edge.
*This is not harassment, but I have been flirted with by married men at my church, as well, who have good reputations. I have also felt uncomfortable with a chiropractor, who was some sort of “man of god.”
The thing is, when something like this happens, it’s hard to tell if it’s really happening or me going crazy. I have one friend who listens to me about it. Other friends and family members shrug it off. It’s very odd, because I’m close to my family, yet when the “stalking” incident happened, no one in my family believed me until my brother experienced negativity from it. At that point, everyone was mad. No one reacts if I tell them what happens at a work place. They need “evidence,” which becomes rationalized as, “you’re probably just reading it wrong.” Even after the stalking incident.
Here is a link that talks about sexual harassment and why it goes unreported: http://abuse dot mcc dot org/sexual-abuse/sexual-harrasment/why-sexual-harassment-goes-unreported
Here are the reasons from that list why I didn’t report the times I was sexually harassed:
It can be emotionally difficult to bring a complaint.
People don’t want to get harasser in trouble; they just want the harassing to stop
People don’t think they will be taken seriously
They hope it will go away on its own. However, ignoring it is usually interpreted by the harasser as approval or consent.
They don’t want people to think of them as overreacting
A workplace culture may convey that harassing behaviour is acceptable by turning a blind eye to sexism, harassment or discrimination (e.g. “that’s just the way men are”)
People fear retaliation from the harasser if they report
Lack of evidence in the workplace that a complaint would be believed or adequately responded to.
These are the reasons that it might not work. And then if it doesn’t work, you’re in even more danger: it makes the harasser, and whoever they convinced that you are in the wrong, mad at you. It’s more of a social game, like PUAing. This is what I experienced, unbelievable as it might seem.
Someone who is a harasser knows exactly what to say to you and other people, so that it doesn’t look like they’ve said or done anything (quoting verbatim, they would seem innocent) and so that other people think you’re mean or possibly willing to go with it. At the same time, you feel threatened, because their word-emphasis and body language is conveying a less-than-innocent message. They show subtly the power that they have over you. If you can’t maneuver around it, you’re screwed. Luckily, I’m pretty smart.
When you’re being harassed, the first thing that happens is that you have a fight or flight response. The second thing that happens, is that you figure out why. That’s the sick and frantic feeling that women and even men have when they’re being harassed: it’s the response to a predator. You then realize why: if he gets these people to believe this and does this, then this will happen to me.
That’s what happens. In fact, the area in which I live has prostitution going on that is all based on this subtext. It’s young women and teenage girls who live at home or at school, and then are coerced to prostitute themselves at night. A lot of times, these pimps meet young women at church. I have a friend whose little sister was being groomed for this, but she’s very blunt, and let her parents know. The pimp was a close family friend of theirs. I’m saying this, because I think every Christian man (and woman) should know about this kind of stuff.
@Red
I believe you. What Deti is referring to is the corporate world with the extremely bitchy careerist who wouldn’t blink an eye to call HR if they even thought some guy was thinking sexual thoughts about them.
Young bubbly personalities will get hit on by guys in the work place because they give off approachable vibes.
However, you have to understand this is simply a result of women being in the workplace with men. It’s just going to happen unless you have draconian laws in place and even then. It’s just the way the world is and will always be. Guys are going to hit on girls that they share the same circles with even with the feminazi laws. Especially thirsty guys.
The only real way to stop this from happening is to go back to women marrying early, staying home and not interacting with tons of men everyday.
I think you have a little too much faith in the law’s real-life application. Nothing gets dealt with, especially if it can be marginalized as boys being boys. Everyone’s trying to save money now, and it wasn’t that good of a criminal justice system to begin with. Maybe where I live is worse than other areas. Kids have sex in the stairwells of the high schools around here, and many start getting active at age < 12 or 13.
Well thanks for the support, Ferret. Unfortunately, I just want to work just a job. I will say that my current degree allows me autonomy, which I like. Hopefully I can live the dream, here. :P
Just for the record, I’m not calling you a liar, Red. I’m saying two decades in the workforce in several different industries and have not seen what you describe outside of the one restaurant job I had.
But everyone there except me was high at work anyway.
Of course, women are blind to the many ways they make men uncomfortable, and the way they use their sexuality to subtly manipulate social situations to their benefit.
Sure, men with power can try to use that power to have sex with attractive women, but you need to realize how often women use their sexuality to entice or manipulate men into giving favors.
The “beta orbiter” is nothing more than a long-term version of it.
These women deliberately deceive themselves into thinking that these men LIKE being a friend “without benefits”; providing help with guy stuff, being a shoulder to cry on in between fornication fails ™ with the bad boy of the month, etc.
These men perform the services that a boyfriend or husband might, yet a repaid with a pat on the head, and a condescending “You’ll find someone someday” or whatever.
This is why I no longer offer aid, assistance, help, comfort or support of any kind to any woman is not family or a very close friend.
It’s not to be cruel or bitter – I’m just tired of being taken advantage of. Trust is at an all-time low for many of us.
Red:
If guys at work are pawing at you or swiping up against you, even if not “intensely”, that is clear-cut assault and battery. It is harassment and you don’t have to put up with it.
What do you mean by “sexually threatened”?
Yeah, professors can hit on students. It happens. This is the consequence of declaring 18 year old girls to be legal adults. Sorry.
Some of what you’re describing isn’t sex harassment. It’s just jackassery and isn’t exclusive to men.
As for married men “hitting on you” at church, it could happen but it might just be cordial behavior. Men check out and look at pretty young women. We do it all the time and it doesn’t stop when they marry. There is nothing wrong with a man looking at a woman. If it’s leering or making inappropriate comments that’s different. Looking is ok and cannot be shamed or legislated away.
Well guize, it’s been interesting. I will be counting the days until there is a new post.
:p
http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-778866516e08bf7d8019362985dd3eed?convert_to_webp=true
Actually, just kidding. Here’s what’s statistically going on:
You have a bunch of presumed 5s walking around, thinking they’re sevens, trying to get 9s, and the lowest they’ll go is 6. Forever alone.
http://knowledge.e.southern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=jiur&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dattractiveness%2520scale%2520men%25201-10%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D37%26ved%3D0CGAQFjAGOB4%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fknowledge.e.southern.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1011%2526context%253Djiur%26ei%3D51BdU4fUEM7YyAHj0oHgCA%26usg%3DAFQjCNGzN3idIAAh-4Eb1dMIK1YKF6gBvg%26sig2%3Dlr1WiV1FUm2rM9U9Hl91Qw#search=%22attractiveness%20scale%20men%201-10%22
I am a 5 at best. I have always presumed so. The Christian female 5s I pursued were too busy clamoring from scraps from the male 8s to pay me much mind,
True, they were permitted to sexually service those men, thus setting their expectation/delusion level.
Regrettably, they consider themselves to be settling to be with me now, even though they are selling me the shadow of their former glory.
Oh well.
Jack, yeah, it’s common for both genders to bump-up their numbers a good two points, raise their standards a good three points, and basement at +1 point. It’s kind of funky. We need to stop calling people gorgeous who aren’t. I’m getting too Utopian, possibly…
Women are called “beautiful” too often at church. Yeah, yeah, we’re all beautiful in our own way. It does a woman a disservice to call her a princess (above age 8, naturally) who is alright-looking, in churches with a 3:2 female-male ratio. Another thing to bear in mind is that this is the same ratio for female and male virgins (technical and greater, though this is for the population at large). It’s imperative that we’re straight with women about how attractive they actually are, because they’re being set-up to be used by someone.
A Christian man’s delusion about being +2 points will never be broken. He’s the 40%, so for every number above five, he gets another number added. A man who gets married will also have an advantage over his wife. The Bible says that a man will be the head of the house, and the “head” is taken quite literally these days. There is a list of sex-acts that I’ve researched (a la forum derping) and found that somewhat less than half of virgin men *expect*/ demand after marriage, and he will leave the woman he is dating if she won’t agree to preform these acts after marriage.
Other concerns are porn-use by older virgins, that may turn into addictions, and accidentally “cheating” in one form or another before marriage. This stems from the same place as men leaving the church: we are not *proactive* about promoting marriage at a young age. This is why people leave and stumble: not so much no sex as no promise of sex for the next decade or two.
We’re training young women to turn down men in their range. They’ve adopted by society’s highly delusional beauty-standards, and these are enforced by spiritual idealism, and unbiblical Churchian hyper-romanticism. There is no established dating system, except that a man should keep pursuing and a woman keep scorning. This would only be sexy if the fellow slew an actual dragon, but they are all did 4 gud, 2 bad.
There needs to be a slightly arranged approach. The rule should be, in my opinion, more 1950s: you can date as many people as you want, until you’re steady (no one else I know seems to think this way). Etiquette-wise, you owe any non-d-bag a first date, consisting of going to a donut shop or something else boring.
There need to be more dances: I know some people who are reviving swing dancing, but allowing popular music and some of the more dangerous dance moves. It’s very popular. There also needs to be a bigger age-range in classes and get-togethers, with both married and unmarried peoples, so that social networks can be optimized. Young people shouldn’t meet to sing praise music and read the Bible and hear a sermon: there’s church for that. They should be doing a mix of volunteer work and fun activities, to establish relationships/ network.
One in every five church-going Christians waits until marriage. Efforts need to be done to raise that number, and the easiest way to do this is to lower the marrying-age. I also think that having a more sexually-pure church-culture will lower incidents of cheating within the church. I definitely think, and this is the most important thing, marrying earlier will keep men in the church.
Just my thoughts.
^ I forgot to add how materialism/ security/ perfectionism is doing Christians a disservice. Instead of expecting people to wait until both spouses have lucrative careers and college debts paid-off, a car, and a house, there needs to be a new model that expects spouses to marry young and build their lives together. Two young people can work minimum-wage jobs and live together in a modest apartment, and then decide what to do about education, kids, etc. There needs to be more thought put into the human-element of marriage and sexuality, and less in meeting cultural ideals.
To say that marriage is a privilege that a man gets when he can secure a good paycheck is worldly and not Biblical.
I think that men are too often seen as another consumer accessory by women who have been seduced into the world of female competition for status.
Also, have you seen the hilarious song about technical virginity by those two girls “Garfunkel and Oates”
Go to youtube and search for garfunkel oats “the Loophole”
Racy, but funny.
Jack, yeah, I agree, it’s pagan marketing.
No way, I’m not researching that song. Or maybe I will when I get bored, who knows? XD
Oh, come on, it’s funny. As Christians, we should not be upset when worldly people correctly (and hilariously) point out Christian hypocrisy.
It’s harmless, but a little rough-edged.
“One study showed that after 51 failed dates, a person would accept any level of physical attractiveness.” I had to laugh at that–essentially, after 51 failed dates, panicky desperation sets in (for many). Personally, I’d stop dating long before then. Not worth it.
^ Oh, man! I read that too. XD 51!
It’s not just the “Christian” women, but almost ALL women who are INSANELY picky–and a growing number of men are the same. The large number of women have convinced themselves they can only settle for their own version of Prince Charming from a Disney FANTASY and live in THEIR own magical kingdom happily ever after. This really is MADNESS.and insanity and has NOTHING to do with the Bible’s view of love–yet i’ll get scorching replies for saying that finding the one, true “soul-mate” is un-Biblical and wrong. I honestly believe my grandparents, if they saw what was going on today, would say it’s pure madness and laugh at the people in today’s world. The vast majority of people I’ve seen who hold such crazy ideas NEVER end up in any kind of relationship for long.
No… you won’t get scorching replies on this topic, but you’ve gotta be trolling the other ones.
Too much perceived wealth, too many perceived options, too much perceived time to exercise the above.
Also, too few perceived penalties/downsides/consequences.
Jack, you’re talking about both genders, as statistically indicated, I’m assuming?
Because trust me, it goes both ways. :P
Yes, both. However (and I admit my possible bias), I believe that the Disney-think is seducing the women in a stronger way at the present time. The cultural messages are stronger that are influencing women at present, and the message to men is more passive, to the extent it is there at all.
“You go girl” is everywhere. “You go guy” is assumed to be the underlying societal default Because Patriarchy ™. There is no substantive equivalent to “princess culture” for males at this present time in Western civilization.
Find me a church where the young women are instructed to stop fornicating with “bad boys”. The closest they will come is blaming the young men for not “manning up” enough to provide the gals with an acceptable alternative to fornication. But women don’t really sin sexually, it is always because the men are not doing what they should, and poor little girls get “seduced” into sin.
Find me a church where they judge male and female sexual sin equally, and I will be one surprised individual.
Did you watch “The Loophole”?
If you want to warm up with something totally safe for work, try “garfunkel oates 29/31”
Very safe, I promise.
Yeah, I’m sure it’s “very safe;” I see what you’re trying to do. :p HA jk, jk.
29/31 is safe! Loophole is not. Garfunkel and Oates are two very cute guitar-playing chicks who have an undeniable gift for parody and songcraft. True, it can get raunchy at times, but I have to defer to the general accuracy of their viewpoints.
I am always a sucker for a wordsmith. A woman’s lexicographical skill is an aphrodisiac indeed.
By the way, if you want to see my pic, just put any of the following words into google image search:
Basement, angry, video, game, nerd, white, virgin, etc. And don’t forget “troll”.
I looked up your picture, but the Seniorsphere commented that you lie about your N-count.
Senior and the City WordPress blogged that after 51 failed dates, an SC8 can’t even score a fatso like you. Kissed dating goodbye, dentures fell out. Sometimes life is not fabulous.
Whooooaaa – I never said I was fat…
I’m a very physically fit troll
OHHHH, you’re that “PUA” who gave up after 51 dates with the elderly, showed your YouTube audience the hustle, OOOOOHHHH. Gameplayawinna
Can you do me a favor, which I will not return but use you for?? :P What’s a seven GUY look like?? What’s the cutest I can get? I don’t wanna Blue-pill, here… (“newbin'” the “lingo”)
Hold-up, very fit? That was newb of me. Like, how very fit??
I don’t know what a seven looks like. I’m not a girl. I claim only to be a 5 at best, although a girl ten years younger than me tried to pick me up at a bar.
How fit? I have to have my shirts tailored, and I buy athletic cut to start with. I can do substantially more pull ups (not sissy chin ups) than is required for the Marine entrance test.
I’m getting close to having a six-pack, but not quite there yet.
The rest you will have to imagine.
Us basement dwelling video game virgin nerds are not always fat and pasty, y’know…
Shortly, I will elaborate on the means by which you can determine the hottest guy available to you.
Stay tuned, I have it covered.
Okay, here are the basic mechanics of finding out what the market clearing-price of companionship,
love, sex, and marriage is:
Men:
The hottest woman you can give resources to is potentially unlimited. The “head cheerleader” (a metaphor of course) may let you give her a ride home if she needs one. She may permit you to drop everything and fix her car, move furniture, etc. But you will not ever get more than a platonic kiss on the cheek. She probably won’t hang out with you.
Diagnosis: This will not happen often enough to matter. Don’t be stupid. You can’t get her.
The hottest woman you can actually get in the friend-zone of will be slightly less pretty and/or feminine than the head cheerleader type. You can have all the coffee chat and lunch dates you could ever want, unless some “hot” guy is taking her out or paying attention to her. You will be permitted to supply resources, of course. Platonic cheek-kiss and an occasional hug (in this context, hugs are effectively the ‘kiss’ of death to any further contact).
Diagnosis: You’re a fool to provide resources for a friend-zoner. Unless you really enjoy her company platonically. Don’t kid yourself – she can do better than you and she will. And she should. Do not mistake her willingness to let you perform service for her as ANY indication that you have a chance. Be honest with yourself.
The hottest woman you can get to have uncommitted sex with you will be slightly higher than your own level, but she will probably be somewhat of a broken person, due to emotional traumas in her life, promiscuity, or abuse.
Diagnosis: You’re a cad if you take advantage of this situation.
The hottest women you can marry will be right around your own value, adjusted for your income and status, of course. DO NOT accept even ten seconds in the friend-zone from this woman. If she is operating under disney delusions, cut and run and leave her to keep flinging herself into the dating market while deluding herself that it is the committment market. If she is realistic, and has learned to tame her roving eye and flaky soul, then she may be a good prospect for marriage. Do not, however, commit to a woman of similar rank if she has wasted many years playing above her level, and sees you as settling. See “alpha widow” for more information.
DiagnosisYour best bet, guys, is a woman at or slightly below your own attractiveness level who has nuclear levels of femininity and sex drive. And knows the power of clothing and makeup. A tarted-up 5 beats a dumpy 7 every day, especially when she is horny for you. Especially.
Girl version coming next.
With pictures! With pictures! Also… okay, something weird I’ve noticed:
A lot of Churchian male-modeling types are settling for 6-7s. And theses are guys with good reputations. A lot of barely above average guys are scoring HBs. Why? I think it’s because it’s “what’s on the inside that counts” for the better-looking party morality.
Women:
The hottest man you can give sex to is potentially unlimited. The “quarterback/rock star” (a metaphor of course) may let you give him spontaneous or planned ‘service’ if he wants it. He may permit you to drop everything and run over for a booty call. But you will not ever get more than a friends with benefits deal. Actually, it probably will be benefits without friendship deal. He probably won’t hang out with you.
Diagnosis: This could happen often, if you put yourself in harm’s way.Don’t be stupid. You can’t get him. Don’t turn yourself into an alpha widow.
The hottest man you can actually get in the friends-with-benefits zone of will be slightly less hot and/or high-status athlete/rock star type. You can have all the hangouts and varied sex you could ever want, unless someone hotter (or merely different) is available. You will be permitted to cook for him, of course, and perhaps tidy the place up, in exchange for being allowed to spend the night. Don’t expect him to call you when you want, and don’t expect to have him take you around town and show you off. Not being taken out is the kiss of death for any future with him.
Diagnosis: You’re a fool to provide sex and affection for a friends-with-benefits guy like this. Unless you really enjoy the sex. Don’t kid yourself – he can do better than you and he will. And he should. Do not mistake his willingness to have sex and let you perform domestic tasks as ANY indication that that you are having a “trial LTR”. Be honest with yourself.
The hottest man you can get to have some sort of long term commitment with you will be slightly higher than your own level, but he will probably be somewhat of a broken person, due to emotional traumas in his life, promiscuity, abuse, drug use, chronic under/unemployment, and general low-class behavior. He will probably be very masculine, in a petty-criminal kind of way.
Diagnosis: You’re an idiot if you place yourself in this situation. The “bad boy” vibe will come at the cost of pretty much all piece of mind. And possibly your life savings.
The hottest man you can get to commit to you until you are old and wrinkled will be right around your own value, adjusted for your ability to exude a catlike feminine vibe, and your makeup and clothing skills. If man at this level is not interested in you, then move on. It is not because you are not hot enough or smart enough, it is because he is either a delusional idiot, or because you are not a good match. If he seems possibly interested, DO NOT put him in the friend zone. Be pleasant and supportive and see if that is enough to spark some action. If he is of average build but wants a girl with a supermodel body, then bid him farewell and let him enjoy his pr0n.
Under no circumstances, however, allow yourself to ever talk, think, or consider the concept of “settling”. There is NO SUCH THING as settling. “Settling” is nothing more than a cheap cop-out to avoid admitting that a person used to have delusions of their mate value. PERIOD.
DiagnosisYour best bet, girls, is a man at or slightly below your own attractiveness level who has nuclear levels of drive and ambition, but less overall cocky confidence than you think you are entitled to. And thinks you are fairly hot. If he thinks he is getting a good deal, he will wear permanent wife goggles for the rest of his life as long as you stay reasonably fit and stay game-on with the clothes and makeup.
He will become more attractive over time, and you will become less, and it will all even out when it really matters for you, which is later in life when you don’t have the market power you have when you are young.
Red:
Maybe you are just using a very different scorecard from the rest of us on your ranking methodology?
Or, remember that a male-model looking guy who is an “8”, but has all the uber-nice-guy Christian vibe going is lowering himself to a 6.
A know of a guy who is 6’2″, ivy league educated, dresses stylishly and still has a lot of problems getting dates. Because he is an insecure nice guy and he is boring. Oh, he gets lots of female interest, but it dies off right away. Now, he could easily get a 5 or 4 to date him, on looks and money alone. But his shyness and insecurity are a dealbreaker for most.
A church-guy male model will still probably have nice-guy value reduction happening.
For guys, you have to mix attitude in to a much greater amount to get the “number”.
Stuff like this: http://www.popcorn.cl/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hugh-jackman-wife-miscarria.jpg
I put up with horrible social skills for looks, but on the other end, was attracted to a legit 5 for sapio reasons. But he was the smartest person I ever met, and a bit out of my league on that scale, so…
I will say, a guy has to be more than “cute” for me to put up with dumbness: the more stupid he is, the hotter he better be. And decent grooming is required, always.
As far as status goes, it doesn’t really matter to me. I’ve even had a few minor celebrities and rich fellows show some interest, but they all get the same scrutiny: do I find you snogable, are you tall enough, do we have the same values, is your I.Q. a notch above kind of smart? Sometimes, I look back and go, “darn, that would’ve been a good catch,” but if it’s not a match, it’s not a match. As soon as you go chasing a man that other women chase for no real reason, you’re in firm beta territory. :P
“Stuff like this: http://www.popcorn.cl/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hugh-jackman-wife-miscarria.jpg”
LOL. That’s his ‘beard’. Jackman is queerer than a three dollar bill.
He’s an extremely good looking movie star that is heavy into musical theatre/film with a fat ugly wife. ‘Nuff said.
Eight and four, five when she’s fit. I don’t think he’s gay, though, they have kids.
Gay men are not against having procreative sex. Also, She is a 4 at best. She was at best a 6 “back in the day”.
Number value is not relative to age, i.e., there are no 70 year old 10s. Probably not any 6s either. Sophia Loren managed a solid 5 very late into life, and she was quite the outlier.
Actually, that makes sense: that’s why they were never divorced.
I thought 10s didn’t exist, at least that’s the consensus of about half the internetz. I thought ten symbolized perfection, and one, the Uncanny Valley.
This is a 1: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uKeHxiCr-_U/TdXMe9FGC0I/AAAAAAAAAnk/lSVIs0rWJog/s1600/reb.jpg
10s are rare. If they existed only as theoretical ideals, then 1s also do not exist, since they are theoretical non-ideals.
But it is not equal distribution. 10s do not make up 10%, etc.
I think the rule should be, they don’t exist, but if someone wants their own “10”, they’re limited to one 9 that they like best.
I don’t know if this is right:
10: Perfect Beauty
9: Young Jane Seymour / James Dean
8: Jennifer Garner / Gerard Butler
7: Vanessa Hudgens / Zach Efron
6: Sarah Jessica Parker / Toby Maguire
5: Mindy Kaling / Michael Sera
4: Young Rachel Dratch / DJ Qualls
3: Gabourey Sidibe / Ralphie May
2: Burn victims, the illness-ridden, the deformed, “he’s 5,000 pounds and she loves him”
1: The bottom of the Uncanny Valley
(For each gender)
9: 1 in 10,000
8: 1 in 200
7: 1 in 30
6: 1 in 10
…and so on…
Sarah Jessica Parker??
Flip her and that Vanessa chick and then we can have a reasonable discussion.
Jennifer Anniston is the quintessential 7/8.
You think SJP is hotter than Hudgens? You, sir, are in the internet minority.
I think High School Musical is the perfect example of the Disney Seven, excluding Corbin Bleu, who was an eight at the time, and seems to be approaching nine territory. Every other young lady was screaming “Zach! Zach!” No, I had my eye on the half-Italian mulatto the whole time.
Ashley Tisdale: another seven. Got a nose-job, rose to eight by strict adherence to conventional beauty. Now, she actually *does* look better than Hudgens. Someone needs to tell Vanessa Chick. No, no, the truth would kill her.
Jennifer Anniston: agreed 100%. I round up if someone has a more conventional look, so I would give her an “8” for her California Caucasian look. Gwenyth Paltrow tries to do this, by going so far as to completely dye her hair blonde. Too bad Paltrow is so far stuck in the seven-zone, womp womp. Maybe her body can help? OOoo, let’s pretend we never saw her bikini shots. But she can still *act* austere…
Blake Lively: Eight. Had the only cute big nose I’ve ever seen. Got a nose-job. Still an eight.
Taylor Swift: Seven. Got a nose job: eight. Hey, it worked!
At least half of all “stars” are just sevens who go to the gym. There are a good amount of eights as well, usually by surgery. Very rarely are there nines, unless you consider French or Indian celebrities. “Beautiful people” is a lie. Famous people exist to make regular people feel like anything is possible.
Correction: I meant flip SJP with the girl you have as a five.
Better yet, find another 6.
SJP can be pretty cute. If you saw her IRL, you would think she was cute. Okay, another Sex and the City star: Cynthia Nixon was a 6.
As I once heard, “She is not one in a million, she is one OF a million.”
Okay, this is something that annoys me to no end. When a hot Christian girl posts pictures of herself, people will always be like, “Beautiful inside and out.” What the hell is that? They should just be like, “Hot girl, straight bitch, technical virgin.” Let’s just associate morality with how good-looking you are/ how long you’ve been going to the same church.
@Red, “technical virgin,” right. She, a “good Christian woman,” has engaged in ALMOST EVERYTHING… but (penetration). But she let the man get darn close to entering her and thrusting deep into her good girl p*ssy.
They hugged, kissed and caressed each other sexually, with his fingers probing the depths of her “Christian innocence…”
The Christian girl so easily gave it up to her nonChrsitian boyfriend.
She even let him, while laying naked next to her, grind up against her and later, climb on top of her, engaging in “simulated sex,” where the two can experience some of the sensations both so desire.
She would deflect his impressive p*nis from entering her “innocent” Christian p*ssy, which she shows him in all its beauty.
But… one night… when she wasn’t so “careful,” he, without warning her, slowly slid his manhood into her.
While she wasn’t “planning” to let him in her that night, to be honest, she didn’t really want him to stop and did not resist at all as she felt his godless nonChristian p*nis be the first to enter her.
As he slowly entered her and burst her holy hymen, one wonders if the Christian girl thought about God, her faith or religious convictions…
… or just enjoyed the new sensations his passionate thrusts deep into her gave her…
… and showed her what real life was like.