Previously on meet cutes, we looked at the commonness of having women be initially attracted to you. In general, I think that it’s not that common for the majority of men, though there are always some percentage of the population that would be attracted.
Scott posted his stance on Sigma’s blog and I think some of it is true and some of it isn’t (my responses in regular, then some analysis).
I recently tweeted my final position on this, which I suppose might lose me some support. I have been beating around the bush on the topic for a while, trying to be gracious, trying to sugar coat it.
I believe that the red-pill content creators (the big ones, Christian or not) are full of crap if they believe that true, visceral attraction can be created in a woman who never had it for you in the first place. Like within the first meeting.
Some of them have a conflict of interest in trying to create this fiction, because they sell books and have monetized youtube accounts. It is in their best interest to make this seem possible.
But I have never seen a woman go from being luke warm about a guy and then become [truly] hot for him. She may settle and convince herself that she is attracted to a man who is the best she can get, but hot crazy in love–no.
If you are not getting really obvious IOIs right from the start, move on. If that makes me “black pill” so be it. I want men to find women who cannot keep their hands of them, otherwise they risk terrible destruction later on.
This is generally more true for men who are primarily attracted based on physical appearance. Getting to know them better will not increase any visceral attraction toward them for the most part, except if they are capable of very seductive behavior.
I think the real question is how many women for that matter are marrying men that they don’t have any attraction at all for?
There are certainly both men and women who are marrying with varying levels of attraction, but very few have absolutely no attraction. These are probably the ones where you have the wives cringing away from physical contact with their husbands in wedding photos. There are a few, but they’re definitely not even a big minority.
If we’re using a 0-10 scale where no attraction is a 0 and crazy love at first sight is a 10, there’s a big range. The real question isn’t if we can take a 0 to a 10… it’s if we can take a 3-4 to a 7-8 in most cases. The “sort of maybe attractive when I’m ovulating” or “relatively dead bedroom but once were attracted to each other” to “I want to do him at least several nights a week.” You don’t have to be the 10 of “I want to bang like bunny rabbits all the time.”
In reply, Scott says:
At first glance, the idea of a spectrum of attraction (woman—>man) strikes me as wishfully ascribing male thinking processes to women. This is understandable, and tempting. I am guilty of it from time to time. I just don’t think if you (a guy) are placed in the “meh” file you can ever get out. So I have never actually tried.
I’m not sure I agree with that.
There are definitely some reciprocal indications in terms of attraction itself. For instance, women can pick out attractive features on men just like men can pick out various attractive features on women. If they have particular unattractive features that knocks them down. Most people are not models so they have a relative mix of attractive or unattractive features.
In general, male sexuality operates on some lines of physical attractiveness: “would bang but wouldn’t date” to “would bang and date” to “would bang and marry.”
As we know though, female sexual strategy is relatively dualistic: AF/BB. Ideally, a man has both AF (dominant, handsome, charismatic, masculine, high status, successful leader,) and BB (money). Women’s hierarchy is AF+BB > AF > BB > None. Or if they are their own BB with a good job then it’s AF+BB > AF > None > BB.
It’s a spectrum and not a yes or no. Women who can’t marry an AF+BB or AF will try to get a man who has some AF with a lot of BB.. and so on down to only BB. But they will be less and less happy about it.
Admittedly, one problem I have is looking through the lens of my own lifetime of experience, an N of one. In that myopic view, I have never seen this happen. In any relationship I ever developed, be it a ONS, a FB, or an LTR that lasted years, her attraction was always obvious and unmistakable, from the first few seconds save for my obtuse lack of sensing it. I have been told “dude, she is REALLY into you” on more than one occasion before I noticed these signs.
An example from real life would be something like, I went to a party one time at a friends house and there was a girl there. I immediately found her really cute and started talking to her. There was ZERO indication from her that she was interested, so I moved on within a nanosecond. At that same exact party, I met another girl who would become my longest relationship to date at the time (it lasted about 2 years) and she made it really obvious that I had a green light. So, what I see from women is attraction that actually leads to something more is a dichotomous variable. “On” or “off.” Nothing in between. And you cannot slide along that scale like on a slide rule with them.
On the other hand, men I think can do the spectrum thing. I have had several LTRs that developed over time with women for whom I had almost no regard for in the first place. Its usually a coworker, or someone you see on a regular basis for whatever reason. She could be flashing giant orange flags that read “here I am come and approach. I will say YES” and I just move along with my life as if nothing is happening. Then, one day the thought flashes across your mind “I never noticed how cute her smile is.” And then you are toast. All of the sudden she is all you think about from the time you get up to the time you go to bed. You now have a crush on a girl who up until this point was just somebody you see as part of the scenery at work.
This is not strictly true. From what I’ve seen it depends on fairly specific circumstances to set men up to be successful when there is not a lot of initial attraction. We discussed some way back when here: understanding the friend zone and escaping it.
Lemme give you another example. I’m maybe average attractiveness (not unattractive but not attractive). A couple of my friends have called me a 6. I don’t normally get women to look at me twice. However, I’ve TAed a few classes where there are multiple TAs working together with a large group of students. What usually ends up happening is that a lot of the students (including the women) start to gravitate toward the more attractive men first. However, I know my stuff down pat, and I usually challenge the students and tease the girls. My professor later told me that a large majority of the students told me that I was their favorite TA. I was getting IOIs from the women whereas I had none before and even asked some out later and said yes.
This is the power of being in a position of relative authority and being charismatic with the students. I think it’s also true that first impressions are the most important, and it’s relatively rare(r) that a woman will like you sans not being attracted at first impression, but it’s been my experience that there are chances to subvert that notion but it has to be in specific circumstances.
YMMV. But I’ve had that happen several times throughout my life like I described in the meetcute article on my site (don’t know if you read that one, but this is not an isolated incident). Some other commenters chimed in saying it was the case for them too.
I think part of the issue is that Scott is very naturally attractive while many of the other men may not necessarily be that attractive. His experience is that he can just move onto women who are naturally attracted to him without understanding the various scenarios where women may not be attracted at first but may be more attracted over time under various scenarios.
Like I said in the other meetcute post, I could count on one hand the amount of women who were attracted to be naturally. However, I do generate some interest from women based on my relative position or status (TAing, when I was leading Bible studies, teaching others, etc), occasionally based on my personality (humor or charisma in certain areas), maybe some based on my physique (decently muscular but not overly so… it does increase as you become more and more muscular), and other common attraction factors like this.
Possible conclusion: Might be more common for your average joe to have more interest generated post-first meeting than someone who is naturally physically handsome. Most of my attraction from women seems to have been generated after the initial meetings. That said, overall interest is much more for someone who is naturally physically handsome so they have way more options.
In general though, I think the talk about extremes isn’t too useful. For the most part, if you’re single you want to work on the various areas (especially becoming muscular, style, etc.) to make good first attraction impressions and the rest builds from there. From here it’s selecting the women who are interested and not wasting your time on the ones who aren’t or somewhat interested. You shouldn’t really deal with the ones who aren’t anyway because it’s too much investment for little results.
Most marriages there was at least some semblance of attraction (2-4 at minimum) and probably higher in the 5-8+ range at maximum (if a husband has gotten fat and lazy for example and dipped down into the 2-4 range then). Building that back up is a much easier task than someone who was never attracted. But again, it seems to be extremely rare that women would marry a man to whom they were never attracted.
Christianity and masculinity 
I am coming to the conclusion that the traits of the individual man are the reason for the difference in men’s experiences. I am working on a post about this.
Each man’s perspective will be shaped by their own experiences in life’s sexual marketplace. And often it is difficult to understand those who are on the other end of the spectrum. Often times it is easy to disbelieve their experience just because it ain’t ever been that way for you. If due to hypergamy, 80% of women are sleeping with the top 20% of men, then the experience of a man in the top 10% of men is going to be worlds apart from the experience of a man in the bottom 50%.
From the moment I decided I was actually ready to be married and started seriously looking for a wife, to the moment I found my wife, was less than two weeks. The online dating site gave me a free two week trial, and I found my wife during that time. Am I going to be able to completely relate to somebody who has struggled for decades to find a wife? Not entirely. A lot of what they have experienced is going to be difficult for me to understand and believe. Nor will telling them what worked for me, be all that helpful. The same moves that once worked for me, might now land them in a sexual harassment suit. To be honest, I’ve spent the vast majority of my life avoiding entanglements with women and compromising situations with them. I just can’t imagine a man actively seeking out defilement and not being able to find it, somebody who is truly involuntarily celibate. I’m sure it is possible, but I just can’t imagine what it would be like.
Like Scott, I can’t ever remember finding somebody who wasn’t agreeable to me and wearing them down. I just casually pursued somebody else who wasn’t rejecting me. While Deep Strength mentions using his positions of authority to appeal to women, which might be helpful. I myself would think that to be unsporting, and almost an abuse of power, perhaps since I have the luxury to think that way, never having needed that additional advantage. I’m sure however, if I was in dire need, I could justify all sorts of manipulation, whatever it took, to keep from burning with unmet passion. While this may sound like a bunch of bragging, I’m just trying to give a glimpse from my own limited perspective, and to explain why it has been so limited. And, in spite of all my advantage, I still chose a most regrettable wife. Statistically speaking, I’d have likely gotten a better wife if they were randomly issued to us.
In my experience, women are either hot to go, or not at all. And the ones who are hot for me move pretty fast. By that I mean, once they decide on a man, they immediately proceed to have sexual relations. But whenever I turned down their invitations to have sex, they dropped me immediately. Since I have always been conscientiously marriage minded, this has always been a source of extremely intense frustration for me. To this day, I still have regrets about turning some of them down.
I used to think those women who moved fast on me were just bad girls. But as I’ve gotten older, and especially after taking the Red Pill, I’ve come to think most women are like that. They just have different preferences for different men. If she’s really hot for the guy, then she’ll move fast. In today’s world, there isn’t much to stop them.
I’ve always been very disappointed that women are this way. They don’t think very seriously about marriage or preparing for the future until way too late in life.
I’m sure there are some women who don’t behave this way. Maybe it’s because they are more self-aware, or more conscientious, or too proud to express their desire, or something else, but I think they are a minority. Some of these women might be better for marriage, but the Meet Cute model doesn’t take them into account. It’s really hard to identify them otherwise.
My biggest question is, how does a Christian man deal with all this? Hence, my blog…
I used to think those women who moved fast on me were just bad girls. But as I’ve gotten older, and especially after taking the Red Pill, I’ve come to think most women are like that. They just have different preferences for different men. If she’s really hot for the guy, then she’ll move fast. In today’s world, there isn’t much to stop them.
I’ve always been very disappointed that women are this way. They don’t think very seriously about marriage or preparing for the future until way too late in life.
I’m sure there are some women who don’t behave this way. Maybe it’s because they are more self-aware, or more conscientious, or too proud to express their desire, or something else, but I think they are a minority. Some of these women might be better for marriage, but the Meet Cute model doesn’t take them into account. It’s really hard to identify them otherwise.
My biggest question is, how does a Christian man deal with all this? Hence, my blog…
All of this is the result of an aesthetic that changed so rapidly as to make marriage minded guys who came of age in the 80s and 90s heads spin.
I “benefitted” greatly from it, in the fact that right after my divorce, I was 29–I was on the upside of Rollos SMV curve. And all the women I was interacting with were late teens early 20s because I joined the army right then. AND in that decade (the 90s) they had all gone crazy. None of them wanted to “date.” They didn’t care about paying while out, flowers, whatever. It was all just hookups and having fun. Gone were the last of the aesthetic challenges to such behavior. Getting laid was of course a thing in high school, but there was a proper way to go about it.
This was like heaven with a thorn in my side of guilt because of what were left of my idealistic values and beliefs after going through the unwelcome, blind sided by divorce shredder. I couldn’t believe how easy it/they were. Because for about 10 years there, I couldn’t give a rip about marriage.
In other words, I got to be the flip side of the carousel for just a little shy of a decade. Then I got married again.
When I was a kid, comic books were at the tail end of their run. I remember in the backs of them were the Charles Atlas ads for how to not get sand kicked in your face by bullies at the beach.
I also remember looking around at my peers and knowing which guys were going to gravitate to that. I was like 8.
I see this same gleam in my boys, who are just 4 and 7. They are a combination of wide eyed naive wonder at the world, with a bug helping of “don’t give a F%$#”
They take huge risks to establish a hierarchy between them. There is a fierce one-upsmanship there.
They have (healthy, normal) little boy crushes on their mom, as evidenced by how much they show off for her. So I know, when I am gone, she will be taken care of. They never back down–even from me. If they want to do something they know they shouldn’t–they just do it and face the consequences later. No regrets.
The main difference is, I will NOT be front loading them with huge amounts of blue-pill conditioning like I had–which ultimatley stifled my prospects I think. But the “real me” would never be totally crushed, and I think this is probably determined biologically.
The monetized red-pill stuff reminds of me of Charles Atlas.
@ Sharkly
Agreed on that front.
I guess it could be viewed that way.
On the other hand, to me it always seemed like a sort of “trial run” scenario of headship in the Bible. If she likes you when you’re in that leadership position then it’s likely she is going to fit into that scenario when in headship.
Obviously, there are potential conflicts of interest, so the route that I would suggest and that I took would be TAing/teaching and potentially only possibly getting into a relationship after the class or things are over. Doing it during is morally questionable especially when it involves things like grading as as TA.
@ Jack
I personally haven’t been around a lot of the secular atmospheres where this is happening all that much, except perhaps in college.
My experience has been the typical “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” atmosphere around Protestant circles. Obviously, some of the women in the Churches aren’t Christian and will bang (and it depends how liberal the Church is and how mega-churchy it is usually), but most women aren’t that forward and want to do things in a “proper chivalrous” manner.
They’re very much anti-Ruth mindset, and I think that’s why a lot of them are going to end up single (aside from things like obesity).
@ Scott
I can see that.
This is the biggest thing I think.
The cultural/feminized/chivalry-ized (or blue pill if you want to call it that) is taught and learned. If you specifically teach against it any boys that grow up into men will have a significant advantage over their peers while growing up because they are able to let the natural masculinity foster and grow. They are much more likely though not guaranteed to be “naturals” with women per se.
The older you are the harder it is to unlearn certain behaviors or mindsets and implement new ones. Perhaps there is a point of no return much like a Christian who gets sucked into the college liberal atmosphere and slowly but surely loses their faith.
Maybe one day I will try to write an ebook or something to clarify my positions on some of these things. I don’t know if anyone cares what i think though.
One of the problems that I see (and have written about in random forums/comments sections) has to do with my observation that selective/assortive mating has gone totally haywire. The OK cupid data (and now I think Tinder has some similar) tells the story in shadow form.
People need to stick within 1 point of their own 1-10 rating. And they USED TO DO THIS NATURALLY. A 6 would generally shoot for 5-6-7 range and so on. Everyone was happy. I even had a high school teacher comment on this phenomenon once, and it made perfect sense.
Look at my pictures at Ljubomir Farms and elsewhere. I am no 10. My wife is super cute, but not smoking hot. I always went for the cute ones. Not to mention the handful of “smoking hots” i have been with were a total pain in the ass. We are a perfect match for each other–totally satisfied, Even accounting for our age (49 and 46). We look like we were put together by a professional casting agent. Realism is the word I think I am looking for.
This is NORMAL behavior. I don’t know how to explain it any other way. And I don’t have any idea what to do about it.
@ Scott
Generally agreed, though these things were/are mutable to some extent.
A woman who is obese who loses 100 lbs can go from a 1-3 range to 6-8 range with an hourglass figure. Same for a man who loses the fat and gains 20-30 lbs of muscle though his jump would not be as drastic.
I’ve commented on this before on Donal’ss blog like 5 years ago.
Part of it is when society started devaluing/disrespecting men and propping up women, men lost a lot of the respect that they would have naturally had that propped them up higher on the totem pole. So a 7 man would have naturally been higher than a 7 woman because men were respected in society.
You saw this happen over time as the male role models on TV went from masculine and man’s man to being the butt of jokes like the Simpsons.
That and the art of parenting, role modeling, and mentoring has been removed from the family (shifted to the state I guess? and we all now how that is turning out) and obviously further skewed by divorce and broken families.
A large other part of the skew is the obesity epidemic. It’s not nearly as bad as places where men and women are still relatively thin and fit like Europe, although Europe has generally eschewed marriage for things like permanent cohabitation since they are generally considered post-Christian.
I doubt there is much to do about except for individuals and family influence. Maybe Church influence if you had a pastor who wanted to preach about reality to the congregation and youth groups.
This is NORMAL behavior. I don’t know how to explain it any other way. And I don’t have any idea what to do about it.
Keep girls off of social media as much as possible. Not just Instagram and Snapchat, but also TikTok and Facebook. Yeah, I know. But that’s where a lot of the attention-grabbing and beta-male worship happens. It’s a rabbit hole, too, because there’s constant “see how together / cool / dramatic my life is” is a normal thing for teenagers, but channels like Insta just amp it way, way up. Not every girl on Insta or Snap will wind up on Onlyfriends, but I am sure all the girls on those cam sites started on tamer social media.
Read Deep Strength’s book and excerpt age-appropriate parts for boys.
Just my two thoughts of the moment. In general we moderns see the world through screens way too much. Way, way, way too much – writes the man on some other man’s weblog, arg.
Duh, Onlyfans, not Onlyfriends. Another idea that started off pretty good – subscriber based vid channels with chefs and fitness types, etc. – and soon found a seamier side. It appears that membership jumped way up in March–when lots of people were suddenly
cooped upsheltered in place.This link safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnlyFans
Something that has been overlooked is that there aren’t that many attraction cues for women to see in men. It is not culturally reinforced. So while boys get plenty of input all day long and every day about what makes women beautiful, women do not have that input promoting men. One year, while waiting for my annual physical, I went through two issues of Women’s Day. Something was absent. In both issues, between ads and copy, there were only three photos of men. This confirms what I suspected. In a religious sense, this culture worships Aphrodite openly and trashes Apollo. The Greeks never thought much of Aphrodite.
In my opinion and experience, limited as it is, Deep Strength is more correct about the fluidity of these things. Too many factors come into play, and a lot of it depends on the woman’s expectations and experiences as well.
When I saw my husband for the first time, I was viscerally attracted to him. As in tummy flips, weak knees attracted. We didn’t “get together” until about a year later, because I was afraid of getting involved with someone that so many other women wanted. I didn’t want him bad enough to put myself through that humiliation. He had tried to charm me and that was fun, but I was not willing to be used and discarded, no matter how attractive I was.
As our social paths kept crossing and we had more opportunities to converse (and his *serious* relationship ended), I got to know him a lot better and we finally went out. The fact that I didn’t immediately jump at the chance to be with him didn’t mean I wasn’t attracted to him.
He didn’t have to “wear me down”. In fact, he never even bothered to try. He just went on about his life with other relationships. When we finally went out, things moved quickly, but the outcome would have been very different if I’d have just jumped at the kind of man he is. It would not have ended well for me. Some women are capable of self-control and forethought.
Using the standards presented here, it would be easy to assume that the self-control exhibited indicated a lack of attraction when nothing could be farther from the truth.
People need to stick within 1 point of their own 1-10 rating. And they USED TO DO THIS NATURALLY. A 6 would generally shoot for 5-6-7 range and so on. Everyone was happy. I even had a high school teacher comment on this phenomenon once, and it made perfect sense.
This worked better when the overall size of the dating pool was much smaller — ie, pre-internet and especially pre-dating apps and smartphones. When the dating pool is limited in size, it forces people to compromise their “ideal” and settle for their realistic match — at least it does so much more quickly. People still tried to “opt out” of their dating pool situation by moving to a new city, changing jobs, changing churches, networking like mad to develop more friend connections which could lead to potential connections to dates through that social network, and the like, but it was all still very, very limited compared to what a dating app does. In a dating app, the pool size explodes, and that drastically reduces the incentive for people to “settle” for someone realistic, especially for women, since it is women who are generally the “sellers” in this market (or, rather, a larger percentage of women are sellers … a small percentage of men are sellers, too, like Scott and Sharkly, but most men are not sellers, whereas a solid plurality if not outright majority of women under 35 are sellers).
If you are a cute 6 female under 35, dating apps give you access to a virtually unlimited supply of male attention from guys who are in the 4-8 range. Yes, they can range up to male equivalent 7s and 8s because availability and variety are, in themselves, attractive to men, and quite a few men who are in those ranges will go for a cute 6, at least for something shorter term or even for dating, if not for LTR/marriage. So the 6 begins to think her peer market is male 8s after she has dated a few of them, and isn’t interested in male 6s at all, and also has a higher scrutiny for male 7s. That’s because her *dating* market, thanks to dating apps, can be focused on male 7s and 8s due to the massive size of the pool. If she were dating with a pre-app, pre-internet pool, having a “7s and 8s only” strategy would have been a poor option because the pool wasn’t big enough for that to work — not enough guys in that range in the local pool and too much competition for them, with less anonymity and much greater transparency about who is dating whom. In app world, with the huge dating pool, the actual dating (not LTR/marriage, but dating) market for women shifted in a very hypergamous way. A male 6, to be successful, has to date female 4-5, and will have an easier time with 4s than with 5s. A male 7, same thing — easier time with plain jane 5s than with 6s and never mind 7s, they are off limits to him in dating app world.
Pingback: Some like it Hot | Σ Frame
Very true.
And such experiences are shaped by location and culture regardless of where a man may fall on the 1-10 scale. In other words, simply being in the right place at the right time (or the wrong place) can have a profound effect on a man’s perspective.
As DS mentioned, “A large other part of the skew is the obesity epidemic. It’s not nearly as bad as places where men and women are still relatively thin and fit like Europe,…”
I recall several years ago my company hired an employee from Croatia who took time off so he could return to Croatia for his wedding. Naturally, the secretaries asked to see the wedding ceremony pictures which would be shared with the office. Everyone was surprised that the overwhelming preponderance of women in the pictures (bride, family, friends, strangers on the beach or at the park) were thin, attractive and probably in the 8-10 range. And photos of women on the beach were so revealing the secretaries were embarrassed. To the employee, being around attractive women and dating attractive women was the norm for men.
Elspeth-
Supposedly, King George VI (when he was the Duke of York, and not yet the presumptive heir) chased around after Elizabeth Bowles-Lyon (most commonly known as the Queen Mum) for years. He asked her to marry him three times before she said “yes.” Her rationale was not that she didn’t like him, but that she did not want to live the life that would entail. She said she was afraid she would “never, never again to be free to think, speak and act as I feel I really ought to.”
The two of them were apparently a truly in-love couple and in the end, after he kept at it (and his mother, Queen Mary helped) she finally acquiesced. She liked him so much that even his speech defect and the prospect of the obnoxious life of a royal ultimately didn’t stop him. They were the last power couple of the royal family in my opinion.
Neither me nor your husband are royalty, but both you and Mychael have in common a real uneasiness with public life. Mychael, in particular hates the ribbon cutting ceremonies and other public engagements (the bagpipes and the bullshit she calls it) that I gravitate toward. But she loves me anyway. Its the reason she pretty much disappeared off the internet. It’s funny, because I am the introvert. I’m just not shy, and there is difference. Most people don’t understand that.
Bringing it back to the OT.
That must have been some “meet cute” between those two.
Neither me nor your husband are royalty
But you’re both good looking even at your ages (SAM is 47 in a few weeks), and neither of you has ever had any trouble attracting women. That makes a difference. I think Mychael is shyer than I am overall. Somehow I’m still writing online, LOL.
Overall, I think most women make their decisions about men pretty quickly, but I also think it’s a mistake to assume that is a woman isn’t throwing herself or IOIs at a man instantly she’s not interested. My feigned disinterest in my husband was an act of self-preservation on my part. The notion that women throw caution to the wind in the face of an attractive man (even a very attractive one) is more about the type of woman she is than the fact that she’s a woman.
Overall, I think most women make their decisions about men pretty quickly, but I also think it’s a mistake to assume that is a woman isn’t throwing herself or IOIs at a man instantly she’s not interested. My feigned disinterest in my husband was an act of self-preservation on my part. The notion that women throw caution to the wind in the face of an attractive man (even a very attractive one) is more about the type of woman she is than the fact that she’s a woman.
Right, but isn’t this kind of a separate issue that tends to argue more in favor of my hypothesis? That is, you were looking at him and thinking “danger, hot guy who could really hurt me” which is rational and good, moral decision making. In the end, he got you though. Because you ALWAYS had those feelings from the start.
When you met him, if you had a bland reaction to him, all those subsequent times when your lives intersected would have been unremarkable. This is almost exactly how things happened with my first wife. She was the one in pursuit for literally years before I turned my attention to her after a string of girlfriends. And when I did, she dropped the guy she was engaged to like a hot potato–destroyed wedding plans, everything for a shot. In the end, maybe I should have seen that fickle behavior as a red flag, because it bit me. But every time I went through a break up, she was right there. Like the female version of a beta orbiter.
When Mychael and I argue (and believe it or not, we do) I rely almost exclusively on her deep, gut feelings to get through it. She can’t stay mad at me for long. Now this does not give me a license to be a scoundrel, but I know whatever it is, it will blow over in a day or two tops because that is always there.
@ Scott:
When Mychael and I argue (and believe it or not, we do) I rely almost exclusively on her deep, gut feelings to get through it. She can’t stay mad at me for long. Now this does not give me a license to be a scoundrel, but I know whatever it is, it will blow over in a day or two tops because that is always there.
We don’t stay mad at each other long either, as in we never go to bed angry. Back in the beginning, when we were two hotheaded 20-year-olds (well 20 and 22 to be exact) a tiff may last a day or two, but we’ve always kept short accounts. I know that this is with us the same as with you, a function of affection and chemistry. Neither of us was a serious Christian in the beginning, but getting back to being together quickly was just the default setting for us. Here’s the thing, though.
I think being quick to forgive is a hallmark of spiritual maturity and that any Christian couple can achieve it. At least, I’d like to think so. If great Christian marriages are dependent upon scorching chemistry, it doesn’t say a lot about the average believer’s idea of the sanctity of marriage.
Scott is half-right. Imagine you’re an attractive man. Theoretically, there are women who will give you enthusiastic “green light” signals. Chatting up a non-responsive woman is wasting your time, That’s good advice for attractive people.
But it’s horrible advice for the rest of us (me lol). How can I say this is a way that attractive people can empathize with? A majority of men are perceived as “below average” in attractiveness. Most men incapable of drawing this enthusiastic, sexual response out of any woman. Now, a middling amount can situationally create a mild “dim green light” effect in women through social dynamics (clout, competence, confidence) as DS pointed out. But imagine you’re me: physically unattractive and unlikely to ever get the “green light” signal that a 6+ man is familiar with. My situation is the opposite of Scott’s. If I wait around for that high a degree of Indication of Interest, it would now be ME wasting away. My best chance is to proceed/settle with “yellow light” reactions, and be glad I’m not utterly repulsive (the “red light” signal) to my female friends, coworkers, women I date.
With age, everyone’s 1 to 10 score will shift. But overall, this should be a simple concept: people who live life above the 6+ line are likely unfamiliar with life in the slow lane. They (correctly) interpret “green light” signals as “go!” in their life, but they would be wrong to confuse the less enthusiastic signals as a waste of time for us unattractive men.
@ Joseph
The real question for most men is about putting on 20-30 lbs of muscle and/or losing the corresponding amount of fat. And then finding a solid style.
Most men don’t want to attempt to do this, but it really works in boosting attractiveness to women rather significantly in a lot of cases.
If you can change initial impressions from being overlooked or meh to OK he’s kinda attractive, things definitely become easier.
Agreed, I’m all for excellence and stewarding what God has blessed each man with. Excuse-making was Adam’s second sin. Very happy for attractive people (who work hard to keep their dashing looks, too!); equally happy that lifting changed things around for me, and improves attractiveness for many men. I just think that people who max out at a score too low to get primal, enthusiastic, desirous responses from women… should not be lead to believe they are hopeless. Lord willing, you can work a yellow signal to unabashed commitment. Long-time reader, first time commenting. Love both yours and Scott’s input. Thank you so much!
Excuse-making was Adam’s second sin.
I say that is Feminist bullshit!
Genesis 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. …
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
When Adam honestly and correctly implicated the woman whom God gave him for having given him the forbidden fruit to eat, God immediately switched to questioning Eve, and God rightly cursed her for her evil actions, and more clearly and fully subjected her to Adam who was the stronger vessel, and most likely would not have rebelliously eaten from the forbidden tree without Eve’s defiling influence. Adam was defiled by and cursed for listening to and going along with his wife’s rebellious desire to defy God’s command. Nowhere does God in the Bible imply Adam’s statement of explanation was in any way sinful. And the fact that God then cursed Eve, and spelled out that she would be subject to Adam’s rule, is evidence that God agreed with Adam’s implication of Eve’s guilt in the matter.
That is not only the story of the original sin, but the pattern of much sin. Satan uses the influence of the weaker vessel to lead the image and glory of God into defilement. He enjoys doing that.
Tertullian wrote about women: And do you not know that you are Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die.
1 Timothy 2:9 commands that women should adorn themselves in “shamefacedness” because as verses 13-14 explains, Even though they were the very last thing created, they were still the very first thing to transgress God. Clearly a vessel with a weakness! It is no wonder that Adam blames God for giving him such a creature to be with him. Nor does God try to insist that the woman isn’t an easily misled creature and dangerous influence. He in fact punishes Adam for listening to her! let that sink in. The early church, as the apostles left it, rightly held women in low moral regard. Satan has now completely inverted that, in what is now the Mother of Harlots, women are held to be victims of abuse, if their husbands rule over them diligently. The completely cucked “churches” now even claim that “women’s voices deserve to be heard”. That’s what got the whole world cursed, a man hearkening unto a woman. Ignore their bleating. Adam was right to blame the woman. Adam’s sin was hearkening to the woman and thereby being influenced into doing what God had forbidden. Satan wants you to idolize women, and revolve your life around them. Remember that. Women’s purpose was to be a helper for men, not a restoration project for them. Eve clearly wasn’t serving her purpose when she led Adam into sin. I’d have pointed that out to God too, if I were in Adam’s place. I’m sure he was confused as to why God had given him a defiling influence for a helper. I’m still a bit puzzled by it. And God gave no explanation for why, He just states that he does. The LORD trieth the righteous. And for men, apparently God uses women as a big part of our test of loyalty to Him. We must follow God, showing Him the worth-ship to be followed. Following women instead of God is men’s oldest sin, and Satan’s best avenue of attack against men and God. Refusing to elevate women into high regard in your mind, is a good safeguard against much disloyalty to God. We often sin by worshipping the creature over her Creator. If you don’t feel that women should be shamefaced then Satan is already winning you over. So watch yourself.
Pingback: Women’s attraction to men’s musculature | Christianity and masculinity
This is primarily in response to Sigma. If you struggle with maintaining her interest without sexing her, what worked for me was cultivating a stable of attractive girls who all wanted a piece of me. You have a good looking girl’s interest? It won’t fizzle after she sees you with these other hot girls who do want ya. This does not imply that they ain’t being humped on the side, but it may prolong her interest in you if her stud don’t snap her up. Even if he does she may well sleep with you anyway.
I’m in the 5-6-7 range judging from the ladies I had. There were no qualms about the women sexing cuz I grew up in a totally secular family. The number of MeetCutes I had could be counted on one hand but I’ve had around 40 different women in my bed (I’m 31). It always went to sex fast too. In the same day we met, often. Sometimes within hours of learning each other’s names. I’m not double-take sexy but I go for it and forever playfully, nonjudgmentally refuse to take no for an answer. They love it.
My theory? If you ain’t getting hot girls, ya ain’t masculine enough. Full stop. My MeetCutes were rare but my hit rate relative to attempts is better than 70% at a guess. What’s worked for me is allowing myself to be irresistibly attracted to them. I was and they could tell; every she that was with me seemed to find it infinitely flattering (bitches love feeling irresistible) plus she took it as a cue to drop her good-girl/not-a-slut act because that evidently didn’t matter to me right from hello. Many women have uttered the words to me “I didn’t know you were such a man” the more sexual and forward I behaved. Obviously these were women who already found me attractive but MeetCute levels of it were not the routine. Far from it. There’s something to be said for building attraction, I agree. I had a roommate who was model hot guy, he knew it, and his women did too but he was not a masculine dude in behavior and his prospects withered after the initial burst of attraction.
For my money, if women get the picture that you don’t care what she says, or thinks, and that you are capably willing to throw her down and have your way with her… well… it works.
My bad. The first paragraph was aimed at Sigma. The rest was what I learned from living in sin. I have since repented and no longer behave thusly, presently I am a VolCel until marriage. Your Actionable Steps, DeepStrength, have been most revelatory and I thank you, kind ser.
Pingback: Rollo Tomassi’s Take on the Meet Cute Phenomenon | Σ Frame