Given some recent misinterpretations on my position on (sexual) attraction, this post may be warranted. If you’re new and want to know the Biblical understanding of attraction see the post linked.
Gonna go through my main points and elaborate on them a bit more.
I’m one of the ones who initially pointed out that Game does not produce sanctification. One cannot rely on attraction to produce sanctification either. One must deliberately do it. E.g. Be the head, love her for the purpose of sanctification, etc.
My post on the interaction of game, attraction, and sanctification.
Generally speaking, attraction can assist in sanctification in that a it’s more likely a wife will not be as contentious or rebellious if a husband is more attractive. In this way, a good analogy for sexual attraction is that it’s like influence.
For instance, an attractive man has “influence” in asking a woman out on a date that she is more likely to respond affirmatively. Attractive men and women generally get more social benefit of the doubt and tend to benefit more from raises, social situations, and other positive interactions from said influence.
This is the reason why men in the Christian manosphere can sometimes turn the marriages around. Once they start acting like the head, leading, and generally being more masculine they start to become more attractive to their wives. This is generally met with more compliance if not outright respect and submission. Yes, there are some exceptions such as if the wife already checked out and is heading toward divorce. However, the general trend is the wife was just unhappy her husband wasn’t doing what the man is supposed to do in the relationship then it usually turns out better. Some resistance can be met (e.g. overcoming fitness tests) to generally prove to her it’s not fake and/or if there are ingrained inverted role relationship habits that need to be broken.
Compare this to the overweight nice guy husband who defers to his wife on everything. He has little attractiveness (e.g. little to no influence) over his wife. Therefore his relative ‘bids’ or requests such as initiating sex or attempting to make decisions or lead the family are generally met with contentiousness and disrespect. If this pattern of behavior has been going on years possibly scorn or disgust.
I’m advocating that men should consider increasing their attractiveness if they want a wife and are having trouble getting dates. This includes any man not just men on the cusp. A chunk of this is by actually doing what the Bible says anyway.
I’m not advocating attraction is “all that.” But it helps. Most men and women can’t get a date from the opposite sex if they don’t find them at least somewhat attractive. At least get your foot in the door.
Both of these tend to fall in this category.
For the most part, there’s no reason to not work on attractiveness as everyone stands to benefit from it. All men and all women can benefit from more influence in life especially in regard to the social interaction, even if it’s not being more attractive for a potential spouse. You’re more likely to be taken seriously when talking with others, preaching the gospel, and taking the initiative to do things if you look are attractive. For instance, you’re confident, dress well, and are fit and muscular versus look like you’re overweight/obese, unkempt, and generally crawled out of a dumpster.
The only reason why you might not want to work on it anymore is the value of time. If a man or woman is already say an 8-10 in the looks range, it’s not likely that they’re going to benefit from improving their looks much compared to the time they could use to do other things. However, any man or woman going from 3 to 5 or 5 to 7 definitely ups their positive interaction rates in the dating game.
In regard to the Biblical Christianity as opposed to Western Christianity helping with attractiveness that was covered in that last post.
I’m advocating that Church communities help improve men’s status and other factors that can help relative hypergamy and affirm men and women flee sexual temptation.
This is a separate thing from someone improving their attractiveness (e.g. influence) as it involves the community doing things to facilitate a culture to improve and reinforce marriages from divorce. Covered in the post before the last on objective and subjective measures of attraction and what the Church can do about it.
The brief summary is that men were held in high respect for who they are and what they do. Men generally had more well paying jobs. Men were expected to be leaders in their family and the Church and general civic life. The Church and community pushed for these things, and the Church should be pushing for strong masculine men in their own Churches. Likewise, teaching men and women to flee sexual immorality (promiscuous women & bad boys).
Attraction / influence can be used either positively or negatively and obviously one of the ways it’s used negatively is temptation for sin such as premarital sex, frigidity, and other such things.
And to review on what we know about sexual attractiveness to women via PSALM + masculinity:
Godliness is not attractive.
But godly activities expressed in a certain way (PSALM + masculinity) are attractive.
Godliness by itself is not attractive. It has the capacity to be so if expressed in a certain way.
Again, Pastor, worship leader, Bible study leader vs Church janitor, parking lot coordinator, etc. In most Churches, all of these men are doing all they can for the glory of God. Only some are sexually attractive to women.
Another example. Prayer at home [edit: by yourself] is not attractive. Prayer in a group where you’re leading it? Some. Prayer at a Christian conference? Yeah. It’s the leadership and status associated with the context that makes it attractive.
If we again use the analogy that attraction is influence, we can see that we can see that positions of power, status, athleticism, looks, money, and masculine traits all have that type of influence on women. They want to be around them more, and also want to be with them. Prayer by itself means nothing in regard to attraction.
clarification: In regard to the prayer by yourself instance, leading your wife in prayer, Bible study, and other spiritual disciplines can be attractive as the context is being the head/leading her. However, a wife simply knowing that you’re praying a lot by yourself is not attractive in itself.
The same is true of the difference of attractive man giving a woman flowers being romantic versus the unattractive man giving a woman flower being a creep.
Same thing for godly activities. A woman’s nice guy friend can pray for her and she isn’t attracted to him, but if her attractive friend will pray for her and it’s romantic and sweet. In the same way, if an unattractive woman prays for a man he’ll just tell her thanks. If an attractive single woman offers to pray for the same man he’ll probably get a bit excited and think that she may be interested in him.
Godly activities are contextually attractive only if they are expressed through the various PSALM + masculine traits or a woman already thinks a man is attractive.
In other words, to quote Deti: “women want a loving, kind, good-with-children, patient man who is already attractive.” However, they usually won’t tell you the underlined part, and most of them won’t even know what their attraction triggers are in the first place.
Christianity and masculinity 
DS,
Your discussions of attraction, marriage, and sex are excellent for general teaching on the subject. You offer a lot of biblical exegesis that is sorely missing in feminized churches and needs to be promulgated.
I agree that attractiveness is important, perhaps more important than it should be. I agree that men should be doing what they can to develop masculinity, habits of headship and to improve their overall attractiveness. I agree that these things should be taught and discussed within the church.
I understand that you’re stressing these things because that is what is missing and is most needed. However, my main contention with your stance is that for Christians, there is much more to sex and marriage than merely sexual attraction. You have emphasized some of these other things, such as Headship / Submission, Love / Respect, masculine-feminine polarity, reciprocality, and The Christ-church model which is really good, but you consistently overlook or downplay many other spiritual dynamics that build a good marriage.
For example, in this post you wrote…
In general, I disagree with this. “Couples that pray together, stay together and lay together.” Of course, this appeals to emotional intimacy more than it does sexual attraction, but it is misleading for you to say that prayer is not attractive. The marriage and the sex will improve if husbands pray with their wives.
My conclusion is that attraction as it pertains to sanctification is more complex than what the Manosphere has come up with so far, but we don’t know much about this and it needs to be explored. Now that the importance of physical / sexual attraction has been established, we owe it to our readers to explore the other things that can come into play to create attraction, bonding, and sanctification.
Anyone thinking men can improve their attractiveness is barking up the wrong tree. We need a government to take away “womens rights”. That is the only solution. As long as women have “womens rights” they alwats go for evil men because it is necessary to have a government that keeps womens evil nature in check with law and harsh penalties for violations including death for fornication and adultery.
And the death penalty for men who are fornicators or adulterers should be by a prolonged torture (probably involving car batteries) wheras that for the women should be quick but brutal (by a big hammer perhaps). Because how dare these manwhores put hoes before bros. They deserve worse punishment. Until a government arises with this mentality women will continue to rule the earth and chop your sons penises off, so don’t quote me that Satanic filth passage Satan added to John, that Pericope Adulterae that Satan wrote and we all know John did not….not unless you support chopping young boys penises off because that is where not executing adulterers has led. We now see why the ancients burned “witches” and “warlocks” at the stake. Witches and warlocks were adulterers and fornicators who went so far into it they began to push for transgenderism.
… it is misleading for you to say that prayer is not attractive. The marriage and the sex will improve if husbands pray with their wives.
No. Marriage and sex improve when husbands get more sexually attractive. Marriage is a sexual relationship which means the parties to it have sex or are supposed to have sex. The only thing that improves sex and marriage is sexual attractiveness and this can take many forms including leadership, initiative, and so forth. But prayer in and of itself does not improve sex or marriage.
@ Jack
I agree with this.
I meant “prayer at home [by yourself]” a la Matthew 6 is not attractive. I will put that clarification in the original post.
If you’re leading your wife in prayer, Bible study, and other spiritual disciplines that can be attractive because of the headship/leadership aspect.
However, this is a bit contextual as well as an unattractive husband doing it may be considered more attractive by his wife if she was longing for the vacuum of leadership in her life to be filled. However, if the wife is/was being rebellious toward God and her husband because her heart is far away, it’s unlikely to be considered good or attractive.
Usually spiritual leadership (and corresponding attraction) goes over much better if a husband is more physically attractive and emotionally dominant as well.
Praying together is the closest act of religious intimacy that people generally share together. If your spouse is not eager to pray together with you, that’s a bad sign that they do not want closer intimacy with you.
You gotta love it when men completely ignore what they can do in their own lives – over which they have 100% control – and immediately jump to federal government solutions – over which they have essentially 0% control.
Pingback: Church Persecution: Non-State Actors in the U.S. | okrahead
@ Oscar
Yeah, I don’t get those comments.
Obviously, things are harder now but there are still effective solutions to varying degrees. You can only 100% control the ones with yourself, but you can also influence your family, friends, and Church and wider community to some extent.
DS,
Agreed. I like what St Francis of Assisi said about that.
Start doing what is necessary, then do what is possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible.
There are churches and communities doing the “impossible” right now. May as well join them.
“You gotta love it when men completely ignore what they can do in their own lives – over which they have 100% control – and immediately jump to federal government solutions – over which they have essentially 0% control.”
“Yeah, I don’t get those comments.”
Well, then I’ll explain it to you small minded gentlemen who lack the reasoning to get what was being said. A race to outplace other men for the attention of women only benefits those individual men, with regard to women, at the expense of others. While a rising tide lifts all boats. Thus if you only operate within this evil system, but do nothing to change the evil system, then your self-serving life mainly benefits you and yours at the expense of others, and it is not advancing any actual solution to the particular evil of our time. You literally live with the mindset of a parasite, to advance yourself without regard to how it affects the surrounding society in which you live.
Newsflash! No grown man needs the Christian manosphere to educate him that women like popular hunky handsome fit confident men who have power and money, nor to tell him that bettering himself will help him, as an individual, to gain a higher status with women. Frankly, there is already plenty of good secular self-help information on the internet for men.
I read nothing telling me that the person you quoted has “completely ignored what they can do in their own lives.”
Men like I were lifting weights to better myself long before there was an internet or a manosphere. I already do as much as I care to do for my status. I’m a grown man and I’ve already mastered myself about as well as I’m going to, furthermore I’ve had my children and reached an age where my worldly status is less of a concern than my eternal status and what I should be doing to help to rectify our societal problems. I’m not some kid who comes here to find out how to be a man. (there aren’t too many of those here on text based blogs) The wise and intelligent among us don’t come here to waste time crapping on the other wise men who actually want to do something cooperatively to fix the situation in our society.
I personally already do what I need to do for myself, which I am 100% in control of, by myself. As a grown man I don’t need online help with what I can control by myself, and if I did, there is probably already plenty of better information about self-improvement out there.
The real power of an online community like the Christian manosphere is for men across the globe to unite together in the name of Christ to fix our world. Those who would tell men to disregard their desire to turn society to God’s righteousness, and to instead just talk about self-improvement and gaining some relative worldly status, aren’t guided by God, but are being foolish and needlessly contending with men wiser than themselves.
I regret that some folks here are so small minded that they seemingly want men to stick to talking about about things they already 100% control, while trying to shut down the conversation of more mature men who already handle their own personal responsibilities as they see fit, and come here as patriarchs wanting to unite to help gain control of and shepherd society for the improvement of future generations.
Not to get like the Apostle Paul and foolishly give my credentials, but…
Oscar, my intelligence is higher than yours, I’m taller than you, I’m probably more handsome than you, I lift more than you, I’ve made more money than you, I’m more confident than you, I don’t come here to hear self improvement suggestions from men who still haven’t reached the same worldly status level I reached decades ago. But, I still haven’t become some smug know it all. I’d really like to hear what other men have to say about the things which we don’t individually control, because unlike yourself I’m not assessing myself and the Christian manosphere as being incapable of having some influence in the remaining years I have left. I’m not given over to defeatism and navel gazing. I’m a man of God and I’m here to help correct this mess, along with any other men who care to help.
Like I said, I’m attending a church full of couples in their 20s who bring arm-loads of toddlers to church. Obviously, the church is doing something right, and it’s not “to outplace [sic.] other men for the attention of women only benefits those individual men, with regard to women, at the expense of others.”
I never said that I assessed “myself and the Christian manosphere as being incapable of having some influence in the remaining years I have left.”
My church and I are collectively having a big effect locally in many ways I haven’t discussed here. We’re not waiting around for the federal government to torture adulterers to death, like jonas alexias (or, jonas alexius, if you prefer).
You want change? That’s how the Apostles did it. Individuals, families,
churches. They didn’t wait for the Roman Senate to act, but they turned the world upside down anyway.
If you want a nation to submit to Christ, you can either work from the top down, or from the bottom up. The Apostles worked from the bottom up. That’s the approach we’re taking. You want to take a different approach? No one is stopping you.
Finally, congratulations on all your successes in life. I’m very happy for you.
“The Apostles worked from the bottom up.”
That’s not entirely true. The Apostles used every avenue they felt led to.
The Apostles repeatedly spoke before the Jewish Sanhedrin. For example: after speaking before the Jewish Sanhedrin, Paul then spoke before Governor Felix and his wife Drusilla, and then spoke before Governor Porcius Festus, and then spoke before King Agrippa and Bernice, and then when he could have been set free, he instead used his right as a Roman citizen to appeal to speak to Caesar, the ruler of the whole Roman Empire, the most powerful man in the world at that time. It clearly doesn’t sound like the Apostles limited themselves to working “bottom up”.
Congrats on your prolific family and church. However you don’t need to reflexively swipe at folks for wanting to influence the government for righteousness sake, like the Apostle Paul also clearly felt called to try.
For somebody who is having such a “big effect” for Jesus Christ in your local community, the unprovoked insulting of strangers on the internet who also want to try to change the world, only top-down, sounds strangely uncharacteristic of the uniting Spirit of God, and more like some anger transference. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you can’t be angry, but, direct your anger at those who are doing evil, not just at strangers with different, yet acceptable, opinions. Hey, I get pissed off at false teachers, just like how the early church fathers battled with them, but I didn’t read you saying that something he was teaching was wrong, or read a rebuttal of anything he wrote. What I read was a seemingly unprovoked ad hominem attack on men who, “completely ignore what they can do in their own lives”, when the commenter had never written that he was ignoring his personal life.
LOL.
my intelligence is higher than yours, I’m taller than you, I’m probably more handsome than you, I lift more than you, I’ve made more money than you, I’m more confident than you, I don’t come here to hear self improvement suggestions from men who still haven’t reached the same worldly status level I reached decades ago.
Followed immediately by
But, I still haven’t become some smug know it all.
Um, OK. Sure.
Lighten up, Shark. Maybe a wee bit of ‘umility might serve you well.
Who says I’m angry?
But, I still haven’t become some smug know it all.
Meaning that I read everybody’s comments with the intent of gleaning anything I can learn, from anybody who comments, regardless of who they are. I try to judge the ideas conveyed on their own merit. (The only exception I make is for one person who posts mostly rambling indecipherable nonsense who has specifically asked me to not read their comments.)
“Who says I’m angry?”
Maybe I just thought you were because I’d have to be pretty angered before I’d foolishly start publicly insinuating irresponsibility on the part of a stranger who hasn’t said anything irresponsible yet. And thereby risk provoking strife with them and with those who would like to welcome more good people to the manosphere. God cares a lot about how we treat strangers. And although I’m quick to correct people, and people may not think that’s “nice”, I consider appropriate correction to be an act of eternal caring. Whereas you “corrected” “whomever that is” based upon what is currently only an inferred bit of slander, until it might be shown to be otherwise.
Oscar, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that there might have been some strong emotional trigger behind you foolishly disrespecting an apparently Godfearing stranger for no good reason. But, if that’s how you usually operate, then maybe that’s why you don’t seem to like your chances at gaining any top-down influence in defense of God’s righteousness.
You’re projecting like an IMAX right now, Sharkley.
Pingback: Roundup on Attraction and Marital Sanctification | Σ Frame
Pingback: On Choosing the Flesh over Christ | Σ Frame
Pingback: Rollo Tomassi’s Take on the Meet Cute Phenomenon | Σ Frame