Indiana and baking cakes or pizza for gay weddings

Figured I would comment on such things.

The main issue that I see is that Christians don’t want to “be associated with something they think goes against God” or that they don’t want to “be condoning of something that goes against God’s law.”

Two distinctions need to be made.

First, we hold those inside the church to a higher standard. Those inside the church call themselves Christian, and thus we need to hold them to standard of obedience to Jesus’ commands.

Secondly, to those outside of the church we are to hold them to a different standard. That of God’s unconditional love for us.

Obviously, the case with say baking cakes for gay weddings is a scenario that falls under the second. Therefore, the goal to those who do not know God’s love is to be able to show them unconditional love. Jesus in the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5 makes this clear.

Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your [am]shirt, let him have your [an]coat also. 41 Whoever [ao]forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may [ap]be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Therefore [aq]you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The vast majority of “Christians” have this backward mentality with non-Christians. The Christians think they need to be moral arbiters here on the earth of what is right and wrong. No. That’s God’s job.

As it says in the Scriptures there are those who are going to do evil to you. They want to slap you. They will want to sue you. They want to force you to do things you don’t want them to do. Does He tell us to resist that? Nope, rather Jesus says do more than they ask even if if they have wronged you.

What Christians who refuse baking the cake for the gay weddings is the same as “loving your neighbor and hating your enemy.” Wow, it’s really easy to love other Christians who are following the Word, but what about people who aren’t? Are you going to be mean and nasty to them because they don’t believe the same things you do? Or are you going to love and bless them and be kind to them so that they know God has changed you.

But to truly understand what you’re doing in this scenario you have to know first what God did for you:

Romans 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

In our SIN, He died for us. He died for the Pharisees who hated Him. He died for the robber on the cross that scorned Him. He died for the Romans that scourged Him, divided up His clothes, placed a crown of thorns on His head, and nailed Him to the cross. He died for those who tortured and murdered Him when He was innocent.

Yet Christians want to deny a cake or pizza for a gay wedding? Please. God did not deny us Christ’s sacrifice when we were in our sin.

You’re not condoning a gay wedding when you provide services for them. You’re showing them God’s love reflected in your actions. Do you want to show them how great the Father’s love is or do you want to be selfish with God’s love saying they don’t deserve it? Because that’s all they see when Christians refuse.You’re being a Pharisee to them when they’re a tax collector or sinner in Luke 15 when Jesus talks about the parable of the lost sheep, lost coin, and Prodigal Son.

Bake a cake for a gay wedding? I’d bake them two and refuse their money, and pray that God softens their hearts to accept His grace and mercy.

The demonization of masculinity

Moose Norseman’s latest post brought up some interesting points that I want to address regarding the demonization of masculinity in the Church.

[…] In large block letters down the sleeves were the words “MEN OF VALOR” in all capital letters.

I thought the words on the sleeves was tacky, but the Crusader’s shield and cross is a powerful symbol. It’s “bad ass.” And it seemed profoundly sacrilegious to see these men wearing it.

Grown men playing dress-up, pretending to valor until their wives tell them it’s time to go home, LARPing as patriarchs and defenders of the faith for a morning, like the fat guy in the outrageously fake “master funnery sergeant” uniform.

I wanted to punch them.

See, this is the same men’s group that gleefully passed around an obviously fake “letter” attacking fathers, exuberant over a chance to denigrate themselves and assure each other that, after all, their wives and children were perfectly justified in rebelling against their God-ordained leadership.

Then my anger faded, and I just felt sad.

Sad because those shirts show that those men really do want to be patriarchs, men of valor, defenders of the faith. They wouldn’t pretend to it if they didn’t value it.

Sad because they have managed to convince themselves (at least partially) that they aren’t pretenders: that “True Valor” is assisting the enemy in slicing their own neck; that defending the faith means arguing with each other over words to no profit, such as whether the communion wine becomes Christ’s blood, or is only a very powerful symbol of His blood; that being a patriarch means following the whims of their wives and children.

To be honest, the reality is worse than Moose even realizes.

The worst thing is that many men think that shaming themselves for the sins of other men — not even the men/boys they are responsible for which are their family — makes them feel better about their current position as pseudo-leaders with their pseudo-morality and pseudo-religiosity. Their shame at their lack of leadership when they are shamed away from leadership is worn as a badge of honor to the sins they don’t commit.

One cannot look further than most of the “don’t rape” stuff that men are indoctrinated with from a feminist culture. If you’re a man and you don’t rape why would you even give such drivel attention in the first place? Because you think you can take on “shame” for your sex and have it mean something? Do you think you can apologize for someone else’s actions and have others care? Can you apologize for others’ actions and have it mean something? No. This is why I laugh at patriarchy rants.

But worst yet is the men and fathers who do want to be leaders who take on the shame and the blame of others who they are attempting to guide when the others make mistakes? And when they do they think it means something good or holy?

That my friends is straight up blasphemy. And it is probably one of the most insidious aspects of the demonization of masculinity by the Church.

To think for a second that I can control others, or be responsible for their sinful actions is false thinking. Sure, I can influence it to some degree, but at the end of the day people are making sinful choices from their heart. Not mine. The vast majority of humans understand cause and effect on a subconscious level. Men and fathers who taken on the blame for the poor choices of their wives and children and experience shame for that are doing the same thing that a rich parent does when their snotty nose brat goes to jail: they cover it up with their own shame and money. All it does is reinforce poor behavior.

To embrace masculinity

Men are taught not to have firm boundaries. However, firm boundaries are what they need to succeed in the position of headship and leadership. Men need to understand that they do still have the burden of headship even if they make mistakes in headship duties. However, that doesn’t mean you take on shame and responsiblities for the actions of others when they have free will just like you.

The Scriptures are clear to the people underneath authority that they still have the free will to do what is right regardless of their situation. To wives with husbands who don’t believe the Word — 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Peter 3. To Christians under government authority — Romans 13, 1 Peter 2, Hebrews 13, Titus 3.

Christian men need only understand this. That each man is held accountable for:

• His actions
• His roles
• His responsiblities

Christian men are not held accountable for:

• His wife’s actions
• His wife’s roles
• His wife’s responsibilities

Once you understand boundaries more clearly, it is much more easy to hold people accountable for their mistakes even when you have made a simultaneous mistake.

I think this is one of the most difficult parts of authority, headship, or leadership to master. Men like to believe that because we made a mistake that it all falls on us. We don’t want to look like hypocrites where we failed and need to demand responsibility from those under us. We want to take more of the blame and shame than necessary because we think it will protect those under us. This is where our instinct to provide and protect which is normally good goes off the tracks. Shielding others from consequences sends the wrong message — the spoiled rich kid message.

Biblical roles and responsibilities are not something you can put off if you make mistakes. You are still held accoutable for the role and responsibility regardless of if you seem like the “worst” Christian husband on the face of the planet. Thus, you must understand that even if you feel like you’re the worst hypocrite, and you feel that you need to take the shame and blame you still have a responsibility. That responsibility is to hold others accountable for their actions that are under your authority.

It’s taking responsibility to say: “hey, I made a mistake here and I want to apologize for that. Also, you made a mistake here as well. We both need to go to Jesus and repent for our sin, and turn from those sins so next time in the future we both don’t do wrong. Or if, God forbid, one of us does wrong the other person won’t respond in kind.”

Leadership in the midst of conflict: that is where men are made.

The chain of corruption

In the past two posts on the Destruction of morals and the idolization of romantic love and Destruction of morals and the commodification of romantic love, we looked at the specific ways in which the destruction of morals have led to the idolization of romantic love and the commodification of love.

What we are seeing are the true consequence of absolute or objective morality and relative morality. In other words, to have objective morality there must be something that anchors morals — there must be an “authority” or “God.”

If people don’t believe in a “higher power” or “God” and are agnostic or atheist then they must believe in relative morality. Since relative morality is not absolute, there is no right or wrong. Everyone can do what they want, even to the detriment of others. Psychopaths, serial murderers, pedophiles, and the like are no different than you or me. This is the true conclusion of immoral red pill behavior: it’s basically everyone for themselves.

With the grounding of morality to an objective stance we have:

1. There is a God or higher power
2. If we assume this God or higher power is Christian (since we are on a Christian blog), said Christian God prescribes objective moral behaviors.
3. Marriage is made for sex, and sex is made for marriage. Romance and sex happens in the confines of marriage.
4. Sex and romance are inextricably linked to a singular person that you marry, and thus cannot be commodified to use as a weapon or temptation.

However, without the grounding of an objective morality we enter relative morality:

1. There is no God or higher power
2. There is only relative moral behavior, which means everyone can do what they want without consideration of [higher] consequences. Likewise, the only reason to obey laws would be to not be punished. If you can get away with something without being punished then it’s good. Baser instincts like feelings become your truth.
3. Sex is made for romance or other feelings. Marriage is a useless or archaic institution that only serves a purpose if you give it meaning: most opt out. Marriage or not-marriage can thus be incentivized through commodification — divorce in incentivized so many will divorce.
4. Sex and romance are commodities that you can with what you want without shame: prostitution, manipulation, trading for affection, trading for commitment, and the like.
5. At this point, the only thing still driving marriage is that it is a status symbol in the middle and upper class in America. Those that care not for it will cohabit instead.

This is why when you can compare the secular and Christain manosphere you get wildly disparate behavior.

The secular manosphere recommends having sex with multiple women at the same time and never marrying at all. There’s nothing wrong with sleeping with other men’s wives, or caring about sexual health other than yourselves or so you won’t get a bad reputation. There’s no value in women other than how they can please you and satisfy you. This is why the primary thing strived for in the secular manosphere is the maximization of attractive traits such as the dark triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. There’s no need to have a moral standard of behavior with women or even men.

If there is no God, they are right. You want to maximize attraction to attract as many women as possible and spread your seed and have fun and be happy. Yet, in the end, you see that this is not happiness or fulfillment. Most players end up getting “player burnout” and realize that women aren’t an answer. If women aren’t the answer when there is no God in this life, then what is?

This is ultimately the great question that everyone needs to answer for themselves. Is there a God? Is that God the Christian God?

On the other hand, if we are wrong Paul makes the case rightfully:

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified [f]against God that He raised [g]Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

This is indeed why Christians in the secular manosphere are looked on spitefully. Holding onto morality when there is no God would be foolish and to your own detriment. Believing in something that is false with no benefit to yourself is to be derided.

But read the rest of the 1 Corinthians 15 to see the hope we have in Jesus.

I suppose the thing I find most interesting is that the logical behavior that comes out of belief in God or lack of belief is God is so wildly disparate. Hence, the title of this post — the chain of corruption. It leads in two different directions and leads to wholly different conclusions and behavior.

Destruction of morals and the commodification of romantic love

In the Destruction of morals and the idolization of romantic love, I talked a bit about the commodification of sex.

If sex is created for romance, then it can be increasingly commodified and used as a weapon because it is viable in a more extensive market (outside of marriage). Commodification of sex becomes tied to the capitalism. An increase in prostitution, pornography, attention whoring, sex appeal in the media, and the like only fuels this.

Sex is created for romance. Thus, if a woman feels romance she will have sex. The morality of sex goes out the window.

This is exceptionally bad because one of the major motivating factors that drive men toward marriage is sex. If a man can get sex outside of marriage, there is no reason to “buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.” The vast majority of women attempt to trade “sexual attraction” in return for sex which seems good for them in the short term. However, once these women start to age and see that they cannot get men to commit to them with sex they start to freak out and shame men manifesting by all sorts of projection.

The morality of sex places sex off the table as a bargaining chip which can be commodified or weaponized. Indeed, both men and women have to get married if they want to have sex, and sex in marriage is also tied with commitment and family. I think this is one of the most interesting facets about why God created sex the way He did: to be manifested solely within the confines of marriage.

Note that this parallels the post on Identity Part 6 — performance and desire. Performance is based on exchange: I perform for [God’s] love, or I perform for approval, or I perform to be desired. Performance is based on doing it for something in exchange whether from God, or from man, or for yourself. On the other hand, desire is based on excellence because you want to do it.

Sex outside of the confines of morality to romance is shifted from desire to a performance mindset. In the confines of romance, you always have to be doing something for sex. You need to be sexually attractive enough (alpha), or you have to give commitment (beta bucks), or you exchange it for money (prostitution), or you use it as a weapon to get what you want (manipulation), and other such things.

What you end up with the commodication of sex in general in society is what Rollo notes on his latest post that Wives hate sex. Women utilize sex in order to get men to commit to them for marriage. Once the expectation is set that sex can be commodified it can also be withdrawn once someone gets what they want: once women secure marriage with sex they don’t have to have sex anymore. This commodification places primary importance on looks. Women can only commodify sex to use to secure commitment if they are beautiful enough for men to want to buy what they are selling.

This often comes at the expense and detriment of the beauty and worth of the internal characteristics which is why the Scriptures warn against such:

1 Peter 3:1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and [a]respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right [b]without being frightened by any fear.

Thus, the commodificaiton of sex leads to a plethora of dysfunctions because it is outside of the confines of morality and thus the blessing of God.

Destruction of morals and the idolization of romantic love

When we go back and examine some of Dalrock’s older posts like lovestruck we have the excellent analysis:

Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love.  Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”.  It is also entirely logical for gays to demand the equal right to “declare their love” via marriage under this new twisted paradigm.

Thinking about this in more depth I think we have to come to the conclusion that the main issue is the erosion of morals: sex is created for marriage.

Once you essentially blot out the line between immorality and morality, only thoughts and emotions become truth as there is no higher form of Truth. When thoughts and emotions become “truth”, emotions win because they are a much more instinctual and thus base level of behavior. This elimination of a moral is thus replaced by the new moral: romance (or romantic feelings) are required to have sex. In other words: sex is created for romance.

When we look at the romanticization of love, it did not have such a deleterious effect onto society until sex prior to marriage was advocated for and accepted as a societal norm. We can trace the romanticization of love back to chivalry and even the elevation of such love throughout the early 1950s. However, there weren’t many visible societal negative side effects. This signals to me that romanticization is no culprit. It’s good or bad depending on context. Romance — which leads to sex — in marriage is good and moral. Romance, which leads to sex — outside of marriage is evil and immoral.

Rather, it is the sexual revolution coupled with specifically 2nd and 3rd wave feminism that decouples the morality of sex and marriage, and drives women (and men) to explore those natures outside of marriage.

Now, if we compare and contrast the two “morals” we shouldn’t be surprised at all of the dysfunctional aspects out of marriage and within marriage that are quite easy to see by what we know observationally:

• If sex is created for romance, virginity goes by the wayside and pair bonding with it.
• If sex is created for romance, women have sex at the whims of their feelings which are based upon sexual attraction. Hence, they chase the maximal masculinity they see. Since “good men” will obey the rules of society which demonizes masculinity, women will be primarily attracted to “bad boys” who cannot be shamed away from being masculine.
• If sex is created for romance, women will constantly branch hop at the chance to trade up to better men because there is no such thing as commitment. Commitment is tied to morality, which is tied to sex and marriage. When you do away with the morality of sex in marriage you also do away with commitment.
• If sex is created for romance, following the previous point (no such thing as commitment) the divorce rate will drastically increase.
• If sex is created for romance, getting married decreases the chances that said women/wives will actually have sex with their husbands because he’s not going to be constantly ‘courting her.’
• If sex is created for romance, then it can be increasingly commodified and used as a weapon because it is viable in a more extensive market (outside of marriage). Commodification of sex becomes tied to the capitalism. An increase in prostitution, pornography, attention whoring, sex appeal in the media, and the like only fuels this.
• If sex is created for romance, the destruction of the family results due to decoupling sex with with children and family. Sex becomes solely a means of selfishness rather than family and relational focus.

Anyway, I’m sure there are more things tied in with this. The destruction of the morality of sex in marriage elevates the romance as the new morality. This leads to a plethora of destructive behaviors that destroys the formation of families and the lives of children. This leads to the destruction of societies.

Formalization of AWALT and NAWALT

AWALT is the common acronym for “All women are like that.” NAWALT being “not all women are like that.”

This acronym is fairly prevalent in the manosphere, but it would be nice to have a working definition to refer to since it is important to understand especially for Christian marriage minded men. Less so if you’re a player because you can just claim AWALT for anything and behave with no concern for morality.

When we, as Christians (or as part of the Christian manosphere), discuss AWALT we are specifically referring to the nature of women that is universal. Specfically, the nature of women that was created by the Creator. This nature of women extends past all moral and otherwise boundaries because it is innate in women. On the other hand, we are not talking about behavior that can be overcome by women through morality, reason, or self control. Christian or otherwise. Thus:

• AWALT — the innate nature of women as God created them.
• NAWALT — common traits in women today that may seem ubiquitous, but there are [few] women who are not like this because of their morality, reason, and/or self control.

So let’s get down to it. I’m going to get this list started but it is by no means comprehesive. If you have ideas, categories, behaviors, or other things to add to this list that I missed then comment and I will add them.

AWALT

• Attraction — all women are [sexually] attracted to PSALMS — power/personality, status, athleticism, looks, and money.
• Attraction — all women are not [sexually] attracted to loyalty, good with children, and the majority of fruits of the Spirit like humility, patience, kindness, faithfulness, self control.
• Attractiveness — Men with perceived lower SMV/MMV than a woman will be relatively invisible to her. Also, see apex fallacy.
• Apex fallacy — when women talk about men in general only the top percentage of men (who are attractive) are who she is talking about. “Where have all the good men gone?” is “Where have all of the [attractive/alpha] good men gone?”
• Weakness — all women are turned off by weakness from men. Emotinal displays, sickness, or losing a job may fall into this category if the man purposely admits he is inadequate in some way. Women often have contempt or disgust for men that show weakness. (Exception: maybe his mother or grandmothers).
• Leadership/headship — if a man is not perceived to be leading/heading a relationship virtually all women will be unhappy, have a desire to nag him, be discontented, and [may] consider leaving him.
• Respect — respect will make it easier for a woman to submit (but does not guarantee it), while conversely disrespect will make it harder for a woman to submit (but also does not guarantee that she won’t).
• Shallowness/pickiness — women are as shallow as men when it comes to physical attraction. In fact, women are naturally even more picky and selective.

NAWALT

• Many or most but not all women believe that their accomplishments, career, personality, or the like make them more attractive to men. This is projection.
• Many or most but not all women believe that men should be like women: to be emotional, nice, and it will make them more attractive to women.
• Women have the ability, through the Holy Spirit and self control, to honor commands in the Bible such as to win their husbands without a word if their husbands don’t obey the word (1 Peter 3) albeit it will be very difficult for her.

Questionables

• Do women have the ability to agape love their husbands? There are no commands for women to agape love their husbands but to philea love them (Titus 2).
• Do women have full moral agency?
• Are women able to act as their own agent outside of men: what about the fact that women were under their fathers in the OT, and confirmed through 1 Cor 7 to also be under the authority of their fathers prior to marriage?

Former questionables in the context of Christianity (updated also with input from Donal’s link):

• On Agape: All [Christian] women have the capacity to agape love, respect, and submit their husbands. However, in the current culture this tends to be very rare.
• On moral agency: All women have full moral agency. They are responsible for their decisions as much as men are responsible for theirs. However, culture and churchianity tends to infantilize women’s decision making placing the consequence of poor decisions that women make onto men as men’s burden of leadership and responsibility.
• on authority: women are able to operate out of the bounds of authority of men (their fathers, husbands) although it may or may not be for the best depending on the different situations. This may need to be hashed out further per each scenario it occurs.

Authenticity and charisma

Short post. Relates to in the moment. Video and notes on the book explain how body language, speech, being present, gestures, and other factors like these come together to make social charisma.

Olivia Fox Cabane: Build Your Personal Charisma:

And short notes on the book:

https://github.com/mgp/book-notes/blob/master/the-charisma-myth.markdown

Very useful for INTJs who need a more structural approach to learning social skills.

Slapping women and social commentary

This is kind of a semi-off topic and semi-non Christian type of observation. Perception is a very interesting thing in context of this woman who is trying to win her boyfriend back.

I’m a 26 year old girl and my bf [29] and I broke up one week ago [5 year relationship] over an altercation that got physical. Truthfully I was being a cunt. We were at his place hanging out and I was wanting to go home after we ate dinner because I was tired. He wanted me to stay a little longer to hang out and at the very least fool around. I really just wanted to go home and got a nasty attitude, calling him an ass-hole and such. As I was trying to leave the door he grabbed me and slapped me. Nothing terrible; I’m not talking Rodney King bullshit, it was just a slap. I overreacted and screamed at him, again calling him an ass-hole and continuing with my attitude. I was really very surprised by my behavior. I’m normally not like that. As we were fighting, I just shouted out that I’m sick of his shit, to which he responded that we were done and pushed me out the door.

Of course, the comments are predictable give our current societal atmosphere based on feminine primacy:

1. news flash: a RP man would not let a woman affect his emotions to the extent that he gets physically violent. This bitch is bluepill to the fucking max. This is also why I struggle to relate to victims of repeat domestic violence, he showed you his real colors, sure some people can change but why risk it? you dodged a bullet, dont reload the gun.

2. If he supports red pill ideals at all, it’s purely lip service. A well rounded man doesn’t break frame so easily, and he certainly doesn’t hit his woman because she’s yelling at him. Move on.

3. He slapped you for words. Not even harsh words. His friends have said worse. He’s not a natural leader. He’s probably more scared that you will press charges for the assault. And he smacked you because he thought he was asserting dominance, but it was an overreaction to the max. Move on. He failed your shit test. Move on.

4. physical violence is a deal-breaker. It doesn’t matter how verbally ‘bitchy’ you thought you were. A true leader would not submit to such cowardly acts.

5. You behaved poorly, but his reaction was unacceptable. He lost control and escalated the situation instead of diffusing things and ignoring your nonsense. Learn from your mistake and move on.

6. He…slapped you? What a little beta. Who strikes a woman? That is unforgiveable. Anyway, darling, you will find that by taking a supportive, kind, and demure role that men will generally step up to the plate. Let him lead and trust his deicions from the start. Not with THIS guy, obviously! He is a turd who should have been reported. He completely violated your trust, space, respect, and body. He deserves to have the feas of 1,000 camels infect his crotch.

Slapping a woman for being foolish was accepted and deemed manly and a good way to put a woman in her place so to speak up until the 1960s or so. Hence, the slapping of women even from various films:

Now, instead of being called an alpha in this case for slapping her and when she didn’t back down he realized it was a lost cause and dumping her, the vast majority in this comment field is calling him a beta loser who can’t control himself.

This is why actions themselves are almost totally irrelevant to discussion of attraction because perception can change so much that they must be taken in context of the particular culture.

In particular, this is the difference between game which is reactionary whereas masculinity transcends cultures and context. Thus, game is an aping of masculinity to fit within a particular cultural context.

Talking about your emotions with women

• The world says: men should be like women and discuss their emotions with them.
• The manosphere wisdom says: mens should never discuss their emotions.
• Dalrock has a good take on this.

In my experience interacting with single Christian and non-Christian women it is mainly that is is attitude that matters. I posted a basic summary of this on Dalrock’s blog, but I wanted to put it here because this blog is for single Christian men looking for a wife.

Here’s what I posted:

[Simply put, it is your attitude that matters the most.]

You can discuss your emotions logically and from a place of leadership if you want her to offer her opinion on the matter or she wants you to open up. This is fine.

The problem you run into is when you start discussing emotions and becoming needy. Indeed, if you start relying on her as your rock and for support then that is unattractive.

You can discuss emotions as much as you want. But don’t lean on her for emotional support, and let her lean on you for emotional support. Females go to other females for emotional support. If you’re going to her for emotional support you’re not acting like a man you’re acting like a woman. That’s why she loses attraction for you.

Indeed, discussing emotions with women can be a great way to build trust and intimacy in a relationship. Just don’t expect support, and don’t get into a state where you want or need support. If you want emotional support talk to friends who are men.

Talking about emotions aren’t something that generates or loses attraction much like talking about what you are thinking generates or loses attraction. The mindset that you project and the attitude that goes with it is what matters. For example, an attractive man and winner who discusses his vulnerable experiences gains attraction and endearment. In this case, it’s not the emotional discussion but the pain and hardship that he had to endure and the eventual success story.

As I stated in the quote, it is the need or desire for emotional support that is truly unattractive to women. That signals to their brain unconsciously that you’re like one their female friends. Women aren’t attracted to their female friends.

Discussing emotions is neither here nor there, and I’ve found the vast majority of the time that I can discuss them with women I’m interested in without them losing attraction for me as long as I don’t go to them wanting or needing the emotional support that they give their female friends. In fact, sharing does build a bond of intimacy and trust which is what you want in a burgeoning relationship.

The vast majority of the manosphere are those who are fairly new, and the “don’t discuss emotions with women” do it because it’s not something that you should play around it if you have a feminized mindset as a man. I find this to be good advice for Christian men who are looking to get out of the friend zone.

However, as your personality evolves you should know that it can be a good thing used the right way.

My 5 step process to maturity in relationships

I’ve put off developing the Christian primer for a bit to focus on this post and hopefully derivatives as it has been on the forefront of my mind in the past couple months. This drives right to the heart about what single Christians can do to develop themselves into mature adults in relationships in accordance with the Scriptures to be ready for relationships.

One of the worst assumptions you can make about relationships is that time equals maturity in relationships. This is not true. There is also the common saying that time heals all wounds but that is not true either. The positive and negative experiences that we experience in childhood still affect our perceptions of things today. This is also why it is important to take all your wounds to the cross in forgiveness and repentance. And to know your identity in Christ (Part zero, one, two, three, four, five, six).

This is the most common perception that people have in relationships today. It’s based on the Disney fairytale memes in a way. At the right time, you’ll be ready to take on a relationship. In today’s culture, the schema or at least some variation thereof that is pushed on both men and women is:

1. Go to high school
2. Go to college, maybe work on the side
3. Get a nice paying job
4. Do that for a couple years and establish yourself
5. Continue building your career
6. Start to become mature and find yourself
7. Then get married in your late twenties or early thirties and have a perfect life with kids

Most of us in the manosphere know that “establish yourself,” “building a career,” and “finding yourself” are solely key words for directionless wandering. Usually directionless wandering into sin. A career is not necessarily sin, but it reflects your priorities. It’s like men being told to “just be yourself” in relationships. It’s entirely unhelpful and just leads to you wander around like a chicken with his head cut off. It doesn’t tell a Christian man how to develop into the man that godly, attractive women are interested in.

Thus, the problem is that no one actually tells you what it means to become mature in relationships. This is something that I have struggled with in the past, but I now have a grounded structural plan to implement this in my own life and in those I mentor. Time itself is not what is required to growth for maturity in relationships. Codification of a step by step process is important.

Thus, over the past few months I’ve been trying to codify my approach to relationships so I know what I’m looking for and what I’m aiming to do on the path to getting married. The end result is is my 5 steps of maturity in relationships.

• Know what God says about relationships
• Know your priorities: dreams and 5 year goals
• Know your standards for women
• Know your standards/boundaries in a relationship
• Know how to assertively communicate

These are the 5 steps that I have been using in my life to structure them in determining my maturity for handling relationships. I’ll discuss them in order and give my thoughts and preferences as examples of what I do and what I’m looking for. Then you can modify them for your own use if you want.

These are not only for men, but they can be applied to women as well for the most part.

• Know what God says about relationships

I think this is the most obvious one, but also one of the most neglected. When I talk to and mentor younger Christian men about what they’re doing to prepare for relationships I almost inevitably get something about either school, job, or money. Well, that’s just not good. I’ve seen enough married couples to know that they did nothing to explore what the Scriptures says on relationships before marrying to their own detriment.

The main thing to know what God says about relationships is to know in depth what your roles and responsibilies are and what the roles and responsibilities of your spouse will be. This is one that I have been exploring for the last 1.5 years or so, and that I have attempted to explore rather in depth on this blog through many of my posts on husbands and wives. The main passages are Genesis 1-3, 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, Titus 2, 1 Peter 3, Proverbs 31. But also some other smaller passages on marriage, husbands and wives, or male-female relationships in Hebrews 13, 1 Timothy 3, Proverbs 18, Ecclesiastes 4, and some general commands such as from 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2. I’ve gone into the Greek and Hebrew. I’ve learned a lot about what God says.

The sad state of affairs is that Christians that want to be married, but don’t know of God’s standards for relationships.

They are entering them at their own risk. This is especially true for the husbands who want an egalitarian relationship. Sure, such relationships can be “successful” at least by some metric of the world and as Christians if you hold “success” to be no fights and happiness. But such egalitarian relationships will never be “godly” because they don’t adhere to God’s standard.

(Note: I think the one exception may be if the husband willingly offers “half his kingdom” to his wife as authority can be delegated. But that is a risky proposition indeed. This works in favor of Esther with Xerxes, but it works against Herod with the daughter of Herodias when she requests the head of John of the Baptist. However, these are both not Hebrew or Christian men which should give you pause.)

Do not let worldly measures of success cloud your vision of what a godly relationship is supposed to be. God created everything, and His Word gives us His truths that bring us joy and peace. He understands us at a fundamental level as we are His creation. However, even when we think such truths are uncomfortable if we submit to them we will understand them as we live them.

Write the truths that come out of your study of the Scriptures on marriage and relationships down. For me, this blog serves as my study and analysis of the Scriptures on relationships. This is akin to doing your research before you engage in anything. You are reading the fine print.

Hosea 4:Yet let no one [e]find fault, and let none offer reproof; For your people are like those who contend with the priest. 5 So you will stumble by day, And the prophet also will stumble with you by night; And I will destroy your mother. 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

No one would suggest you buy a credit card before you read the fine print. Nor would anyone suggest you buy a car or a house before you read the fine print on the loan or mortagage. A failure to read the fine print of the Scriptures means that even if the other person turns out to be the person you were not expecting that you are also culpable for your failure to ask the hard questions and to know the details. Your lack of knowledge is your own undoing.

James 4:17 Therefore, to one who knows the [k]right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Likewise, the scary thought is that if you failed as a husband or wife to immediately point out truth where there is sin in a relationship then you are also culpable for letting that sin slide. This is a hard word for most Christians in relationships because it means that you are responsible for calling out your spouse or significant other if they get off track. Similarly, you are responsible for humbling yourself in the sight of God to come back on track if you sin. Both Christian men and women have a very difficult time doing this, and it shows in the sad state of affairs in so-called Christian relationships and the divorce statistics. Not hurting someone’s feelings becomes the truth over what the Scriptures say.

• Know your priorities: your dreams and 5 year goals

This is a straight forward section. This is what your mission is to be.

Generally, God will use your natural strengths for his kingdom. This has become apparent in my own life with my sense for business and for teaching. Thus, I know that my mission involves facilitating and earning money for the kingdom, and for mentoring young men in the Church. However, I need to know where all of this fits in the grand scheme of things. Hence, you need to know your dreams and what it takes to fulfill them, but also mold them into short term goals.

For me, my 5 year short term goals look like this:

1. My relationship with God is my top priority: seeking Him in Scripture, prayer, and the like. By extension of this, helping build up the body of Christ locally at Church. Everyday.
2. Relationships with my family. Everyday.
3. Search for a wife or explore relationship. Everyday.
4. Build a business and mentor young men. Everyday.
5. Stay fit with exercise and nutrition. Everyday.

I prioritize my 5 year goals in terms of what I find most important. Obviously, my relationship with God and family is the most important. However, knowing relationships are most important I can also put my search for a wife as my next important thing to do. This means that if I have to take a bit of time to search for a wife before working on business related matters that’s fine.

If I find a girl that has potential I will set aside time to get to know her above my other priorities. This is developing the right sense of mind: a potential wife will be basically family and next after my priority of my relationship with God. I won’t put her after business, mentoring, or exercise. This is a sliding scale though. I’m not going to jump up and prioritize for a girl I just met. As the relationship progresses to engagement and marriage she will be a bigger priority.

Know where your priority of a spouse in your life fits.

It’s important to recognize that a lack of priority onto search for a spouse is what the world and even family tells you to do. If you’re in college or “young” most people will tell you to put your career or maturing and finding yourself over a prioritization of marriage. This is the inadvertant path to spinsterhood for women. At a younger age, you should be willing to recognize that if a family and children are important in your life you need to be prioritizing it early and not letting the precious chances that you have slip away.

This is also not to say that I will ever not exercise or be fit. You will always find the time to make for something unless you have a family, are working a full time job, and going to school at the same time. I’ve known a couple of men who have done that, and they still find a few hours here and there to exercise or do things they like. You always have time for the things you have priority for. Anything else is a lack of discipline.

• Know your standards for women

My standards for women are something that I have explored multiple times on this blog in: What I look for in evaluating a potential wife, The Change, Evolving Desires, What I believe regarding marriage. I’ve underwent certain changes since the last time I posted about these, so there is another post due in the future. However, it is important to prioritize what you’re looking for both in non-negotiables and things that you are flexible over.

When I finally parsed down my list, my three non-negotiables were:

1. Loves God with all her heart, soul, mind and strength, and loves her neighbor as herself.
2. Is as passionate about nutrition and fitness as I am.
3. Can cook well and loves to cook

Obviously, virginity is nice but it’s not something that is absolutely necessary to me. I recognize that God can transform lives, yet at the same time I also recognize the risks that come with women who have a n-count > 1. I understand that a woman’s attitude is more of a predictor of what she is going to be like than her n-count because it will show in her repentance and submission to God. You can truly recognize a godly woman by her attitude and actions rather than just her physical state such as n-count.

Obviously, as a man all things being equal I would take a virgin over a non-virgin just as I would take a more beautiful woman over one who is less physically attractive. However, such thought experiments are fruitless given that there are usually no women who are exactly alike in both disposition and action.

The reason I selected these 3 non-negotiables is that because they are what is required to complement me. The God one is obvious (2 Cor 6:14), but the passion for nutrition and fitness is more mission specific for myself. She would also reflect who I am, and choosing a helpmeet who is slovenly and fat reflects negatively on my witness. Plus, a lack of attraction. Cooking is a more general one: and I find that unenjoyable personally and I love a woman who can serve in that way. I didn’t plan it that way, but it shows that your non-negotiables can be relatively varied even in the context of what you want out of a relationship in a godly manner.

Compromise on non-negotiables and/or red flags is a recipe for failure.

In the past few women I’ve taken out on dates or was interested in, I tried to compromise a bit with the passion for nutrition and fitness. I found this to be a fruitless failure because of the expectation I had in that. It was like the Church of Laodicea in Revelation 3 where God says because you are neither hot nor cold but lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth. Women will almost inevitably do things for men they are attracted to as will men for women. However, this is out of performance and not desire. Simply put it’s not attractive to me, and who’s to say that they won’t stop once you get married or become complacent? You can’t know that for sure. But I’m not willing to risk that in this area of my life.

This is the importance of knowing what your non-negotiables are. I’ve met other women I thought about taking out on dates because they were godly. However, they didn’t have that passion so I deemed it a no go. That’s fine with me, and that’s how it should be. You can’t fit a round peg into a square hole. If you start compromising on your standards this flows over to all other aspects of life and is a slippery slope.

All of the other facets are in some degree of negotiable. Obviously. because I want a large family (5+) I may be willing to compromise a bit with say 3-4 children. However, I’m not going to settle for a “small” family. There is more of a degree of wiggle room with other things. Even in these, there needs to be a consideration for godly values. A woman that desires a large family is more likely to be unselfish: she cares about family and is willing to sacrifice time and energy to make that happen.

One of the major red flags about feminists and pseudo-Christians is that they are miserly with love. Thus, they only want 1-2 children because they view children as a hassle if they even have children at all. Her attitude and reasoning toward children matter. Does she only want 3 children because she wants to spend more time on herself and her career? Or does she want 3 children because she wants to adopt? You need to explore the attitudes behind the decision making to understand her values.

• Know your standards/boundaries in a relationship

This is something relatively new that I have been doing to a high degree of success.

I disagree with the general manosphere concept that boundaries should only be asserted reactively. I believe that good boundaries should be set immediately, and the reactive boundaries only need to be set in terms of disrespect (toward the man) or in lack of honor (for the woman).

For example, I set 3 main boundaries early on in the relationship, usually after the first date or within the first week to let a woman know where I’m coming from. These almost always go over well because you are telling a woman how the relationship will progress. However, almost inevitably when you say you have some “rules” or “standards” for a relationship the Christian woman will get tentative and fearful because they think you are triying to control them, but once you actually discuss them then it builds further attraction and intimacy. I’ll explain this after I tell you the ones I use.

1. My first boundary that I set is that God comes first in everything and that His Scriptures are our guideline. Even if I think that she is perfect for me and that I am perfect for her, and we’re praying and fasting about the relationship and God answers with a no then we’re done. Likewise, disagreements are to be resolved with Scripture first, and then will default to the authority in the relationship.
2. My second boundary is to never lie. Relationships are built up trust. The trust in a relationship is built on truth in interactions with each other. If I ever find out that one of the building blocks of the relationship was a lie then who is to say that every other interaction I’ve had with her is a lie? You can’t really tell, and you won’t be able to trust the woman. Thus, straight out I tell her that if I ever find out about her lying to me that it will signal the end of the relationship. I won’t lie to her, and she won’t lie to me.
3. My last boundary is based on relationship growth. Obviously, there is a three pronged approach: I should be growing in my relationship with God, she should be growing in her relationship with God, and we should be growing in relationship with each other. Growth requires change which is often uncomfortable. Thus, my third boundary is to be comfortable with being uncomfortable.

Strong boundaries facilitate trust within a relationship. By introducing them as a man will result in you taking the reigns of leadership within the relationship.

My first boundary with God signals to her that goal is to please God rather than myself or her. I won’t put her on a pedastal and idolize her, and she shouldn’t put me on a pedastal and idolize me. This is important because it sets the tone of the relationship given that 53% of Christian women now rate their family as a top priority over 16% for their faith, 9% health, 5% career performance, 5% comfortable lifestyle. Likewise, “Women’s sense of identity very closely follows their priorities, with 62% of women saying their most important role in life is as a mother or parent. Jesus came next: 13% of Christian women believe their most important role in life is as a follower of Christ. In third place is their role as wife (11%).”

13% of Christian women believe that Jesus is their top priority. How scary is that? Talk about fishing from a small pool. Obviously, this is not good, and it is important to establish the frame of the relationship from the get go.

My second boundary is based around the fact that lying is one of the sins that is straight from Satan himself. For the most part, in our human nature we are carried away by our own lusts. However, lying and deception is a sin that is rooted primarily in Satan, and it is designed to undermine relationships specifically. Deception was the reason that Satan was able to tempt Eve to eat the fruit. Deception undermined the relationship of Adam and Even with God, and the relationship between Adam and Eve. Lying and deception are not tolerated within my relationships.

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted [n]by God”; for God cannot be tempted [o]by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin [p]is accomplished, it brings forth death.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but [l]He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand [m]what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks [n]a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of [o]lies. 45 But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.

We know the primary identity of God is the Father and His primary attribute is Love, but we often don’t think about what the primary identity and attribute of Satan is. His primary identity is a murderer, and the primary attribute he works with is lying and deception. Let that sink in. Obviously, we hold murder up to be some almost ultimate sin, but lying to most Christians is just something piddly that you can just ask forgiveness for and everything is fine.

Our attitude toward lying must be change from non-chalant to hardline if we value relationships.

My last boundary focuses on being uncomfortable. This is important because when we start talking about sensitive topics the tendency is to want to fudge the truth a bit and start with so-called harmless white lies. However, that devolves into evil creeping into a relationship. Likewise, admonishment and rebuke will occur within a relationship: humans are not perfect so we need to deal with the uncomfortability of our feelings when addressing the truth. This sets down the standard that being uncomfortable is a good thing, and in combination with the second boundary that walking in the truth even when uncomfortable is the right thing to do. Feelings are not the truth of the relationship.

When I’ve used these in my relationship basically it opens up another level of truth and intimacy that was not there before. Obviously, this only works with Christians who actually want to walk in the truth so it is somewhat of a self selector where it may not work well with those who are lukewarm. But you’re trying to filter out those women (or men) anyway.

As much as women hem and haw about boundaries and how they hate them they really do like them. Masculine men are overt in their intentions: women know where they stand with them and their values. There is no guessing game and that provides a certain security in knowing truly who a man is. This is the type of outline of a relationship that will foster attraction. A man who knows what he wants in a relationship and knows the steps to building it is far away ahead of his peers.

In this case, maturity is the ability to lead and build the relationship from the ground up in a godly manner.

• Know how to assertively communicate

I think this is the most broad one and most confusing for most Christian men. As I described a bit, masculine men communicate their interests in an overt manner.See these articles for social analysis: the Socialization of men and women, the selfish and unselfish socialization of men, Masculinity is the truth, Masculinity is the truth Part 2. I think this is one of the more nebulous sections because I haven’t posted the half-written article I have on boundaries yet. But I will try to explain this in context of behavior.

The method that I attempt to adhere to in terms of interacting with Christian women is a 50/50 split of serious communication and flirty banter.

What I mean by serious communicaiton is the fact that the relationships always need to be growing in some form. I may be asking and discussing various topics about the faith, life, dreams, goals, and specific situations. This is where questions like the vetting your prospective spouse come in, but also in terms of doing life with God, church, family and friends.

On the other hand, the flirty banter is mostly comprised of teasing. This is the simplest way to explain what “attraction” is to men who don’t know or understand the mechanisms of attraction such as Donal’s PSALM factors summarized in dominion one and two. It’s something that’s really enjoyable for women because you’re showing her you’re a masculine man by comfortably operating in a women’s preferred communication style. Or in other words, it’s implied that you have the ability to be a leader and someone she can respect.

This tends to fall in line with the boundaries I set in relationships in the previous section with my focus onto no lying and uncomfortability which is why I chose those. My recent prospect asked me this question: “If I gained 10 lbs how would you tell me to lose weight.” If you read the question closely you can see that because my boundaries are already set a woman is expecting me to share the truth with her: that it’s unattractive and I’m going to tell her to lose weight. The question isn’t “will you tell me to lose weight” but “how will you tell me to lose weight.” This shows the correct framing of the relationship to value truth over feelings. Obviously, I’m going to be as kind as possible in telling a woman to lose the weight, but I’m also not going to march into the realm of white lies or full blown lies just to satisfy feelings. Indeed, if you set good boundaries in the first few weeks of the relationship, it will make discussions like these much easier.

If I were to summarize the foundation that was built in such a relationship it would be this: assertive communication focuses on the ability to truthfully share your faith as well as your opinions on likes and dislikes. Obviously, there is straight truth from the Bible, and we know that we as Christians should adhere to that. However, there can be differences of opinion and still the ability to honor within a relationship. Thus, part of relationships is teaching the other person about what you like and dislike. Scripturally this is important to understand. As a Christian man you are going to be teaching Christian women that you don’t desire love but respect in the relationship.

Women say “I love you” to men to communicate their feelings to you and/or potentially project their own desires for you to reciprocate. Each of these scenarios are not Scriptural.

However, for [masculine] men it won’t do anything for them. If a man values an “I love you” from a woman he is already operating from a feminized mindset: the Scriptures clearly say that wives are to respect and submit their husbands not [agapao] love them. The non-exception in Titus 2 it tells wives to philandros their husbands which love in an affectionate way. Why would God not command wives to agapao love their husbands? It’s because respect and submission are more important to facilitate the roles and responsibilities of a God honoring Christian marriage.

This is an interesting discussion I have with Christian women because most of them assume that men want love, and most Christian men are unaware that it is not love they should be Scripturally striving for. This is because “love” is held as the standard for worldly relationship, and this [eros] love is taken to be [agapao] love by Christians. Mixing the worldly standards with attempted Biblical standards is a recipe for failure. This will really open the eyes of men and women in today’s world, and is important for mentoring young Christian men and women. Respect frames authority and thus headship in the correct way. Thus, and by extension her attitude will really tell you all that you need to know.

Therefore, when I talked about how Dalrock said that feminists are miserly with love, the corollary in terms of husbands and wives is that feminists wives are miserly with respect. They believe that authority is bad and will be inevitably abused. They believe the lies of the enemy over the truth of God.

Likewise, a woman stating “I love you” in expectation for you to reciprocate is passive-aggressive communication. She expects you to read her mind and offer the compliment in return. Passive-aggressive communication especially with compliments is very close to manipulation because there is a wrong answer: if you don’t offer it back she gets mad. This is unScriptural because women are basing their desire to feel good on recipocation of compliments which is a performance based mindset. Compliments should always come out of desire and free will to do so. Impinging on the free will of the man to force a compliment is neither genuine or should be desired.

If you ever get to the point where you are not encouraging assertive discussion in a relationship then it’s going down hill. The trust in a relationship is being eroded.

Thus, another part of assertive communication is the ability to create a safe space. In the event that something has gone horribly wrong, and a woman is tentative about bringing up her hurt feelings or opinions before me I always thank her for doing so letting her know that her communcation is valued. This lets her know that I am kind and care about what she has to say before we even engage in discussion about the particular issue whether right or wrong.

I don’t think discussion of emotions and how they can hurt is either right or wrong. However, emotions are not truth. It is in this understanding that emotions play a role in the viability and trust within a relationship; however, they need to be dealt with carefully in terms of negative ones for whatever reason they were stirred up. Both parties must be open to being corrected in such an instance. Both husbands and wives need to own their own thoughts, actions, and emotions. Wives however, have a greater propensity for victim mentality off loading of negative feelings onto husbands which needs to be kept in check.

Conclusions

So this post ending up being longer than I thought it would. I considered breaking it down into a 5 part series, but it all fits together really well so I thought it would be best to be one straight article. I want to summarize by addressing the main aspects of what each of these 5 areas does in context for young men who are preparing for relationships:

• Know what God says about relationships
  
• Know your priorities: dreams and 5 year goals
• Know your standards for women
• Know your standards/boundaries in a relationship
• Know how to assertively communicate

I would very strongly suggest writing all of these down and working on them until they are refined. If you read Artie Buerk’s portion on the Harvard business school advice section on happiness and success you will see the stark contract of doing so. Note that this was in solely the difference at 10 years.

Several years ago, a graduating class from a large, well-known business school was asked whether they had written goals, unwritten goals, or no goals. It turned out that 3 percent of the class had written goals, 13 percent had goals they had not written down, and 84 percent had no goals.

At the 10th reunion, the class was asked again about their goals and accomplishments. The results showed that the 3 percent who had written goals did 10 times as well as the others, and the 13 percent who had unwritten goals did twice as well as the other 84 percent.

The ability to set goals is very valuable in achieving success. Goals should be balanced in all areas of life — family, social, spiritual, business, health, wealth, education, etc.  The major rules of goal-setting are:

1. Goals should be in writing.
2. Goals should be measurable — if they can’t be measured, they’re not goals.
3. Goals should be dated so you have a time frame to measure accomplishment.

People who have a clear picture of themselves and have set well-rounded goals tend to be much more successful than people who are vague in what they hope to accomplish in the future.

Obviously, my goals in each section are missing some of the details above. I need to go back and write them down in a better manner. You can also use the SMART goals acronym — Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely.

Knowing what God says about relationships builds the framework and foundation of your thinking from the get go. As I discussed in Identity part 5: roots and heresies of identity, the primary way that heresy develops is through trusting the truth as “feelings” over the plain text of the Scripture. If you understand the roles and responsibilities of the husband and wife including headship, submission (also: authority is good), love, respect and honor (also: why I don’t respect women), and then details about how everything fits together will be built on the solid rock. Such a foundation will never be shaken even if you are in the world.

The priorities of dreams and goals then add a layer of structure to your life to where you know how everything fits together. This will keep you away from putting women on a pedastal, but also be successful to do all things for the glory of God. It is good to plan, but it is also good to realize that the Lord may be directing you as you plan and in your plans: Proverbs 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.

In reality, all of this structured planning does a couple of things for men. It helps them determine God’s truth, determines to themselves what they’re looking for out of life and in a relationship, determines the structure of how they will approach things, and gives them an overall confidence in being decisive and drive about what they are looking for.

As you can tell from my story, compromising standards for women is generally a very bad idea. I was talking with some men recently about compromising standards and ultimatums. One of the interesting things is that ultimatums are lose-lose. If a woman ever wants to make you decide between say what you love to do and her then answering either way is a loss. If you select her then you compromise on your life and she will lose attraction for you. If you select what you love then she’ll be angry but still attracted but then you can’t trust her anymore. It’s not the answer that matters but addressing the underlying attitude: if you question if she really wants to hear the answer or counsel her against it then it gives her an out. However, she is still likely not very trustworthy. Always read between the lines.

I think the standards/boundaries are something the manosphere gets wrong as I stated before. Healthy relationships thrive on boundaries as creation of safe spaces. Because I communicated that I don’t like lying and I expect grow and communication to be uncomfortable at times I don’t have to deal with tests along the lines of being fat and attraction. It’s assumed I will tell the truth — however blunt — but I that knowing my character I will be as kind as possible. In reality, boundaries must be both proactive and reactive in my opinion. The proactive approach frames a relationship in the right way, and I think these must flow along Biblical guidelines. The reactive approach should be used with likes and dislikes. For example, I gave the proactive approach above, but a reactive approach may be like if your woman comments about something in public that is in bad taste to pull her aside and let her know that it’s disrespectful.

At the end encompassing everything else is assertive communication. Women hate passive and passive-aggressive communication and so should you as a man. Alternatively, aggressive communication is seen as controlling and manipulative. That’s not the way we want to act as Christians. I know what I believe and what I stand for both Biblically and my own preferences. I want a woman who will fit into that. I assert my standards and boundaries in a relationship by walking according to the Scriptures and non-Scriptural stuff I like such as my opinions, but I always leave an out. The woman/wife will always have a choice whether or not to follow my lead. The ability to frame free will correctly is one of the ways I can best honor a woman that I potentially want as a wife as she follows my lead.

Now knowing this, it is pretty obvious to see that time doesn’t do anything for becoming mature to be ready for a relationship. However, this should give you some good guidelines for how to approach the maturity for one. As they common maxim goes, women aren’t looking for men who have the potential to develop into a masculine man. They’re already looking for a winner. This will put you on the track to figure out what you are doing, to be confident about what you’re looking for, and to pull the trigger when the time comes. You will be a man that knows what he wants and is not afraid to go after it.

Comments and discussion are welcome. These 5 are what I use with myself and to mentor young(er) men with currently. I bolded the important points in each section. However, if there are other ones that I am not aware of that would fit into this I think it could be improved further.