Biblical prescriptions with no Bible

I previously wrote about a review of Danny Silk’s Defining the Relationship marriage book, and gave it a pretty bad review. Namely, because it did not discuss one time in the Scriptures of the roles and relationships in marriage such as Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, Titus 2, 1 Peter 3, and so on.

Likewise, there are articles like this on sex — which admittedly I’ve read before but never wrote a post about — which have tons of references to pop culture and famous people, but no references to the Bible on the particular topic.

Back in 2013, provoked by Elizabeth Smart’s story Christians filled the Internet with discussions about sex—particularly abstinence education—so much that the Atlantic posted a summary of these debates in “Why Some Evangelicals Are Trying to Stop Obsessing Over Pre-Marital Sex.”

Although these conversations are evidence that Christians are forming a more candid, holistic and theologically sound discourse about sex, an area that still needs more attention is the far-reaching effects of abstinence rhetoric on marriage.

While the movement is great at detailing— and exaggerating—the benefits of saving sex for marriage, it is dishonest about the challenges abstinence presents to couples who eventually tie the knot.

Jessica Ciencin Henriquez recently detailed how the abstinence movement affected her sex life and marriage in a revealing article titled, “My Virginity Mistake.” Henriquez relays how she pledged herself to Jesus at a purity ceremony at age 14, remained a virgin until she married six years later, and wound up divorced after she and her husband could not make things work in the bedroom.

Looking back, Henriquez states if she had not insisted on waiting for sex until marriage, she could have prevented her divorce. The provocative subtitle of her article reads, “I took an abstinence pledge hoping it would ensure a strong marriage. Instead, it led to a quick divorce.”

Henriquez’s story is important because it highlights an issue the abstinence movement rarely acknowledges: sexual incompatibility within marriage. While this issue may seem irrelevant, it is actually fundamental to traditional Christian beliefs about sex. The fact that sexual compatibility does not matter to Christians when choosing a spouse makes the shocking and countercultural statement that sex is not our God. It indicates that we are willing to make a commitment to someone with whom we may be sexually incompatible, with whom we may never have good sex, because the purpose of marriage is not pleasure, but formation.

Our discourse about sex, however, tends to tell another story, a story that elevates sex to an inordinate degree. The abstinence movement, relying primarily on anecdotes, promises the young unmarrieds that if they save sex for marriage, they will have what Claire and Eli call “reward sex.” In other words, sex will be everything they’ve dreamed it would be—electric, erotic, or, as Elisabeth Elliot, who helped initiate the movement with her book Passion and Purity, writes “unspeakably worth the wait.” Not only are these promises incorrect, but they imply that the purpose of abstinence is good sex, not obedience to God and the cultivation of virtue.

This discourse is not confined to the unmarried, however. Once couples say “I do,” for the rest of their lives, they are expected to have good sex and a lot of it. Christian publications are brimming with instructions on these two contradictory principles: sexual compatibility doesn’t matter when selecting a spouse, but after marriage, couples are treated as if having good sex is part-and-parcel of the call to be a Christian. If you aren’t having good sex, you are expected to go to your local Christian bookstore and choose from a variety of titles—ranging from the classic The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly LaHaye to the more recent Sheet Music by Dr. Kevin Leman.

In addition to misrepresenting the role of sex in a Christian’s life, this discourse also smacks of an inferiority complex that wants to compete with mainstream culture’s view of sex rather than modeling a rightly ordered sexual ethic to the world. For example, teachings on the Song of Solomon can range from using the book as a modern-day sex manual to a tool of manipulation to get women to acquiesce to inflated views of sex, such as a well-known pastor controversially enjoining women to perform oral sex because “Jesus Christ commands you to do so.” These sort of teachings on sex indicate the spurious claim many Christians accept: that the call to be a married Christian includes within it an obligation to become a sex god or goddess.

Although Christians have recently been more honest about the realities of sex, such as Jake and Melissa Kircher, who admit sex is not what it appears in the movies, a celebrity pastor’s recent appearance on The Viewdemonstrates that Christians still contend with Hollywood’s version of sex. Barbara Walters opens the segment with an alarming announcement: “It is a gospel you probably thought you would never hear from a man of the church: that the Lord wants married couples to have great sex, to have it often and even experiment in the bedroom.”

While this discourse elevates sex so that it becomes an idol, it also ignores a real problem Henriquez addresses and that is likely to surface in Christian marriages because of our insistence on abstinence. What if, contrary to Elliot’s experience, a couple’s wedding night doesn’t seem “worth the wait”?

The Kirchers have astutely suggested couples should expect to be sexually incompatible at first, but what should we say to couples who spend years, or even decades, trying to have good sex without success? How should we respond if a woman, like Henriquez, who obediently saved herself for marriage, finds herself feeling betrayed by the very principle she thought would give her a life of good sex and a happy marriage?

Although sex is indeed God’s gift to us, Christians are not directly commanded by God to have great sex. Couples may find themselves incompatible in the bedroom, and they should not be bombarded with pressure from the Christian community to start having good sex and lots of it. Instead, they should find support and comfort—support that sex is not the only thing that makes a good marriage, and comfort that historically all Christians have been called by God to suffer through numerous trials.

Christians are, and should be, hopeful people. After all, we believe in the resurrection of the dead, heaven and miracles. Some couples may find themselves miraculously gifted with good sex well after their vows, and books such as the LaHayes’ and Leman’s have helped a lot of people in this area. But in this world we will certainly have trouble. The world and all who dwell in it are imperfect. Sex, too, is bound up with the world’s imperfection. Some couples may spend their whole lives struggling with their physical relationship, and it is deceptive to teach that all Christians will, or are somehow biblically required to, have good sex.

Sexual incompatibility, therefore, is a cross that some couples bear, and Christian communities could lighten this burden if we made an effort to put sex in its rightful place. If sex were viewed as a gift that, like everything else in this world, is marred by sin, it may be easier for couples to accept that bad sex is neither a reason for divorce nor an excuse to stop investing in a marriage. As with other trials, bad sex is an opportunity to rejoice in suffering (1 Peter 4:13) and to be further conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29).

Ultimately, putting sex in its proper place will encourage us to order God’s gifts in the same way that church tradition teaches the ordering of love. All things, including sex, must be loved to the degree that is proper to the thing in question, with nothing superseding the love of God.

16 paragraphs and no reference to 1 Corinthians 7. Just some vague references to 1 Peter 4 and Romans 8 taken out of context.

Of course, had the author actually read 1 Corinthians 7, she would have found out some common themes that I’ve discussed here before.

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 [c]Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

Sex is not just for the ‘self’ but indeed the role and responsibility is to fulfill the other’s need to sex so as not to deprive the other through temptation. Basically, one of the responsibilities of marriage is to fulfill the other spouse’s need for sex, whether the husband or the wife wants sex more.

This can only be ‘stopped’ for short periods to pray MUTUALLY by both parties, and then sex is back on the table again. One spouse cannot say to ‘stop’ if they don’t want to because the goal is not selfishness but to love the other person.

1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Indeed, the only reason given in the NT to marry is to those who burn with passion.

One would think that those who burn with passion and get married would have “great sex,” especially with lots of practice. If they’re burning with passion, they’re going to have lots of sex. Of course, it’s not guaranteed there will be “great sex,” but if the each spouse is focusing on the needs of the other, then it will definitely improve significantly over the course of time.

Then you have garbage like “sexual incompatibility” which is just a “lack of practice” and “lack of focusing on the other’s needs” and/or “lack of attraction.” In other words, selfishness.

Of course, all of this is nothing really new. The problem is that Christian organizations allow this type of stuff be run when they only take a synthesis of popular culture as a Biblical fact rather than what the actual Bible says. This is, by an large, a trend of cherry picking irrelevant verses to support a cultural facade and ignoring the verses that actually speak wisdom and Truth to the actual situation.

This is the first thing I look for when I read “Christian” articles and books to see if they actually conform to what the Bible states is the Truth. Not surprisingly, most don’t pass the grade.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 19 Comments

Men lead, women follow

Donal has a post up on overt and covert in regard to mating tendencies.

I have been doing some thinking lately how the whole process of actively trying to “woo” someone. There are two main models which are proposed, one of them the more widely accepted model and the other more common around the manosphere. They are:

  • Men are the pursuers and Women are the pursued
  • Men display and Women choose

I would like to examine these two models, because I am wondering if they are necessarily mutually exclusive. One way of reconciling these two is the following:

Men Display –> Women Choose –> Men Pursue –> Women are Pursued

All of the potential models involve men starting the process. Not really a surprise, I guess. Now to get to the title of the post.

Overall, I think what Roissy and whoever else states hints at the truth, but the actual Truth is as the Scriptures teach: men lead, women follow.

  • Men lead through initiation via their own leadership style among other factors (overtly displayed consciously or unconsciously through various social mediums).
  • Women choose whether to follow/submit or not.

In general, I do not believe that men pursue or that women are pursued in the strictest sense of the word. What follows is male investment and female re-evaluation.

  • Men invest non fungible resources — time, energy, money — and evaluate to consider whether their investment is good or not. If it is good, men will continue. If it seems bad or gets worse, a man may choose to disengage.
  • Women re-evaluate the investment to see if it is good or not. If it is not up to her “standards” whatever they are, she may depart. Women tend to have multiple avenues of re-evaluation of investment: all in (hell yes), satisfied, wishy-washy/looking for other options, I’m out, and hell no and maybe more.

A woman’s “response” or “re-evaluation” is neither covert in the sense that you typically cannot tell exactly from her actions. Rather, it typically is not in her actions but rather her attitude. A woman who thinks a man leading her is a good choice will be respectful and submit to him joyfully and enthusiastically for the most part, as long as her sensibilities are not offended. A woman who is more wishy washy will be contentious over the smallest details.

On a macro level, women tend to respond to a good investment with good investments of their own (e.g. reciprocal behavior). This is why 1 Peter 3 is so difficult for women because it forces her into a position of having to Trust that God will change the heart of a man through respect and chaste behavior and a quiet and gentle spirit — not nagging and harsh words and contentious behavior.

Also worth noting is a woman who is willing to invest more non-fungible resources than the man in the relationship is either very enthusiastic or desperate.

This is why it is important to look at the whole sum of a woman. It’s generally not enough to believe what she says. You need critically analyze her tone of voice and body language. It’s not enough to look at her actions. You need to see her body language and attitude she takes about going to do things. Women can also say one thing and do another. While actions are not the be all end all, it’s more important to evaluate actions over words. The chain of command is as follows.

                [Covert]        versus       [Overt]
[The Heart > Attitude] > [Actions > Words]

The heart and attitude are generally more “covert” in nature whereas actions and words tend to be more “overt.” Women’s ‘cattiness’ and ‘gossip’ is generally predicated on taking specific actions and words that mean one thing taken at face value, but mean the totally opposite thing based on the way or meaning in which it was said.

Men tend to be more straight forward with things regarding the heart, attitude, actions, and words. There are some exceptions (like one-itis), but usually most men will be able to tell if the woman following them is a good investment or not. Pulling the trigger to disengage if a woman is not what they want is another issue altogether.

Both men and women have the potential to “get lazy” in the relationship, which leads to dissatisfaction and usually poor behavior from the other.

To summarize:

  • Men lead, women follow
  • Men invest and evaluate their investment, women re-evaluate a man’s investment and follower status
  • Heart > attitude > actions > words
  • Heart and attitude are generally covert whereas actions and words are overt.
  • The closer to the heart, the more the actions reveal the Truth of what the other person believes.

Also, men are expected to read the extent of a woman’s evaluation of him. If he is ‘over invested’ that usually means her attraction will plummet. This is one of the more interesting attraction triggers that I may go into later.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 6 Comments

Mother’s Day in review

Little late to the party, but the previous Mother’s day my pastor actually just walked the congregation through the Scriptures.

It was the first time I’ve seen that happen, ever, so I was impressed. Took a few notes on what was taught too.

Ephesians 6:1-4 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth. 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord

  • Be concerned about not just “rules” but the heart of the child.
  • Help them to understand why they are obedient, so that when they get to high school and college they will make better choices.

Deuteronomy 6:4-7 4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.

  • Heart > rules.
  • Also, you can’t expect children to be in school for 8+ hours a day and then be able to teach your children at home in the 1-2 hours aside from dinner and homework.
  • Strong case for having a wife/mother stay at home so she can teach her children godly and family values.
  • God is more concerned about character than career.
  • Sacrifices are worth it.

Titus 2:1-5 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. 2 Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in [a]perseverance.3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may [b]encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

  • Re-emphasis on family > career
  • Reverent/not malicious gossips – Kindness is important​ when things are not going well
  • Submission — Order not two headed, not politically correct but that’s what God’s Word teaches
  • 50/50 statistical divorce makes men and women think long and hard
  • God’s Word is dishonored if you act in a non-Christian manner

1 Peter 3:1-6 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.

  • Chaste and respectful behavior matters to win husbands. “There’s hope, don’t nag.” It’s possible even when it doesn’t feel like it
  • A gentle and quiet spirit shows you’re sold out for Jesus to do it His way… Confidence in trusting Jesus
  • Culture tells us to demand our rights, assert ourselves, and to yell and nag. This is not the answer.
  • Can’t be good enough or religious enough to be holy. Only by trusting in Jesus and being obedient.

Proverbs 31:10-31 –Didn’t get time to go over this part of the passage.

As I mentioned earlier, I was quite shocked and impressed. However, my fiance said she had heard similar sermons before, but all I know is it’s not common.

Never did I think I would hear Titus 2 and 1 Peter 3 instruction on Mother’s day, but I can’t say never anymore.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 2 Comments

Questionable strategy

There was recently a boundless post on Am I too strong? which is written by a woman.

Have you ever been told that you’re too strong to date? Or, have you wondered why you’re successful in several areas of life, but, at the same time, dateless?

A couple of years ago I came across the post On Daughters and Dating: How to Intimidate Suitors by Jen Wilkin on The Gospel Coalition. Wilkin’s underlying message is for parents. She encourages them to raise their girls to be confident Christian women, which in turn easily and naturally helps them ward off unwanted attention and advances.

Anyway, regardless of anything about the article, I think the comments are better. I’m only taking comments from the women, as it seems like there are some disparate comments from the men. Some of the men “laud” the strong women while some question the distinction of “strong” in faith versus strong of the world and how many times it means of the world.

Commenter 1: I love this! I tend to be pretty independent, not because I don’t need a man but because I don’t have one. I was talking to my brother and asking if maybe I was too intimidating, he told me that I need to just keep doing my thing and if a guy is intimidated, he’s not the right one. I’m 31 and single, I would like to be married but for now I’m traveling, serving the church, mentoring, growing, learning, competing on my horse…

Commenter 2: I can relate… even if the words were not well-chosen, I know what you mean. I’ve watched as my more “swoony” friends have dated and been proposed to and married. I’m just not the type of girl who’s needy or flirty… and in a way, I think that makes me more intimidating. It’s just going to take a special, courageous guy to initiate a relationship with me. It’s almost as if guys have been conditioned to wait for a girl to initiate a relationship. It’s very frustrating for those who want to be pursued.
Commenter 3: [Name], I like how you described it. I’m not “swoony” or flirty either, and that’s been to my dating detriment, but it’s also helpful in weeding out the “slouchy pants” guys. 🙂 I can’t wait to be flirty with my forever person. Thanks for commenting. Best wishes to

Essentially, what it seems to boil down for women who have commented that they are single for a while is that they’re basically uninterested in seeming interested in men that they may like. This is not some random anecdote from the ‘sphere but is a pretty common phenomena throughout the Church.

Indeed, two other commenters even suggests that not showing interest is probably not the best strategy.

Commenter 4: On the other hand, being “flirty/swoony” is a way that women can communicate that they are interested in being pursued.  I’m not saying you should do this in an over-the-top way or a way that dishonors God, but a guy is going to pursue a woman he thinks is interested in him too more so than a woman who is subtly (or even overtly) communicating disinterest in being pursued.

Commenter 5: Yeah. Men tend to approach women more when they’re flirty or seem interested because of the decreased rate of rejection. Plus, why would you not want to try to get to know someone who is interested in you.

Seems to be a common theme from the single women in the comments. They don’t want to communicate any interest at all even if it would potentially increase their chances. They also seem to think it’s somehow weeding out men that aren’t good enough.

Not the strategy I would choose, but hopefully it works for them.

When you’re single for so long and waiting and continuing to ‘weed out’ so-called ‘weak men’ who you don’t want to be with it may be a good idea to actually reevaluate your strategy. Obviously, these women probably don’t know and maybe don’t want to hear about how their increasing age and decreasing beauty is working against them, so it may pay to change their strategy a bit.

Many commenters here, at Donal’s, Dalrock’s and Scott’s continue to suggest that single Christian women learn how to flirt, be outgoing, and improve their communication skills so they can increase their chances. It seems like this advice is also needed out in the “real world” as well.

Since this post was written in queue, there are more comments. This is an honest comment from a man who illustrates the non-blog way that men view women:

Being totally honest here, it depends on what I perceive your value to be.

If you are the only 10/10 I ever expect to enter the doors of my church, I really enjoy being around you and your life is rich with spiritual fruit, I may make more effort to scale the wall to win your hand in marriage.  On the other hand, if you are only borderline and you put up resistance (or your father does), I may conclude it isn’t meant to be.

If I view a lady as borderline and I interact with her, it means I am vaguely open to the possibility of a relationship and want to give it a chance to see if I grow to like her over time.  A lady therefore needs to make a realistic assessment on whether I see her as a 10/10 or a borderline lady: – the danger is that she will put up walls, wrongly assuming I view her as a 10/10.

If a lady has absolutely no interest in marriage to me now or ever, I am unlikely to appreciate being lead on.  On the other hand, if a lady thinks she may one day come to like me, but wants me to work harder to win her over, she has to make sure her response communicates that, because my default interpretation of resistance in a lady is “I’m not interested in you, not now, not ever”.

For instance, a lady might say, “You seem like a nice guy, but I don’t know you all that well and I’ve got temporary difficulties in life that would make me struggle to give due attention to a relationship at this precise moment”, before following it up with a group-date invitation (or two, or three) a little while later to see if I rise to the bait.

In a nutshell, to use a gambling term, it is all about a lady knowing her hand.  Granted, there are no guarantees in life, so a strong hand may not ultimately result in the desired outcome, but a lady who regularly overplays her hand is unlikely to reach her end goal.

When it comes to whether or not I like “feisty” ladies, it all depends.  A godly man will always want to build his future family according to God’s blueprint and so a man will look at women to see if they demonstrate the potential to be obedient to him as required by Ephesians 5:22-24.  If a lady is feisty for Christ and her spiritual fruits indicate this, then that is a fantastic thing!  On the other hand, if she is “feisty” as in someone who is always argumentative about matters there is no value in arguing about, I will conclude she will not be a useful “asset” to me and ultimately draining of my energy.

A lady therefore needs to show me that she has sound judgement regarding when to be “feisty” and when not to be “feisty”.  Ecclesiastes 3:7: – “A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak”.

The more beautiful and feminine a woman is, the longer leash they get from a man. The same is true of an attractive jerk. That’s just the way it is folks. Attractive people get a great benefit of the doubt.

That doesn’t mean you should take advantage of attractiveness to act like a witch or dbag, but you should see the importance of attractiveness if you desire to be married.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 14 Comments

The questionability of eros

“Eros” as a Greek term isn’t found anywhere in the Scriptures.

Every time I hear a Christian refer to how love in marriage is “eros” I somewhat get the inkling feeling that it’s questionable.

Now, I suppose you could tie this somewhat back to my previous post, especially the discussion on yoga in the comments. Calisthenics and various stretches and other movements are not necessarily “pagan” by nature, but when you codify a system of movements in celebration or a ritual of a pantheon of gods it may be questionable. The arguments in the commentary have somewhat begun to sway me to the “avoid yoga” side of the argument.

“Eros” in particular is based on a Greek god and cult. It has ties to illicit love, homosexuality, and the idolization of attraction and sex. Just like chivalry or “courtly love” is based in the idolization of romance, eros is about the idolization of sex with or without marriage.

The Scriptures tie the morality of sex to marriage, and thus justify the wholeness of passion within the bounds of the marital bed. Everything outside of that concept is sin. While Christians have tried to redefine “eros” as meaning sex within marriage (and that this is true), redefining a pagan concept as Christian is dubious.

Similar veins of thought:

  • Redefining game within a Christian context is also dubious.
  • Why I don’t respect women.
  • “Marriage” by the Supreme Court is not just “one man and one woman” anymore, but when Christians talk about marriage we automatically assume that it is “one man and one woman” even though we know that is not what the law of the land says currently.

My overall conclusion is that the lines and terminology should be used as how they were defined by the Scripture.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 30 Comments

From the mailbag: marital rape rants, sexual attraction, and more

Sometimes I receive anonymous e-mails like this:

You wrote on the subject of marital rape….and you decided to twist the bibles words on the subject. I can only assume one would do this to make themselves feel better about the fact that they themselves are rapists. I was raped in my marriage for 5 and a half years. I’d like to know your point of view once something this horrible happens to someone you love. GOD is discussed with you. Shame on you! It’s people like you that give Christians a bad name. Fuck you cunts!

Ignoring the vitriolic language,

  • If I was being “raped” I wouldn’t stick around with that person for 5 and a half years.
  • Neither would I be going around looking for blogs talking about how there isn’t such a thing as “marital rape” to basically wallow in my own misery and PTSD.

The few actual victims of rape or sexual battery I know basically don’t want to talk about it and/or have moved on with their lives. They don’t wallow in their own victimhood and seek out others to try to convince them that they’re bad people. It’s only when you get those who were convinced after the fact that it was rape by feminists (e.g. regret sex or bad breakup/divorce followed by reframing of everything that happened in the relationship to something bad).

In any case, I encourage said reader to accept God’s salvation for their life. Then to look at God’s plan for marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 with different eyes. The wife’s body is the husband’s and the husband’s body is the wife. It’s about mutual giving to each other to meet their needs. There is no right to deny meeting their needs.

Moving on.

I just have a question regarding beauty and how it relates to the Bible for male sexual attraction. I will admit that I do struggle with this since most people I know state that inner beauty is the only true beauty. It makes me feel really guilty of superficiality. It is really confusing because, despite the church’s insistence that personality is all that matters, my experiences and biological reactions tell me otherwise (even my male friends seem to focus a lot on looks quite often). This all cannot just be an accident. I only considered dating people first because of physical attraction and arousal. Almost 95% of my crushes were based on looks to be honest. How do I reconcile this issue when people parrot verses such as Prov. 11:22; 31:30 and 1 Pet. 3:3-4 which, on the surface, seem to completely obliterate the idea of outer beauty (especially Prov. 31:30). What is your interpretation of these passages?

As for the objectivity of beauty, how do we make sense of other cultures who seem to define beauty differently? Is there a way in which objectivity can still exist despite diversity? the only thing I have come closest to arguing for objective beauty is by stating that God has intentionally set a standard of beauty in the same way that certain things in nature are just naturally beautiful like patterns and order in nature like flower petals following the Fibonacci sequence. There must be a particular order or form of the female body in order to be considered beautiful that isn’t centered on subjective reactions.

I ask you because I know that you are able to help me with my struggle. Hopefully you’re able to respond soon and may God bless you. 🙂

I find this pattern of thought to be very common among young men in the Church.

The Church and even fellow Christians, like the culture, try to demonize men for being attracted to a woman’s feminine beauty.

Obviously, I’ve written before on why sexual attraction is important to marriage.

It goes without saying to the young Christian men out there: you are not alone.

If you have certain preferences for physical beauty in a woman you shouldn’t feel ashamed of it no matter how many people — even Christians — try to shame you or make you change your mind. Things like grooming practices are your freedom in Christ to look for. We know that men are sexually attracted to certain traits in women: youthfulness, facial structure, waist to hip ratio, and symmetry are universally attractive. The past few posts were on that.

If other people want to deny reality that’s up to them. There are certainly enough people trying to live the “Eat, Pray, Love” divorce fantasy to their own demise.

Stay strong. Continue to build your foundation on Jesus. Understand that most people want to criticize you just because you are a man with preferences. Your preferences are your preferences. Don’t try to change yourself for other people’s approval.

I think this would be an interesting trend to hear your commentary on. The mainstream media has for years been in complete denial of any reactionary/socially conservative shifts in the opinions of millenials (and the upper bound of Generation Z.) Now, it seems they (NYT) are willing to accept that such a shift is in motion, albeit with some of their usual condescension. As a member of the 18-24 age group, I find this fascinating.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/sunday/do-millennial-men-want-stay-at-home-wives.html?_r=3

From what I’ve seen in general, no.

I think that those who want a stay at home wife are generally becoming more vocal about it, especially the women who realized that working a career isn’t all that. In fact, a career even sucks most of the time.

Those in the age group may be more vocal about it, but what actually happens is a couple of scenarios. The trends from what I’ve seen are DINKs — double income no kids, swearing off of marriage altogether, and/or cohabitation without marriage. Maybe marriage “in the future.”

on a separate note have you ever thought about doing a post on:

– Use of Yoga
– Use of New Age Treatment, Corporate Exercises in the Workplace.
– Use of Charms, Amulets, Zodiac, Tattoos Elements etc…

Consider this post on this topic my response.

In general, the first two “things” have some basis in actual science namely the interaction of the nervous system and its surroundings. The placebo effect is one part of this.

In particular, yoga, tai chi, and other movement based systems with incorporation of poses and deep breathing tend to relax and destress the body. There’s nothing “mystical” about the process as God has made the body to respond well to relaxation. He even created the “Sabbath” just for us for relaxation!

Overall, I think Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians and Romans about food sacrificed to idols basically apply mostly. Other people can try to make things an “idol” and add all their “voodoo” to it, but at the end of the day God made the body and if we use movement, deep breathing, and other techniques to relax it, exercise, and stay healthy then why would we condemn such a thing?

However, for those who are weaker in the faith, I would not flaunt the believer’s freedom to do those things in front of them. Also, I would stay away from labels like “new age” as they can tend to leave a bad impression for you in the eyes of non-believers and believers.

In regard to “Use of Charms, Amulets, Zodiac, Tattoos Elements etc…”, there are no such things and that is generally considered witchcraft in the Bible. Stay away.

That’s all for this mail bag. Feel free to comment about these topics if you agree or disagree.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 29 Comments

Feminine beauty is highly controllable theory and analysis Part 2

A good amount of discussion was had in women don’t really understand male attraction. For the women that actually care about doing something about attracting a man, this post will educate you on that.

Also worth noting is Dalrock’s most recent post that shows old(er) women don’t have the same sexual attractiveness they did when they were in their 20s for quite obvious reasons.

Let’s get down to it.


I’ve linked to The Rules Revisited article on feminine beauty is highly controlled before. The premise of the article is good, but it doesn’t accurately quantify beauty that well.

Introduction

Donal and other sources have already made a general quantification of what represents male attractiveness in PSALM/LAMPS — power/personality, status, athleticism, looks, money. These traits when broken down into Scriptural terms tend to signify that a man will be a masculine and authoritative and a protector and provider. If you missed why attractiveness is important, you can refer back to my article about why attractiveness is an important part of marriage in the context of the Scripture.

On the other hand, men are almost 100% attracted to feminine beauty. Here is an attempted analysis (Image credit to therulesrevisted):

In general, I don’t think quantifying feminine beauty by a scale of “100%” is an accurate indicator.

The 4-5 areas of female beauty

Feminine beauty tends to be separated into 4 to maybe 5 distinct categories that all intermingle to form a coherent whole. Men can glance at a woman and determine her feminine beauty right away.

The main 4 attractive traits are a mishmash from the above picture:

  • Age — Men’s optimal preferences via OKCupid study suggest between 20 to 23 is the most physically attractive age to men.
  • Face — Structure of the face, eyes, teeth, skin, and so on.
  • Body — Legs, hip, butt, breasts, ratios, fitness level, weight, and so on.
  • Femininity — Hair, girlishness of clothes (dresses, skirts, etc.), girlishness of demeanor, smiling.

Age and physical beauty are attractive to men because they are cues for fertility and ability to have many and healthy children. See: God’s mandate in Genesis 1 to be fruitful and multiply. Femininity is both part of the dichotomy of masculinity-femininity between the sexes and likely a solid positive mothering cue.

Face and body are pretty straight forward, and different men have different opinions on 6 what they deem as ideal. However, the vast majority of beauty is relatively objective in facial and body shape, structure, and symmetry. Most men will rate a women within 1 point of where she may be at on a 1-10 scale. For example, an “8” might have 50% rate her an 8 whereas maybe 20% would rate her a “7” and another 20% would rate her a “9” and the last 10% may say 6 or 10.

Femininity is slightly convoluted. Hair length and clothing are straight forward feminine aspects. However, girlishness of demeanor is a bit harder to quantify. Sweetness and kindness are related to femininity, but they are not attractive in and of themselves. Part of “girly demeanor” is how a girl makes a man feel about himself. If she respects him and can make it known either subtly or overtly, it will tend to draw a man in. Seductiveness also plays a role, although how much of that should be used by Christian women is questionable. Additionally, there are some other almost intangible components of a girl demeanor like enthusiasm, bubbly-ness, and innocence that may also be attractive to men. In other words, it may signify that a woman is “untainted” or at least less tainted from the world. Women that are “jaded” by the world are often cynical and this is a huge turn off to men.

Note that some physical traits like virginity are not in themselves attractive. They are desirable. The same is true of being a Christian and growing in the faith.

The “5th” category seems to be “fetishes” for lack of a better word. I’m not talking solely about sexual fetishes, but men can get zoned in enough that they may rate certain hobbies or activities as attractive to them. We can look no further than gamers where a man may choose an relatively more ‘unattractive’ gamer girl over potential more conventionally attractive options. I’m not sure whether this “tunneling” is related to one-itis, but it may be. I generally would not include this in a general overall assessment, although it can play a role.

Composite numbers and the “floor” rating

When a man rates a woman it is a composite of all of these factors put together. Let’s look at an example of what a man may rate a woman in each of these categories:

  • Age — 30, but looks older for her age — 6
  • Face — Cute to pretty — 6-7
  • Body — Slim figure with voluptuous (.65) waist to hip ratio. Small breasts — 9
  • Femininity — Long hair, bubbly and enthusiastic. Has a streak of sarcasm, but smiles a lot — 8

Overall, her “composite” rating would probably be around the 7ish range

Individual ratings may depend heavily on individual preferences a man. For example, a man who likes large breasts may not rate a woman a “9” for body but maybe a 7 or 8 instead. Maybe for another man her face is his type so he rates her “8” for face instead. Maybe another man likes his woman looking young, so maybe she’s a 4-5 in age for him. Those are things that may affect individual components.

Some men prefer face and body to be the most important to them while femininity and age are not real big factors. Some men prefer face, body, and femininity and don’t care about age. Some men only care about age and face. Generally, most men will care about all 4 categories to some extent, but it really depends a lot on how heavily a man may weight different factors.

Instead of weighing in on absolute “percentages” for weighting the various criteria, I think it’s better to look at “floors” instead as they give a more meaningful assessment of whether a man may rate a woman attractive enough for him to ask out.

Example of floors

The example of my “floors” that I was looking for can be used as an illustration. Yes, I was looking for slightly to moderately above average in most categories. Yes, I knew it would be more difficult to find the more picky I was.

  • >=5 for age, which is about ~30 years of age or less. I wanted a large family, so the younger the wife the better. Around about 30 years old you notice that a woman is starting to lose her youth.
  • >=6 for face, which is self explanatory. Objective beauty plus personal preference.
  • >=7-8 for body, which means she regularly worked out and/or had good genetics.
  • >=7 for femininity, which means she has long hair, is above average for bubbly/enthusiastic/innocent, and isn’t too sarcastic and smiles often.

A woman who is 35 or even may meet my requirements (or any man’s requirements) for face, body, and femininity, but I may think she is too old. Likewise, a woman who may meet the criteria for age, face, and femininity may be up there, but unfortunately she may be overweight or obese which drops her out of the eligible attractive floor of a man.

The overweight/obesity scenario is probably the most common one currently. As I’ve noted in doom and gloom and the amount of attractive Christian virgins, it’s likely that up to 50% of women ages 18-29 are overweight or obese. This is probably the most depressing aspect since dropping weight for women tends to significantly increase her attractiveness for both body and face. The pointy elbow meme notwithstanding, every man has some “floor” to what he is looking for that may disqualify a particular woman from consideration.

Control-ability

What is “controllable” is obviously an important factor of a woman modifying her beauty to be more attractive.

  • Age — Not controllable. Age is obviously not controllable. This is why it pays for women to be open to approaches and marriage early. This definitely plays a role to some extent in that the most attractive age range is 20-23, but many men outside the internet don’t mind if a woman is at a higher age. Just know the search will get progressively harder as you get older.
  • Face — Somewhat controllable. Facial genetics are not controllable unfortunately, but most women can boost their beauty by anywhere from 1-3ish points over ‘normal’ if they focus on light makeup, solid grooming, and skincare. This can boost the women in the 4-6 range (which is most women) to the 5-8ish range with most in the 5-7 range most likely. This is huge. Remember, men are in general attracted to the average women, unlike most womens’ attraction to men.
  • Body — Mostly controllable. Body genetics do limit some areas like waist to hip ratios and breast size. If you google image ‘fat loss transformation women’, you can see a lot of fat women have the capacity to become at least a 7-8+ with solid diet and exercise. Plus, healthier, more enjoyable sex, and easier to get pregnant. There’s no reason for most women not to put in a lot of effort here.
  • Femininity — Fully controllable. God gave us free will, so we can change how we act. From what I’ve seen most women simply do not want to change how they act to increase their percentages. Most women could get themselves to a 7-8+ with some deconditioning from the world. After all, it’s not in the nature of women to be masculine but feminine.

Overall, an “average” woman can increase her beauty in the face, body and femininity categories to a 6-7ish range of face, 7-8+ range for body, and 7-8+ range for femininity.

Here’s the near ubiquitous poster example for weight loss (credit to crissfit.tumblr.com):

As you can see in the above photo, multiple categories improved substantially:

  • Age — obviously she got older, but no one could tell from the pictures. If you just isolated the last picture and the first picture, you’d probably guess that 124 lbs was younger than the 197 lbs.
  • Face — Maybe a 3 at best in the 197 lbs photo (mostly because of the fat on it) and likely in the 7 +/- 1 range for most men at 124 lbs. The fat goes away from the neck and cheeks, and her cheekbones and facial structure becomes much more feminine. Her skin clears up since obesity is very inflammatory and easily causes skin issues.
  • Body — 2-3 in the 197 lbs photo at best and jumps up to a 8 +/- 1 range for most men at 124 lbs. Her waist to hip ratio starts to come in around 140 lbs and is really emphasized at 124 lbs.
  • Femininity — Maybe 3 at best for flattering clothing on the top line. Obviously, can’t tell her personality so much, but the way she’s posing is not really feminine either. The clothing on the bottom line is much more feminine and flattering, and by the last photo she’s probably at least 7-8 range for most men. You can even tell she feels much better with her body in the last photo based on her posing.

Since the previous post, some of the interesting comments were that most women would rate her going from about a “5” to a “6” at the harshest to maybe a “4” to a “7.” However, what a “woman” would rate these other women doesn’t matter if her goal is to attract a man. What matters is what a man thinks.

If we refer back to the previous picture, why would most men rate her going from about a “3” to a “8” whereas most women would only rate her from going to about a 4-5 to a 6-7. The key to understanding this is curves:

“The real “sexually attractive” part of the 124 lbs picture is the bust to waist to hip ratio that is extremely alluring to men.”

There are very little natural curves when she is 132, but as she drops down to 124 lbs her natural curves become much more pronounced. Although you can argue that her clothing may be slightly immodest, she would still be rated in the 7-8 range with more modest but still feminine and body shape flattering clothing.

In any case, if you don’t believe me then here are studies. There is TRUTH to the fact that a .7 waist to hip ratio is sexually attractive to men. Pubmed studies include these, which tend to list a “most attractive” range from about .60-.75 waist to hip ratio in women.

Also,

We used eye-tracking techniques to measure the numbers of visual fixations, dwell times, and initial fixations made by men who viewed front-posed photographs of the same woman, computer-morphed so as to differ in her WHR (0.7 or 0.9) and breast size (small, medium, or large). Men also rated these images for attractiveness. Results showed that the initial visual fixation (occurring within 200 ms from the start of each 5 s test) involved either the breasts or the waist. Both these body areas received more first fixations than the face or the lower body (pubic area and legs). Men looked more often and for longer at the breasts, irrespective of the WHR of the images. However, men rated images with an hourglass shape and a slim waist (0.7 WHR) as most attractive, irrespective of breast size. These results provide quantitative data on eye movements that occur during male judgments of the attractiveness of female images, and indicate that assessments of the female hourglass figure probably occur very rapidly.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19688590

Men immediately know how attractive a woman is by her waist-to-hip ratio and her face, and then tend to spend the rest of the time looking at her boobs (at least from the front). If it was the back it would probably be the butt.

Overall, the point is that the last picture is flattering to her now alluring body shape with feminine and beautiful clothing that emphasizes the figure. At 132 lbs the woman likely has around a .9 waist to hip ratio, but in the 124 lbs picture she has around a .75  waist to hip ratio most likely.

Additional thoughts

There are a couple of things to note.

While this post is a breakdown of the factors that go into feminine beauty, it takes a man only a few hundredths of a second to a few seconds to look at a woman and give her a number in his head as noted by the study above.

A man does not look at a woman and hyper-analyze how attractive she is like this post. He can look at her at a glance or in a few seconds and know immediately what he thinks of her. However, this post is meant to break down the particular area(s) of how men make the snap judgment about a woman’s feminine beauty, which means they can make a snap judgment about whether he thinks she is worth asking out or not.

This is important because attraction is about getting your foot in the door, while desirable traits such as godliness, kindness, being good with children, being good with cooking and homemaking, and other traits such as these are what will help you keep a man. You need to be attractive enough for a man to ask you out, and you need to be desirable enough to keep a man. Generally, both men and women should strive for excellence in each of these categories.

I know quite a few Christian women that are good catches in terms of desirable traits, but they’re either overweight or obese. Hence, they may get asked out by a man here and there, but they don’t generate much interest in general.

To be frank, sex is a big part of marriage. To get a man to ask you out and want to marry you in general he must want to have sex with you. If you’re not attractive enough for him to want to have sex a lot, then he’s probably not going to ask you out on a date or going to want to have a relationship. The things that make him want to have sex with you are how you look — your physical beauty and femininity.

There’s nothing that can be said to make it more clear than that. Many people can certainly moan and groan about how it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s just whining about how God created man. Last time a checked, complaining was a sin. Accept it and learn to operate within God’s creation and perspective.

Conclusion

A woman can make herself stand out if she takes care of her face, body, and becomes more feminine. She can become somewhat to significantly above average in attractiveness, which will net her increasing prospects. Significant bonus points for starting earlier in age to prepare herself for marriage before her most attractive range of 20-23.

  • Age — Educate and prepare Christian girls from childhood to prioritize marriage. If she is prepared to be marriageable by 18 that is ideal, as she will stride into her prime years at 20-23 as an eligible woman for a man who wants to marry.
  • Face — Light but flattering make up, if necessary. Take care of the skin. Good grooming. Get good sleep to eliminate eye bags and stress. Don’t make it an obsession, but put some time into your appearance. Get the opinion of trustful men and women who will tell you if you’re looking busted or good. Don’t buy into any flattery.
  • Body — Heavier resistance training and eat healthy with mostly fruits and vegetables and adequate protein. Don’t be overweight or obese. If you need to lose weight, it’s all about a caloric deficit by eliminating excessive empty calories like refined sugars, snacks, and only eating ’til satisfaction and not full. Aim to gain leg and glute muscle and have a slim waist to get into the .6 to .75 waist to hip ratio.
  • Femininity — Wear flattering (to the waist to hip ratio) but modest clothing. Skirts or dresses that emphasize figure are good. Be feminine in behavior and demeanor. Have longer hair. Eliminate the sarcasm. Laugh at his jokes. Be respectful and follow a man’s lead when on dates. Enthusiastic but not clingly. Running a household is a priority to know. Know the Biblical qualities for how women are to act and do them.

While some men do marry women who are overweight or obese, this tends to be more of the exception and not the norm. Additionally, women who are overweight or obese also tend to marry men who are overweight or obese, so unless a woman wants her man like that I would suggest not being overweight or obese.

A random average Christian woman — 4-6 attractiveness — who works hard at the controllable factors of facial, bodily and feminine attractiveness can boost their face 1-2 attraction points, and elevate their body and femininity to the 7-8+ range with hard work and effort.

Generally, unless there are no Christian men prospects in an area, a woman who is a 6-7+ face, 7-8+ body and 7-8+ in femininity should have very little difficulty at least getting interest and being asked on dates and for relationships. In the communities I’ve seen, Christian women get asked out with less and mediocre faith.

The real question is… how many women would actually make the effort to put in work to be more attractive for their face, body, and more feminine. Not very many from what I’ve seen. Even less from Christian women.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 11 Comments

Women don’t really understand male attraction and implications

TPC’s response to feminine beauty is highly controllable theory and analysis is interesting. Although there is the typical disdain for anything that men have to say about women (which is amusing to say the least), this seems to indicate that women don’t actually understand male attraction at all.

In the wake of this epic 1996-level wild thread/discussion about marriage difficulty for young Christian men and women these days, the male blogger Deep Strength posted a long rambling thing about “feminine beauty” that made me realize a key part of where some men are talking past some women in these matters.

A scale is not a switch.  When some men use the classic 10 point scale for looks/beauty/attractiveness, they aren’t using it as a scale, but as a switch.  On/off.  Yes/No (to the question of whether they might, in the abstract, desire to know a woman in the Biblical sense).  That is why Deep Strength thinks the young woman in his post went from a “3” to an “8” when she didn’t budge much in the scale sense.  She wasn’t a 3 or an 8 to start with.  She was an average girl who now looks above average because she puts more effort into her dress and carriage and lost weight via exercise and diet.  On a ten point scale she went from 5 to 6.

But this blogger converted “went from girl I would never think of desiring to girl I might have desirous thoughts of right now” into ten point scale language. “From a 3 to an 8!”

This is, needless to say, confusing.  He could have simply used a switch and reduced confusion dramatically.

This is somewhat right and somewhat wrong from a switch point of view.

The concept of a switch is too basic. There is the common phenomena of “would do” or “would not do,” but in reality it’s more complicated than that which I explained in my post.

The concept of attraction floors is nothing new. Donal wrote on it a few year ago. Both Christian and secular men have standards for who they “would or would not do” but they also have a higher floor for “who they would marry.” This is why semi-attractive or attractive sluts are for pumping and dumping, but the attractive chaste lady is what they would look for to marry. The only difference is secular men actually pump and dump while maybe looking to marry and Christian men are either committed to be Monks or Patriarchs. The latter chooses to obey God.

On the other hand, TPC is wrong about this part which I find interesting enough to be main topic for this post:

She was an average girl who now looks above average because she puts more effort into her dress and carriage and lost weight via exercise and diet.  On a ten point scale she went from 5 to 6.

But this blogger converted “went from girl I would never think of desiring to girl I might have desirous thoughts of right now” into ten point scale language. “From a 3 to an 8!”

This is, needless to say, confusing.  He could have simply used a switch and reduced confusion dramatically.

Heartiste posted on it a while ago, and there is the general consensus among the majority of men that this woman went from about a “3” to about an “8.” Maybe plus or minus one point, depending on how men like red heads or whatever other factors. She most certainly did not go from a “5” to a “6” from a male perspective. It is vastly underestimating the importance of physical attractiveness.

Now, you could liken male attraction to female as a switch, but like I said before it does not quantify the complexity of the actual process. If we are only talking about “pure attraction” and were eliminating “desirability” factors, modesty notwithstanding, and eliminate morality from the equation, then for non-thirsty men approximately:

  • They would “not do” this woman at anywhere from about 197 lbs to 175 lbs.
  • They would “maybe do” said woman at 165 lbs to 155 lbs.
  • They would “do” said woman at 140 lbs.
  • They would “definitely do” said woman at 124 lbs.

To quantify this into actual numbers (which is why men use the 1-10 scale):

  • They would “not do” a woman at <= 3/10.
  • They would “maybe do” a woman at 4-5/10.
  • They would “do” said woman at 6/10.
  • They would “definitely do” at >=7/10.

As Donal notes, the attraction floor is the same thing men would use to quantify dating and/or marriage material as well from a purely attraction standpoint. There may be different qualifications for relationship status. Indeed, a man may only consider dating and/or relationship status in the “do” to “definitely do” range. A man may only consider marriage in the top part of the “do” and “definitely do” range. For example, to add on relationship status qualifiers:

  • They would “not do” a woman at <= 3/10. Would not date.
  • They would “maybe do” a woman at 4-5/10. Would not date.
  • They would “do” said woman at 6/10. Maybe date. Questionable marry.
  • They would “definitely do” at >=7/10. Would date, would marry.

Each man may have different qualifications for what he finds acceptable. Some would only marry at higher attractiveness levels. Some would marry with lower attractiveness levels.

A binary “yes” and “no” is too simplistic to understand the multiple various floors of quantification of female attractiveness.

Implications

The thing that I am most curious about is why TPC quantifies this woman at 197 lbs at a “5” and at 124 lbs as a “6.” It has been shown that the vast majority of males consider this woman from a purely attractiveness standpoint to be a “3” in the first picture and a “8” in the last picture.

Barring other qualifications like character, morality, and things like that, she moved from a “would not do” and “would not date” status in a man’s mind to a “definitely do” and “would date and would marry.”

As we have noted before, women generally are not motivated to improve their own attractiveness to men to up their potential chances for dating and marriage. Why is this?

  • Lesser motivation? Is it because women actually only see themselves and other women going from a “5” to a “6” in their own head, when in a man’s head they go from a “3” to a “8”? Vastly underestimating the importance of physical attractiveness?
  • Contempt for God’s creation? Whenever men discuss the attractiveness of women they always speak of it like they disdain how men were created by God to think about attraction to be pretty much solely physical beauty.
  • Passivity? Generally, women have been conditioned into being passive about their own roles and responsibilities in the dating and marriage arena?
  • Projection “just get it”? Women want men who “just get it” and want a man who “just gets her” or “loves her just the way she is”?

Anything I’m missing? Perhaps a combination of everything?

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 45 Comments

Paranoia

BGR has a post up on not to teach daughters to be independent. The comments are pretty long, but I eventually was able to figure out some of the roots of dysfunction with this comment:

Even attempting to compare men and women is wayward. Comparison breeds covetousness, jealousy, and discontent. The modern feminist is the epitome of this.

No, men and women are not equal. The reason why God created certain positions in marriage, in the Church, and on earth is to teach us how to live in harmony with His design. When we deviate from those positions, we think it’s beneficial but in reality it’s sin and destructive in the long run.

For example, 1 Peter 3 teaches husbands to view wives with understanding as the weaker vessel and in the grace as a co-heir in Christ lest their prayers be hindered. The meaning is ultimately that men and women are different and need to be treated different, but that we should all remember that we are all created by God. Treatment needs to come from love not harshness.

Feminists, egalitarians, and complementarians are paranoid that men are going to abuse women because they have authority. They make up stories about how “Patriarchy” was used to abuse women in the OT and NT when the Law of Moses and Jesus show us that Authority is mean to Protect, Provide, and Love. They live in Fear not Love.

After you stop buying into that nonsense, the Truth is pretty clear to see.

The one theme that is common between feminists, egalitarians, and complementarians in their waywardness from God’s design is that they promote paranoia in women and men of men in authority. This is true whether in marriages, the Church, or elsewhere. They’re all paranoid of men in authority positions.

The only reason why “Patriarchy” is demonized is because of the longstanding effort of feminists, egalitarians, and complementarians to demolish the structure of marriage that God intended for men and women.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 4 Comments

Feminine beauty is highly controllable theory and analysis

I’ve linked to The Rules Revisited article on feminine beauty is highly controlled a couple of times. I think the premise of the article is good, but it doesn’t accurately quantify beauty all that well.

Intro

Donal and other sources have already made a general quantification of what represents male attractiveness in PSALM/LAMPS — power/personality, status, athleticism, looks, money. These traits when broken down into Scriptural terms tend to signify that a man will be a masculine and authoritative and a protector and provider.

If you missed why attractiveness is important, you can refer back to my article about why attractiveness is an important part of marriage in the context of the Scripture.

On the other hand, men are almost 100% attracted to feminine beauty, so I believe it is important to quantify what this means.

Here’s an image from the article (credit to therulesrevisted):

In general, I don’t think quantifying feminine beauty by a scale of “100%” is an accurate indicator.

The 4-5 areas of female beauty

From what I’ve seen and experienced discussing with men, feminine beauty tends to be separated into 4 to maybe 5 distinct categories that all intermingle to form a coherent whole that may be rated on a numerical system.

The main 4 attractive traits are a mishmash of some of the above:

  • Age — Straight forward. Men’s optimal preferences via OKCupid study suggest between 20 to 23 is the most physically attractive age to men.
  • Face — Structure of the face, eyes, teeth, skin, and so on.
  • Body — Legs, hip, butt, breasts, ratios, fitness level, weight, and so on.
  • Femininity — Hair, girlishness of clothes (dresses, skirts, etc.), girlishness of demeanor, smiling.

Age and physical beauty are attractive to men because they are cues for fertility and ability to have many and healthy children. See: God’s mandate in Genesis 1 to be fruitful and multiply. Femininity is both part of the dichotomy of masculinity-femininity between the sexes and likely a solid positive mothering cue.

Face and body are pretty straight forward, and different men have different opinions on 6 what they deem as optimal. However, the vast majority of such beauty is relatively objective. Most men will rate a women within 1 point of where she may be at on a 1-10 scale. For example, an “8” might have 50% rate her an 8 whereas maybe 20% would rate her a “7” and another 20% would rate her a “9” and the last 10% may say 6 or 10.

Femininity is slightly convoluted. Hair length and clothing are pretty straight forward feminine aspects. However, girlishness of demeanor is a bit harder to quantify. Sweetness and kindness are related to femininity, but they are not attractive in and of themselves. Part of this “girly demeanor” is how a girl makes a man feel about himself. If she respects him and can make it known either subtly or overtly, it will tend to draw a man in. Seductiveness also plays a role, although how much of that should be used by Christian women is questionable. Additionally, there are some other almost intangible components of a girl demeanor like enthusiasm, bubbly-ness, and innocence that may also be attractive to men. In other words, it may signify that a woman is “untainted” or at least less tainted from the world.

Note that some physical traits like virginity are not in themselves attractive. They are desirable. The same is true of being a Christian and growing in the faith.

The “5th” category seems to be “fetishes” for lack of a better word. I’m not talking solely about sexual fetishes, but men can get zoned in enough that they may rate certain hobbies or activities as attractive to them. We can look no further than gamers where a man may choose an relatively more ‘unattractive’ gamer girl over potential more conventionally attractive options. I’m not sure whether this “tunneling” is related to one-itis, but it may be.

I generally would not include this in a general overall assessment, although it can play a role.

Composite numbers and the “floor” rating

In general, when a man rates a woman it is a composite of all of these factors put together. What happens is that a many will be able to look at a girl and evaluate her with a number in each of the areas. Let’s look at an example of what a man may rate a woman in each of these categories:

  • Age — 30, but looks older for her age — 6
  • Face — Cute to pretty — 6-7
  • Body — Slim figure with voluptuous (.65) waist to hip ratio. Small breasts — 9
  • Femininity — Long hair, bubbly and enthusiastic. Has a streak of sarcasm, but smiles a lot — 8

Overall, her “composite” rating would probably be around the 7ish range

Individual ratings may depend heavily on individual preferences a man. For example, a man who likes large breasts may not be rating her a “9” for body but maybe a 7 or 8 instead. Maybe for another man her face is his type so he rates her “8” for face instead. Maybe another man likes his woman looking young, so maybe she’s a 4-5 in age for him. Maybe he likes a bit of sarcasm, so she’s a 10 in personality. Those are things that may affect individual components.

Things that may affect overall grading may be the ‘weighting’ that a man may put on a certain category. For example, a man may have a ‘floor’ on his attraction range where he may not even consider marrying a woman with less than a “5” for face. Even if she had high ratings for age, body, and femininity, it may be hard for him to get past “butterface” even if she was only average. Of course, that’s his prerogative, but it may eliminate some potential candidates.

Some men prefer face and body to be the most important to them while femininity and age are not real big factors. Some men prefer face, body, and femininity and don’t care about age. Some men only care about age and face. Generally, most men will care about all 4 categories to some extent, but it really depends a lot on how heavily a man may weight different factors.

Instead of weighing in on absolute “percentages” for weighting the various criteria, I think it’s better to look at “floors” instead as they give a more meaningful assessment of whether a man may rate a woman attractive enough for him to ask out.

Example of floors

Personally, my “floors” that I was looking for when I was searching for a woman were approximately around these figures. Yes, I was looking for slightly to moderately above average in most categories. Yes, I knew it would be more difficult to find the more picky I was.

  • >=5 for age, which is about ~30 years of age or less. I wanted a large family, so the younger the wife the better.
  • >=6 for face, which is self explanatory.
  • >=7-8 for body, which means she regularly worked out and/or had good genetics.
  • >=7 for femininity, which means she has long hair, is above average for bubbly/enthusiastic/innocent, and isn’t too sarcastic and smiles often.

A woman who is 35 or even may meet my requirements (or any man’s requirements) for face, body, and femininity, but he may think she is too old. Likewise, a woman who may be meet the criteria for age, face, and femininity may be up there, but unfortunately she may be overweight or obese which drops her out of the eligible attractive floor of a man.

The overweight/obesity scenario is probably the most common one currently. As I’ve noted in doom and gloom and the amount of attractive Christian virgins, it’s likely that up to 50% of women ages 18-29 are overweight or obese. This is probably the most depressing aspect since dropping weight for women tends to significantly increase her attractiveness for both body and face.

The pointy elbow meme is a pretty common one, but every man has some “floor” to what he is looking for that may disqualify a particular woman from consideration.

This leads us to the controllable nature of feminine beauty.

Control-ability

What is “controllable” is obviously an important factor of a woman modifying her beauty to be more attractive.

  • Age — Not controllable. Age is obviously not controllable. This is why it pays for women to be open to approaches and marriage early. Most men outside the ‘sphere tend to be not so focused on age so much unless they want a large family, so this may not play so much of a role.
  • Face — Somewhat controllable. Facial genetics are not controllable unfortunately, but most women can boost their beauty by anywhere from 1-3ish points over ‘normal’ if they focus on light makeup, solid grooming, and skincare. This can boost the women in the 4-6 range (which is most women) to the 5-9ish range with most in the 5-7 range most likely. This is huge. Remember, men are in general attracted to the average women, unlike most womens’ attraction to men.
  • Body — Mostly controllable. Body genetics do limit some areas like waist to hip ratios and breast size. If you google image ‘fat loss transformation women’, you can see a lot of fat women have the capacity to become at least a 7-8+ with solid diet and exercise. Plus, healthier, more enjoyable sex, and easier to get pregnant. There’s no reason for most women not to put in a lot of effort here.
  • Femininity — Fully controllable. God gave us free will, so we can change how we act. From what I’ve seen most women simply do not want to change how they act to increase their percentages. Most women could get themselves to a 7-8+ with some deconditioning from the world. After all, it’s not in the nature of women to be masculine but feminine.

Overall, an “average” woman can increase her beauty in the face, body and femininity categories to a 6-7ish range of face, 7-8+ range for body, and 7-8+ range for femininity.

Here’s the near ubiquitous poster example for weight loss (credit to crissfit.tumblr.com):

As you can see in the above photo, multiple categories improved substantially:

  • Age — obviously she got older, but no one could tell from the pictures. If you just isolated the last picture and the first picture, you’d probably guess that 124 lbs was younger than the 197 lbs.
  • Face — Maybe a 3 at best in the 197 lbs photo (mostly because of the fat on it) and likely in the 7 +/- 1 range for most men at 124 lbs. The fat goes away from the neck and cheeks, and her cheekbones and facial structure becomes much more feminine. Her skin clears up since obesity is very inflammatory and easily causes skin issues.
  • Body — 2-3 in the 197 lbs photo at best and jumps up to a 8 +/- 1 range for most men at 124 lbs. Her waist to hip ratio starts to come in around 140 lbs and is really emphasized at 124 lbs.
  • Femininity — Maybe 3 at best for flattering clothing on the top line. Obviously, can’t tell her personality so much, but the way she’s posing is not really feminine either. The clothing on the bottom line is much more feminine and flattering, and by the last photo she’s probably at least 7-8 range for most men. You can even tell she feels much better with her body in the last photo based on her posing.

Based on the location that I’m in (suburbs) and what I’ve talked to with other men, it is very difficult to believe that such a woman wouldn’t have at least some decent prospects, especially if they are willing to be friendly and talk to men. Working out and nutrition are such a huge factor for most women like above though.

Conclusions

A woman can make herself stand out if she takes care of her face, body, and becomes more feminine. She can become somewhat to significantly above average in attractiveness, which will net her increasing prospects. Significant bonus points for starting earlier in age to prepare herself for marriage before her most attractive range of 20-23.

  • Age — Christian women need to be educated and prepared from childhood to prioritize marriage if she wants it. If she is prepared to be marriageable by 18 that is ideal, as she will stride into her prime years at 20-23 as an eligible woman for a man who wants to marry.
  • Face — Wear light but flattering make up, if necessary. Take care of the skin. Good grooming. Get good sleep to eliminate eye bags and stress. Don’t make it an obsession, but put some time into your appearance. Get the opinion of trustful men and women who will tell you if you’re looking busted or good. Don’t buy into any flattery.
  • Body — Workout with high intensity exercises like sprinting, heavier resistance training, and eat healthy with mostly fruits and vegetables and adequate protein. Don’t be overweight or obese. If you need to lose weight, it’s all about a caloric deficit by eliminating excessive empty calories like refined sugars, snacks, and only eating ’til satisfaction and not full. While some men do marry women who are overweight or obese, this tends to be more of the exception and not the norm. Additionally, women who are overweight or obese also tend to marry men who are overweight or obese, so unless a woman wants her man like that I would suggest not being overweight or obese.
  • Femininity — Wear flattering (to the waist to hip ratio) but modest clothing. Be feminine in behavior and demeanor. Have longer hair. Eliminate the sarcasm. Laugh at his jokes. Be respectful and follow a man’s lead when on dates. Enthusiastic but not clingly. Running a household is a priority to know. Know the Biblical qualities for how women are to act and do them.

A random average Christian woman — 4-6 attractiveness — who works hard at the controllable factors of facial, bodily and feminine attractiveness can boost their face 1-2 attraction points, and elevate their body and femininity to the 7-8+ range with hard work and effort.

Generally, unless there are no Christian men prospects in an area, a woman who is a 6-7+ face, 7-8+ body and 7-8+ in femininity should have very little difficulty at least getting interest and being asked on dates and for relationships. In the communities I’ve seen, Christian women get asked out with less and mediocre faith.

The real question is… how many women would actually make the effort to put in work to be more attractive for their face, body, and more feminine. Not very many from what I’ve seen. Even less from Christian women.

Comments are appreciated. If I missed anything, comment on it.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 5 Comments