Vox Popoli: Choking on the red pill

At Alpha Game, I consider one of the more problematic Churchian lies, namely, the idea that women of the Church are particularly attracted to men of strong Christian faith:

This may be among the most bitter of the various aspects of the red pill for some men, particularly Christian men, to swallow. It's a message we hear from Christians and Churchians alike, that women will be attracted to men who are godly pillars of the community, that being "sold out for Jesus" is not merely an attractive feature, but the most definitively attractive aspect of a man for a Christian woman.

There is one serious problem with this. It is not true.

I have no doubt there will be many Christian women who disagree with this. I would simply ask them to honestly ask themselves if their strong Christian husband would be as sexually attractive to them if he was every bit as faithful and godly he is now, but lacked his other attractive attributes.

Nor do I intend to pick on women here - let's face it, it's pretty clear when I'm doing that - it is merely that the Church does not teach women it is their faith that is their primary appeal to men. It does, however, teach men precisely that.

Labels: Alpha Game

224 Comments:

Stingray September 07, 2012 9:10 AM: This really isn't any different than learning that a woman's level of education isn't attractive to men. It might be considered an added bonus, but it is not what is initially found attractive.
Shutterbug September 07, 2012 9:12 AM: It was how he looked in baseball pants and his command of the game from the pitching mound...the faith was bonus.
Josh September 07, 2012 9:21 AM: http://www.boundless.org/m/article.cfm?url=/2005/answers/a0002596.cfm

This seems to be the kind of advice young churchians are receiving about dating and the sexual market place.

Here is the basic scenario: What if you have been long-time friends with a girl for three years and recently you started seeing her in a new light? We already hang out either with a group or alone pretty often. How do I go about transitioning? And how do I find out how she feels without making it awkward?

REPLY

Two thoughts occur to me. First, I like the idea of a dating relationship having some friendship history. If a dating/courtship relationship is anything, it should be an amazing friendship. Second, three years of close, opposite-sex friendship has created a context that will require very careful navigation. Trust me, there already is a relationship, and something significant is about to happen to it. By all means, though, it is past time to do something, and God wants to work it for everyone’s best and His glory.You’ve already read our articles about opposite-sex buddies and why we caution singles to be very careful about them for a variety of reasons. One of those is what you’re now experiencing: Given enough shared time and enough shared emotional energy, it is virtually impossible for stronger feelings not to develop. That’s great if it happens to both at generally the same time, but when only one of you begins to "fall," the friendship is on an unavoidable track to change. But when "buddy" feelings start giving way to deeper heart feelings, it is rare to ever go back to "buddies."

I advise that you have "that" conversation with her. There is no special secret to it; you just have to do it. As I have told many readers who’ve asked, "But what do I say?" you simply tell the truth.

Yes, it could be awkward. Yes, you will probably have knots in your gut. Yes, it could go either way. But it won’t be nearly as difficult as not saying anything and trying to stuff your feelings and emotions, especially when you’re around her. You have to do this. It wouldn’t be fair to either of you to if you didn’t.

It could be that, as you mentioned, she has had the same thoughts and is favorable to the idea. Wonderful! It will be a little weird at first, but that will eventually smooth out when you both get used to the idea.
Cane Caldo September 07, 2012 9:22 AM: I find it is the supposedly pro-Game Christians who have a harder time with this.

"Real Christians (not that Churchian rabble) are alpha just like Jesus Christ was an alpha."

Please. That Jesus had an impenetrable Frame is true, but he had zero SMP cred. Either accept the SMP as explained by Game (which I do), or keep your Christian knickers out of a bunch by avoiding Game altogether.

@Stingray
That is a silly comment; to compare everlasting salvation with higher education. Very silly.
ThirdMonkey September 07, 2012 9:24 AM: Case in point: When in high school, I often filled in for the pianist at our small country church. For some reason Fanny Crosby's greatest hits did not interest the ladies. But when a buddy of mine and I started a band, I had girls sitting in my lap while I played. And we weren't even that good.
Josh September 07, 2012 9:27 AM: That is a silly comment; to compare everlasting salvation with higher education. Very silly.

You completely missed her point.
Orion September 07, 2012 9:27 AM: At some rocky moments early on in my marriage I brought up bible references to my very christian wife. No dice. I had to resort to working other angles to calm her down. There is considerable logic and an attitude of patience in the Bible. Not so much in women. Bible 0 Hamster 1
Stickwick September 07, 2012 9:33 AM: That is a silly comment; to compare everlasting salvation with higher education. Very silly.

That's not what she was doing. She was comparing the difficulty with which men accept that their faith has zero value in terms of sexual attractiveness with the difficulty with which women accept the same about their education. She made a good point.
VD September 07, 2012 9:41 AM: This really isn't any different than learning that a woman's level of education isn't attractive to men. It might be considered an added bonus, but it is not what is initially found attractive.

Precisely.

That is a silly comment; to compare everlasting salvation with higher education. Very silly.

It's not a silly comment at all, rather, it is an astute one.
cherub's revenge September 07, 2012 9:43 AM: Not only are missionaries, priests, and pastors conspicuously missing from the romance novels and chick flicks of the world...

I think this is just a reflection of all encompassing secularization. When society was more religious, wasn't the handsome new preacher comes to town a literary cliche? Or maybe I'm just misremembering a Bonanza or Little House on the Prairie episode.The Thornbirds might be the exception that proves the rule.
stg58 September 07, 2012 9:45 AM: Merely throwing Bible verses at anyone as a crutch rarely works.

"Oh yeah, well the Bible says this!"

No worky
ThirdMonkey September 07, 2012 9:45 AM: At some rocky moments early on in my marriage I brought up bible references to my very christian wife. No dice. I had to resort to working other angles to calm her down. There is considerable logic and an attitude of patience in the Bible. Not so much in women. Bible 0 Hamster 1

I made some of the same mistakes early on, too. You can, and should, lead Biblically. Sometimes, you have to tickle the hamster occasionally to accomplish that.
Stickwick September 07, 2012 9:53 AM: The subject of this post is a good example of the difficulty we women have in disentangling features we find attractive in a sexual way and features we find attractive for an LTR.

But what about disentangling features we find unattractive in a sexual vs. a LTR way? I agree with Vox's premise here. However, I wonder about the opposite of a strong believer -- a positive atheist. I find positive atheism unattractive in a man, and I'm fairly certain it lowers his SMV in my eyes. A man can be physically attractive, but as soon as I discover that he's a positive atheist, I'm repelled. Even when I was a non-believer, I was repelled by these guys. I think it's because his intelligence is now indicated to be lower than I might have guessed and he probably has something wrong with him, like Aspergers. Or is the repulsion most likely based on other features strongly correlated with his positive atheism, e.g. severe gammaness, and not the atheism itself?
Viking September 07, 2012 9:55 AM: And this points out that women would do well to remember a simple truth. They are fallen also. This is what our churches are not so good at. Women, just like men, have to realize if they want to live a virtuous life they much choose to do so. It doesn't just happen. Women are not naturally "the good ones".

Once they realize this they will understand that they are attracted to the things of the world but if they think it though they can choose something better. Either that or they might want to consider letting Dad choose for them once again.
Grendelizer September 07, 2012 10:10 AM: Vox is correct in criticizing the de-masculizing teachings of modern "Churchianity."

I guarantee you that David, the warrior, psalmist, and king, made chicks wet. And he's often used as the archetype of one with a "heart after God."

So, yet again, it's not the Bible that's the problem, it's aberrant theology and application that's at fault.

Chicks dig "The Jesus Method," a felicitous combination of Lion and Lamb. ;-)
Grendelizer September 07, 2012 10:10 AM: Vox is correct in criticizing the de-masculizing teachings of modern "Churchianity."

I guarantee you that David, the warrior, psalmist, and king, made chicks wet. And he's often used as the archetype of one with a "heart after God."

So, yet again, it's not the Bible that's the problem, it's aberrant theology and application that's at fault.

Chicks dig "The Jesus Method," a felicitous combination of Lion and Lamb. ;-)
CR106 September 07, 2012 10:11 AM: I was engaged a couple of times before I married my present wife. I called it off with both of those women. I was a Christian, but I had a bit of rebelliousness in me. My wife says it is a bit of this bad boy image that attracted her to me. I don't practice all of the aspects of Game with her, but when I do, it works.

"It could be that, as you mentioned, she has had the same thoughts and is favorable to the idea. Wonderful! It will be a little weird at first, but that will eventually smooth out when you both get used to the idea."

I think that advice heads you directly to the friend zone: http://tinyurl.com/cp4s7xd

:-)
Houston September 07, 2012 10:16 AM: "I think that advice heads you directly to the friend zone."

More likely in the "creeper" zone.
Giraffe September 07, 2012 10:20 AM: I didn't find this blue pill aspect particularly difficult to accept. I can't think of any women that I know for sure were attracted to a man because of his faith, with the possible exception of one in my church. These women are rare, and I think they do it in spite of their own nature.

For the Christian, faith in a potential mate is a prerequisite. We probably make the mistake of checking that box, (or worse, not checking it) and then, male or female, focusing on the wrong secondary attributes. Men focus on the bewbs and whatnot instead of whether or not she's freakin crazy or if she make a good homemaker and mother. Women focus on the wallet and alphaness instead of the nice guy traits that will put food on the table and stay faithfull.
CR106 September 07, 2012 10:24 AM: A bit OT, but the commercial "Chicks dig the long ball" with Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine comes to mind.
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 10:25 AM: The subject of this post is a good example of the difficulty we women have in disentangling features we find attractive in a sexual way and features we find attractive for an LTR.

And this is the problem I have with this constant 'women don't know what they find attractive' idiocy. Have the questions been asked specifically, or just generally? Are the women being asked "do you find X attractive?" of "do you find X physically/sexually attractive?" You may get two different answers depending on how you ask the question. Since men's minds are a bit more sexually (simply ;-) oriented attraction=sexual attraction, there is no need for the adjective to distinguish the difference.
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 10:28 AM: That being said, I think women can rule a man out with regards to a relationship because of his lack of faith, but even going into a relationship it probably isn't a deal breaker for many women, after all, how many women don't subconsciously want to change their something about their man.....
jay c September 07, 2012 10:48 AM: And when a man's strong faith is very attractive to a woman, it isn't the faith that is attractive at all, but the accompanying intensity of purpose.

Women are lovers of violence and prefer violent men who take them with the implication of force.
Stickwick September 07, 2012 10:56 AM: You may get two different answers depending on how you ask the question.

I've never observed anyone but Vox to frame the question explicitly in terms of physical attraction vs. relationship attraction. Prior to this, I had always assumed it was my husband's integrity that attracted me to him, but it wasn't -- that fell squarely into the "potential husband" category, and I wasn't even aware of it.

Once the question is framed explicitly, it's easier to understand the difference. However, I contend that a significant fraction of women will still resist the notion that certain qualities are attractive only in a LTR sense. They'll insist that honesty and loyalty are very sexy, and will be reluctant to admit that e.g. a man's rude dismissal of them turned them on. I'm fairly certain of this, because I personally struggled with the concept when I started reading through the Manosphere. As a woman who strives to cultivate refined qualities and places a high value on godliness, I didn't want to admit that I had some rather crude sensibilities when it came to sexual attraction. And it was probably my pride that resisted the idea that the man who put a beatdown on me in a physics debate had stirred up some lustful feelings.
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus September 07, 2012 11:03 AM: Merely throwing Bible verses at anyone as a crutch rarely works.

Depends on if that person is saved or not.

If they're one of God's children, they will listen to the Bible.

If they're not, they'll dismiss the Bible.

Very simple, actually.
tz September 07, 2012 11:10 AM: Men can easily know this from the other side. You have two women, one is at best comely, but would be a faithful, Godly wife and holy mother outdoing the woman in Proverbs 31. The other is a perfect 10 superficially but is as close to a she-devil as humanly possible. Which one excites your body? That is the danger of pornography or even immodesty. And the parallel danger to women of dwelling on desire for the male that excites her. Other cultures cure this with arranged marriages or something close so that the parents get involved shortly after the first date.

Conforming to Christ means transcending the physical, the merely animal - sacrificing - crucifying the evil or fleshly desires so they can be resurrected. Grace builds upon nature, but sometimes that is like a cowboy breaking a wild horse.
Jay September 07, 2012 11:11 AM: SO TRUE.

Women will go for Braveheart long before they go for Ned Flanders (and understandably so).

The sad thing is that they'll "spiritualize" it by saying something like "I'm just not sure 'the Lord' wants me to be with Neddy", when in reality it has nothing to do with "the Lord", and everything to do with basic biological, psychological, emotional, and physiological strength so clearly on display.
VD September 07, 2012 11:12 AM: Have the questions been asked specifically, or just generally? Are the women being asked "do you find X attractive?" of "do you find X physically/sexually attractive?"

The context is always and only the question of women finding x sexually attractive. It has never had anything to do with long term relationships, which is why I was careful to highlight and distinguish the distinction.

The argument being put forward by various women is that they find traits normally indicative of lower socio-sexual rank to be sexually attractive, and in some cases, do not find the traits indicative of higher socio-sexual rank to be attractive at all. Needless to say, I am very dubious about that.

I contend that a significant fraction of women will still resist the notion that certain qualities are attractive only in a LTR sense. They'll insist that honesty and loyalty are very sexy, and will be reluctant to admit that e.g. a man's rude dismissal of them turned them on.

I very much agree. Many, many times women have told me how she initially "hated" or otherwise reacted negatively to a man she sooner or later took as a lover.
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 11:26 AM: The context is always and only the question of women finding x sexually attractive.

It doesn't matter what you think the context is. I asked how the question was phrased.

It has never had anything to do with long term relationships,

Wrong. And there's your mistake. With women it almost always has something to do with a LTR. Most (but not all) women will even think about an explicit one night stand in terms of a LTR. They will admit this to no one but their close friends, but it is there.
Nate September 07, 2012 11:26 AM: The Church abhors masculinity... Women adore masculinity....

It is what it is.
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 11:27 AM: However, I contend that a significant fraction of women will still resist the notion that certain qualities are attractive only in a LTR sense

Of course.
Curlytop September 07, 2012 11:28 AM: VD: I very much agree. Many, many times women have told me how she initially "hated" or otherwise reacted negatively to a man she sooner or later took as a lover.

And that used to be a common theme in Chick-flicks and literature of the past for good reason.
Nate September 07, 2012 11:30 AM: "Wrong. And there's your mistake. With women it almost always has something to do with a LTR. Most (but not all) women will even think about an explicit one night stand in terms of a LTR. They will admit this to no one but their close friends, but it is there."

ding ding ding. We have a winner. In fact.. most of the reason the one night stand is appealing is because it offers the escapism of a fantasy romance that could be spawned. Suspended disbelief and all that.
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 11:31 AM: The argument being put forward by various women is that they find traits normally indicative of lower socio-sexual rank to be sexually attractive, and in some cases, do not find the traits indicative of higher socio-sexual rank to be attractive at all. Needless to say, I am very dubious about that.

And obviously you, and every other male, should be. Rationalization hamster and all of that.
Orion September 07, 2012 11:33 AM: To clarify, I didn't spout chapter and verse. My mind doesn't connect concepts with numbers particularly well (or dates with events. A strange failing in a wannabe historian perhaps, but I was generally good at timelines and eras just not specific days). I suppose I was using arguments based on authoritative source. As I mentioned, the logic blew right past her hamster and I had to focus on dealing with the illogical emotional responses by other means.
Unknown September 07, 2012 11:37 AM: It's an interesting point... And I would probably be inclined to agree. Problem is, the top 5 attributes I needed to look for in a Husband were written down when I was 13 years old and #1 was a Heart for God. It's kind of affected how I look at men as an adult - lets just say I brainwashed myself.

I may have noticed other things first (it takes a lot less time and effort to see a cute butt in baseball pants than a heart for God), but it has usually been the heart that pulled me in to stay.

Thinking of my husband (who really isn't that strong a Christian because the "strong Christians" in our church weren't really so interested in me and my faith, but rather the cute ex-cheerleader having wild parties) - its when he displays attitudes and actions that I would think a result of a strong faith that make my pants drop. Like being a loving father, having a solid and sound discussion about scripture, or showing excessive patience in a moment of child-related crisis.

His Dr. Love imitations, kitchen molestations, and crude jokes just don't do it for me.
Stingray September 07, 2012 11:38 AM: Attraction can be established in about >3 minutes. After that it's the LTR stuff that starts to kick in. The attraction takes place often times before words are ever spoken. It's this first 3 minutes of attraction that I think Vox is talking about. This VERY soon turns into women vetting for LTR and that's when the waters get muddied.
njartist September 07, 2012 11:43 AM: "Not only are missionaries, priests, and pastors conspicuously missing from the romance novels and chick flicks of the world..."
I have a friend in the "clergy"; he has gone from hardcore No. Irish Protestant, to priesthood of Melchizedec, to Roman Catholicism, and now an "alternative" Old Catholic (or some such); and he graduated from Oral Roberts' college. He once boasted to me that the women in his circle wanted him to wear his collar when screwing them.
RedJack September 07, 2012 11:43 AM: OT:
That first post about the "Friend"..

If you find yourself in that situation, 90% of the time the best course is to walk away. If she sees you as "friend" it will not transform to "lover".

That is one of the big lies. If you are attracted to someone, don't be friends unless you are sure you don't want to be anything more than tht.
njartist September 07, 2012 11:45 AM: @Grendelizer,
"Chicks dig "The Jesus Method," a felicitous combination of Lion and Lamb. ;-)"

I think Trojan is coming out with that now: I hear their ad on Spotify.
Mazianni September 07, 2012 11:52 AM: When I attended a crazy Charismatic church for a few years, the women there certainly seemed more "into" the On Fire, Passionate For Jesus types of men. As I'm not an outgoing person myself, I considered this at the time a disadvantage for me.

That said, the most On Fire types did tend to be worship leaders or in other positions of up-front leadership. So I'd probably agree the actual attraction was social status more than anything else.
Nate September 07, 2012 12:02 PM: " Like being a loving father, having a solid and sound discussion about scripture, or showing excessive patience in a moment of child-related crisis."

Sure snowflake. Who are you convincing? Us? Or yourself?
FUBAR Nation (Ben) September 07, 2012 12:03 PM: I'm jewish and I've always noticed that the aholes get the hot girls. Treat a girl like you know what and she'll for some reason always come back. Do some, most, or all women crave drama? Is there such a fear of being bored?

I will disagree with Vox about one point: if you're a very religious or pious christian, jew, or muslim, that is the leader of the community, then that religiosity probably enhances attractiveness to women.

Where am I wrong?
Edjamacator September 07, 2012 12:09 PM: This reminds me of something a mother told me when she read my shirt at some store I was in. I didn't know her, and at the time I was a teenager who wore pretty exclusively Christian t-shirts. She read my shirt and stopped me saying that she liked it and that her daughter just started dating a guy who also wore shirts like that because "she likes his boldness." I didn't laugh in her face but as someone who always went to church and hardly had girls falling all over me because of "boldness" in attire, knew she was lying quite well to herself about what her daughter really fell for. These days I'd probably say "nah, it's not the shirts, it's how good he looks in them." Doubt that would be a welcome reply.
Nate September 07, 2012 12:10 PM: "I will disagree with Vox about one point: if you're a very religious or pious christian, jew, or muslim, that is the leader of the community, then that religiosity probably enhances attractiveness to women."

Its not the religion that makes that person appealing to women.. its the fame and power.
Stingray September 07, 2012 12:12 PM: FUBAR,

It's the leadership that is attractive, not the religiosity.
Stingray September 07, 2012 12:13 PM: Nate beat me to it.
FUBAR Nation (Ben) September 07, 2012 12:20 PM: That explains why leaders are always able to marry hot babes.

This can be boiled down to an equation:
Hot Babes = Power + Money + Alpha
Stilicho September 07, 2012 12:21 PM: Where am I wrong?

It's the leadership, not the religiosity that causes the attraction.
FUBAR Nation (Ben) September 07, 2012 12:22 PM: Alternatively: Hot Babes = Alpha(Power + Money)
Salt September 07, 2012 12:23 PM: A Catholic priest could attract lots of women. All he need do is walk through a trailer park trolling with a hundred dollar bill. ;)
Nate September 07, 2012 12:25 PM: Alpha doesn't require money... but the pretense of power.. and or danger... is a big part of it.

One can certainly have power and money and not be alpha.
Curlytop September 07, 2012 12:28 PM: Ben,

The being an "ass" is tricky bc it's really a subjective term.

Damaged women typically go for the true blue assholes who treat them literally like shit. It's called no self-respect. They believe they deserve what they get. And men who typically behave in the extreme are overcompensating for the lack of social status they have in the market place.

However, a man who is dismissive to a woman's whims and drama will be called an ass too. This is the type Vox and others are referencing when describing the true Alpha. He's an "ass" bc he simply isn't chained to the notions of elevating the female sex, nor does he placate them. As Nate/Stingray point out: the man flippin' leads and doesn't make excuses for his power.

"Fix me my sammach!" As the male Ilk are prone to say without batting an eye. ;-)

Which leads back to the disconnect within the Modern Church. The males have the "religion" but none of the leadership. How can they when the church has been so feminized? Women sense this on a gut level, hence lack of sexual appeal.
Stickwick September 07, 2012 12:28 PM: Many, many times women have told me how she initially "hated" or otherwise reacted negatively to a man she sooner or later took as a lover.

Similar situation: The wife of my husband's best friend used to go on and on about how much she hated my husband and would tell everyone what an a--hole he was. Her true feelings were revealed when he stayed over one night -- after his friend had fallen asleep, she stripped naked and tried to crawl in bed with him.

Most (but not all) women will even think about an explicit one night stand in terms of a LTR. They will admit this to no one but their close friends, but it is there.

Interesting point. I can't even have lustful fantasies without the context of a LTR. In my fantasies where I'm being ravished by a Roman centurion or a Viking, I'm somehow aware that his ultimate motive is to marry me, so that makes it okay. :-P
the abe September 07, 2012 12:30 PM: Wrestling not against flesh is certainly irrational. But so is dharma. Women are attracted to (digestibly) irrational charisma. Be it a sincere Christian or really any true believer, if you appeal to their irrationality, the rest falls into place.

(In a rush. Sorry if this has already been discussed by others)
VD September 07, 2012 12:40 PM: Damaged women typically go for the true blue assholes who treat them literally like shit. It's called no self-respect.

First, it's not just the damaged women who go for them or there wouldn't be so many ex post facto complaints. Second, "self-respect" isn't really applicable to women. Women tend to be much more oriented towards what could be called "social class respect". The average woman is less concerned with aligning her behavior with her individual ideals than with the social mores of the women of the social class with which she identifies herself. Hence the historical concern of men with those social mores.
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 12:42 PM: And I would probably be inclined to agree. Problem is, the top 5 attributes I needed to look for in a Husband were written down when I was 13 years old and #1 was a Heart for God. It's kind of affected how I look at men as an adult - lets just say I brainwashed myself.

I see you've met Nate. Don't let him bother you, Unknown; he's an absolute asshole to everyone. He might even be drunk right now.

Anyway, around these parts, we learn over and over the lesson that certain principles are typically true, even if there are outliers to whom they don't apply. Failure to account openly for said outliers doesn't make the proposition false.

It's not that you're certainly wrong. It's just that, if you're right, you're pretty far outside the normal range of women and that kind of makes what you described (for want of a better word) inapplicable.

Some folks here won't trouble themselves to phrase it nicely, so there you go, Unknown. Don't take any post here personally unless it mentions you.
Grendelizer September 07, 2012 12:43 PM: @jay c:

I quote: "Women are lovers of violence and prefer violent men who take them with the implication of force."

Clever. You get a gold star today. Or a beer.
Tiger September 07, 2012 12:49 PM: Catholic priests get a lot of attention. Your typical Catholic church has more than a hundred parishioners, often 500 or more. I've heard the women all whispering about the "handsome young priest". A priest can have his pick, if he chooses. And if he is attractive. :) Considering the agony aunts that focus on the priests, "attractive" means not fat, and younger than 50.
Curlytop September 07, 2012 12:58 PM: Vox: Second, "self-respect" isn't really applicable to women. Women tend to be much more oriented towards what could be called "social class respect". The average woman is less concerned with aligning her behavior with her individual ideals than with the social mores of the women of the social class with which she identifies herself. Hence the historical concern of men with those social mores.

ooh, good distinction. Thanks.

I forgot the example of the chick who believes in the Disney romance of "taming the beast" or as SB stated, "changing her man."
criticalofyou September 07, 2012 12:59 PM: And this is the problem I have with this constant 'women don't know what they find attractive' idiocy. Have the questions been asked specifically, or just generally?

You sound like one of those girls who's really looking for a nice guy. You know, one of those nice guys who is already attractive! Oops, you forgot to mention the last part.
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 1:01 PM: You sound like one of those girls who's really looking for a nice guy.

New around, aren't you, dear?
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 1:01 PM: Catholic priests get a lot of attention. Your typical Catholic church has more than a hundred parishioners, often 500 or more. I've heard the women all whispering about the "handsome young priest". A priest can have his pick, if he chooses. And if he is attractive. :) Considering the agony aunts that focus on the priests, "attractive" means not fat, and younger than 50.

Well, part of the "attractiveness" there is the forbidden-fruit issue. And some women love to "initiate" young guys because it makes them feel important and powerful (e.g., cougars).
Stingray September 07, 2012 1:05 PM: Josh, Stickwick and Vox,

Thank you.
criticalofyou September 07, 2012 1:10 PM: New around, aren't you, dear?

Nah, dude.
Buckeyecopperhead September 07, 2012 1:12 PM: Case in point:
With few exceptions, the girls in the Christian college I attended went there with the (stated) intention of finding a nice, Christian man and get their MRS degree. A few succeeded. Others, less homely in appearance, got an STD degree from a local or one of the African students. Dare I mention a few of the more athletic ones that got their LGBT degreee and now wear short, spiky hair, are adorned with multiple tattoos and piercings and own every album by Melissa Etheridge and the Indigo Girls.
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus September 07, 2012 1:14 PM: In my fantasies where I'm being ravished by a Roman centurion or a Viking, I'm somehow aware that his ultimate motive is to marry me, so that makes it okay. :-P

Wow, whole new perspective on you, Stickwick.

Let me guess, the centurion is expounding about quantum chromodynamics while he's ravishing you?
criticalofyou September 07, 2012 1:15 PM: And this is the problem I have with this constant 'women don't know what they find attractive' idiocy. Have the questions been asked specifically, or just generally? Are the women being asked "do you find X attractive?" of "do you find X physically/sexually attractive?" You may get two different answers depending on how you ask the question. Since men's minds are a bit more sexually (simply ;-) oriented attraction=sexual attraction, there is no need for the adjective to distinguish the difference.

Actually by this logic men are idiots because they ask, "Are women attracted to nice guys?" instead of, "Are women attracted to nice guys that are already attractive?"
criticalofyou September 07, 2012 1:19 PM: In my fantasies where I'm being ravished by a Roman centurion or a Viking, I'm somehow aware that his ultimate motive is to marry me, so that makes it okay. :-P

And if you put a smilie face after it makes everything good too.

In my fantasies I seduce and ravage women by the hundreds, forgetting about each one in turn and moving on to the next. :-P
Stickwick September 07, 2012 1:22 PM: Let me guess, the centurion is expounding about quantum chromodynamics while he's ravishing you?

I'd consider that pillow-talk. :^D
Stickwick September 07, 2012 1:25 PM: And if you put a smilie face after it makes everything good too.

:-P means I'm aware of how ludicrous the scenario is. You really are new here, aren't you. And none too bright.
criticalofyou September 07, 2012 1:29 PM: :-P means I'm aware of how ludicrous the scenario is. You really are new here, aren't you. And none too bright.

Yeah, I know what the smilie is for, thanks. You missed my point though.
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus September 07, 2012 1:29 PM: It's the leadership, not the religiosity that causes the attraction.

Exactly.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

This is the scriptural basis for this entire discussion.

Women, because of the fall, by nature want to be ruled over by men. Today's modern liberated women may not agree to this when it is stated in these terms, but it is true nevertheless. Women want men who will display leadership and provide for them (in the sense of wealth and being willing to do violence to protect them and their offspring).

This is why the soft, effeminate Churchianity type of guys don't end up getting married, or if they do, it's with someone they ought not to have, and end up being the recessive partner in an inverted marriage that fails because it is the opposite of what God planned Christian marriage to be. They don't display leadership since they're too busy trying to show the girls that they'll be "equal partners" in any coupling.

This is a far cry from God's ideal for marriage where the husband is supposed to be the wife what Christ is to the churches - the head, the guide, the leader, even going so far as to make the analog of his being "the saviour of the body," through his ministry of teaching his wife the Scriptures. In a strong sense, the wife's spiritual development is the responsibility of the husband - all this stuff about "spiritual women" going out and finding a husband who meets their criteria is unscriptural hogwash.

Fortunately, there are still Bible-preaching churches out there where the leadership is male and where scriptural marriage, and the lead up to marriage, is still taught.
Stingray September 07, 2012 1:36 PM: critical of you,

No, she didn't miss your point. It's rapport, which Stickwick has in spades and which you have amazingly demonstrated, you do not.
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 1:40 PM: No, no Stingray - critical is right on! I, for example, am just looking for an attractive nice guy - I would never date, much less marry, an AWCA.
Stingray September 07, 2012 1:49 PM: I would never date, much less marry, an AWCA.

I heard tell that this guy is exactly your type.

AWCA, indeed. You, for one, would never have sex with such a man.
criticalofyou September 07, 2012 1:54 PM: No, no Stingray - critical is right on! I, for example, am just looking for an attractive nice guy - I would never date, much less marry, an AWCA.

Ugh, I guess I have spell it out. I wasn't specifically talking about you, snowflake. Your comment was tantamount to complaining that guys don't ask whether girls are attracted to nice guys that were already attractive, which would of course be an absurd question. Of course when a guy is asking that he's not wondering about all the things that you might like in a man besides the specific things that would make you want to have sex with him. That's just an important subtext you have to get. Comprende paisan?
Stickwick September 07, 2012 1:59 PM: Comprende paisan?

Uh oh ...
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 2:01 PM: Your comment was tantamount to complaining that guys don't ask whether girls are attracted to nice guys that were already attractive, which would of course be an absurd question

And you were complaining that other people missed the point. Brilliant!
Nate September 07, 2012 2:01 PM: "I see you've met Nate. Don't let him bother you, Unknown; he's an absolute asshole to everyone. He might even be drunk right now."

You left out something... Here... let me fix it for you...

I see you've met Nate. Don't let him bother you, Unknown; he's an absolute asshole to everyone... and he has an enormous following of female admirers whom send him provocative pictures... he affectionately refers to them as his "harem"... which may in fact include the majority of the females who regularly comment here. He might even be drunk right now. He has this maddening belief that every female on the planet wants him... and unfortunately that belief gets reinforced fairly regularly... since the vast majority actually do. Game exists to explain the success of men like Nate."

There.

Isn't that better?
Nate September 07, 2012 2:12 PM: "In my fantasies where I'm being ravished by a Roman centurion or a Viking, I'm somehow aware that his ultimate motive is to marry me, so that makes it okay. :-P"

ahem...

Called it.
Jim September 07, 2012 2:14 PM: When I was actively dating, it seems like the Christian women want a partner to perform missionary work. It was particularly disconcerting that having a faithful Christian man isn't enough. They want someone to lead the church, be active with missionary work, and have daily devotions. While I will attend Sunday services and occasionally serve in small groups or fellowships, I resist participating more. These activities take a lot of time and are quite exhausting. At least half of dating prospects went nowhere because of this expectation. Needless to say on the other half, figuring out if she is attractive to you is quite a puzzle. Usually they aren't.

Its a shame that women in general are so hard to figure out. I suppose that why I developed a thick skin and focus on game to some extent.
ThirdMonkey September 07, 2012 2:14 PM: I see you've met Nate. Don't let him bother you, Unknown; he's an absolute asshole to everyone... and he has an enormous following of female admirers whom send him provocative pictures... he affectionately refers to them as his "harem"... which may in fact include the majority of the females who regularly comment here. He might even be drunk right now. He has this maddening belief that every female on the planet wants him... and unfortunately that belief gets reinforced fairly regularly... since the vast majority actually do. Game exists to explain the success of men like Nate."

Pelagian leprechauns and their fantasies. Funny.
criticalofyou September 07, 2012 2:16 PM: At some point it's just not worth it walking the toddler through the twists and turns and loops you have to get through on the playground to get it to the see the reward. Some people are just too stubborn. You are one of those toddlers Spacebunny.
Nate September 07, 2012 2:18 PM: "Pelagian leprechauns and their fantasies. Funny."

Please.

I'm greek... not irish... and 5'9" is actually average height... so while I consider myself short... apparently my opinion is baseless.
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 2:21 PM: At some point it's just not worth it walking the toddler through the twists and turns and loops you have to get through on the playground to get it to the see the reward. Some people are just too stubborn. You are one of those toddlers Spacebunny.

Ah, the "I could explain it but I can't be bothered" tactic. Very convincing, dear.
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 2:26 PM: You left out something... Here... let me fix it for you...

I see you've met Nate. Don't let him bother you, Unknown; he's an absolute asshole to everyone... and he has an enormous following of female admirers whom send him provocative pictures... he affectionately refers to them as his "harem"... which may in fact include the majority of the females who regularly comment here. He might even be drunk right now. He has this maddening belief that every female on the planet wants him... and unfortunately that belief gets reinforced fairly regularly... since the vast majority actually do. Game exists to explain the success of men like Nate."

There.

Isn't that better?

It surely expresses your, uh, unique take on reality much more clearly than I ever could, so...okay, sure. It's better.

So, are you done hijacking the thread now, or...?
Nate September 07, 2012 2:26 PM: "Ah, the "I could explain it but I can't be bothered" tactic. Very convincing, dear."

The favored rhetorical device of midgets attempting to talk down to giants.
Nate September 07, 2012 2:27 PM: "So, are you done hijacking the thread now, or...?"

Dear girl... if I wanted to hijack I would bring up my new .50 beowulf...
ThirdMonkey September 07, 2012 2:28 PM: I'm greek... not irish... My apologies. I often mistake Irish assholery with Greek assholery. They are quite similar, you know. And 5'9" is taller than Spacebunny, at least according to criticalofyou.
Josh September 07, 2012 2:31 PM: Ah, the "I could explain it but I can't be bothered" tactic. Very convincing, dear.

Maybe he's trying to neg you...
Josh September 07, 2012 2:34 PM: Nate, ThirdMonkey is about to start sending you provocative pictures...
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 2:34 PM: Dear girl... if I wanted to hijack I would bring up my new .50 beowulf...

First he preens and flexes for the ladies, and then he threatens me with a gun. I ask you, what is this blog coming to?
criticalofyou September 07, 2012 2:36 PM: Ah, the "I could explain it but I can't be bothered" tactic. Very convincing, dear.

I tried. Apparently, this giant is deaf, dumb and illiterate. Maybe negging would work. Isn't it supposed to work best on those with an inflated sense of selfworth?
ThirdMonkey September 07, 2012 2:39 PM: Nate, ThirdMonkey is about to start sending you provocative pictures...

Every picture of me is masculine and provocative, much like...a .50 beowulf. That's what my wife was initially attracted to, not my theological prowess.
Stickwick September 07, 2012 2:41 PM: I'm greek... not irish

"Greek? Well, that's even worse. I mean, they invented it." :^D
Scintan September 07, 2012 2:41 PM: OT:
That first post about the "Friend"..

If you find yourself in that situation, 90% of the time the best course is to walk away. If she sees you as "friend" it will not transform to "lover".

That is one of the big lies. If you are attracted to someone, don't be friends unless you are sure you don't want to be anything more than tht.

I've never found friendship to be a barrier.
Nate September 07, 2012 2:42 PM: "First he preens and flexes for the ladies, and then he threatens me with a gun. I ask you, what is this blog coming to?"

Dear girl... keep your skirt on... every mention of a firearm is not a threat. I was simply noting that the most effective way to hijack a thread on this blog.. is... and always will be... guns.
Nate September 07, 2012 2:44 PM: "Every picture of me is masculine and provocative"

Unfortunately you wouldn't be the first to send one of those... Though granted... El Zinky Pinky didn't mean for it to be masculine... it was certainly provocative... for example... it provoked me to slam the laptop shut and claw at my eyes.
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 2:45 PM: So, back on topic here.

Nor do I intend to pick on women here - let's face it, it's pretty clear when I'm doing that - it is merely that the Church does not teach women it is their faith that is their primary appeal to men. It does, however, teach men precisely that.

Exactly so. It's not so much the content of the faith, in most cases, as the ironclad insistence on living by it that makes for attraction. It's the confidence factor with a smidge of what looks neatly like rebellion.

No examples from me, though; I'm too weird.
rienzi September 07, 2012 2:45 PM: Fubar Nation Ben (the Jewish Guy),

Where am I wrong?

According to my Jewish wife, all of her Jewish sorority sisters, and pretty much every Jewish woman I've ever met, the problem with Jewish guys is that just about all of them took a horrible beating from the ugly stick.

Since then I've always thought that the, almost insane, drive for money and power we see from Jewish guys has very little to do with anything like world domination, and a whole lot more to do with just trying to get laid in the first place.
Curlytop September 07, 2012 2:45 PM: A thread covering Game/Religion with a troll, a Viking fantasy, harems, and a .50beowulf...

All we need is for someone to mention football and the thread is golden!
Nate September 07, 2012 2:49 PM: " It's not so much the content of the faith, in most cases, as the ironclad insistence on living by it that makes for attraction. "

bzzzt.

There is no widespread attraction. The ironclad insistence on living by it is greatly akin to the ironclad insistence on worshipping a female. In terms of attractiveness it is a huge turn off to the vast majority of women because they view you as neutered and totally harmless.

Nothing is more unattractive to a woman than a man they think is harmless.
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 2:49 PM: Dear girl... keep your skirt on...

And now he's undressing me with his keyboard! How far have we fallen!
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 2:49 PM: Nor do I intend to pick on women here - let's face it, it's pretty clear when I'm doing that - it is merely that the Church does not teach women it is their faith that is their primary appeal to men. It does, however, teach men precisely that.

Not having been to a church in the US for quite sometime, I'm curious, what is the church teaching women their primary appeal to men is?
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 2:51 PM: All we need is for someone to mention football and the thread is golden!

How 'bout them Patriots?

/workdonehere
Stickwick September 07, 2012 2:52 PM: All we need is for someone to mention football and the thread is golden!

Ah, Futbol, yes! The mosta beloveda sporta in America! Nate, care to get this particular discussion going?
Nate September 07, 2012 2:52 PM: "Not having been to a church in the US for quite sometime, I'm curious, what is the church teaching women their primary appeal to men is?"

To my knowledge it doesn't dare attempt to teach women anything. Church exists now as a place for women to pat each other on the back and talk about how awesome they are.
Nate September 07, 2012 2:53 PM: "How 'bout them Patriots?"

No wonder you're so hell bent on getting attention from me... your heathen patriots have to come to Tennessee sunday and you're terribly frightened for the life of your gay QB... and as well you should be... given that you apparently have the worst offensive line in the NFL.
Josh September 07, 2012 2:54 PM: Not having been to a church in the US for quite sometime, I'm curious, what is the church teaching women their primary appeal to men is?

Inner beauty, proverbs 31. Also, you're "the one" God created for some lucky man.
Nate September 07, 2012 2:54 PM: "Nate, care to get this particular discussion going?"

done... and done... you sexy bitch.
stg58 September 07, 2012 2:55 PM: Dear girl... if I wanted to hijack I would bring up my new .50 beowulf...

Do take us away, Nate. I would love for this thread to be hijacked by your .50 Beowulf. Maybe Stickwick can introduce the .50 into her next fantasy.
ThirdMonkey September 07, 2012 2:56 PM: All we need is for someone to mention football and the thread is golden!

How 'bout them Patriots?

No, hon, SEC vs Big 12. Who wants to talk about pro football?
stg58 September 07, 2012 2:57 PM: I am about to finish my CQB oriented FN-FAL. I can talk about that one all day long.

When I get it finished, my Cerakote expert will also laser engrave "Sic Semper Tyrannus" on the upper receiver.
Josh September 07, 2012 2:57 PM: Does the .50 want to marry her?
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 2:57 PM: Not having been to a church in the US for quite sometime, I'm curious, what is the church teaching women their primary appeal to men is?

Last one I went to had the preacher talking about "family togetherness" as the true meaning of Christmas, and explaining how he was in a position to understand the importance of Christ's birth because of his own feelings during the birth of HIS oldest child...

...And the women's group was pretty much nothing but "be yourself", "you are a princess, let no one tell you otherwise", and "he must sacrifice for you always to be worthy".

I ran before I suffocated in all the smoke that was being blown at me. It's bad here.
Nate September 07, 2012 2:57 PM: They play football in the Big 12? Since when? Did I slip and fall back into 1995 or something?
Josh September 07, 2012 2:58 PM: No, hon, SEC vs Big 12. Who wants to talk about pro football?

When did we stop paying our players?
Josh September 07, 2012 2:59 PM: Also, for what the church is teaching about marriage, look up the success of the movies fireproof and courageous.
Nate September 07, 2012 3:00 PM: Now see Mrs Pilgrim?

I was hijacking on this blog when you were still in diapers. That's how its done.
Curlytop September 07, 2012 3:01 PM: SCORE!!!!
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 3:01 PM: No wonder you're so hell bent on getting attention from me... your heathen patriots have to come to Tennessee sunday and you're terribly frightened for the life of your gay QB... and as well you should be... given that you apparently have the worst offensive line in the NFL.

What is your prob--

*reads back over thread*

and 5'9" is actually average height... so while I consider myself short...

...Oh, got it. I withdraw the question.
Stickwick September 07, 2012 3:03 PM: This is one of the funnest comment threads ever.

Maybe Stickwick can introduce the .50 into her next fantasy.

Well, that would fit right in with my Delta Force fantasy. But in terms of symbolism, you can't do better than a gladius. (I was going to say "you can't beat a gladius," but given how this thread has already degenerated, I thought better of it.)
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 3:04 PM: Also, for what the church is teaching about marriage, look up the success of the movies fireproof and courageous.

When you say "success", Josh, are you referring to box-office numbers or some other metric?
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 3:05 PM: But in terms of symbolism, you can't do better than a gladius.

Only if they go with a shield in the other hand. Shields are hot.
Nate September 07, 2012 3:05 PM: "When you say "success", Josh, are you referring to box-office numbers or some other metric?"

I think he means... popularity amongst churchian culture. I can attest to that.
ThirdMonkey September 07, 2012 3:06 PM: Not having been to a church in the US for quite sometime, I'm curious, what is the church teaching women their primary appeal to men is?

Kneeling and praying at the altar and "inadvertently" displaying a whale tale, regardless of body type, with the objective of being in a series of monogamous relationships.
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:07 PM: It would work, Stickwick. Just think about it. The .50 Beowulf is long, hard, powerful and has a huge umm..."muzzle blast". Your Green Beret husband could shoot it from the hip while smoking a big cigar.
Nate September 07, 2012 3:08 PM: "I ran before I suffocated in all the smoke that was being blown at me. It's bad here."

I wish you were exaggerating here. Sadly... I know you're not.
RedJack September 07, 2012 3:10 PM: Nothing is more unattractive to a woman than a man they think is harmless.

Which was my point. If you have been "friends" for three years, they think your harmless. You can change that (and when I was single, I did that a few time for amusement), and start playing Game, but it does mean that the friendship is probably over.
Nate September 07, 2012 3:11 PM: " Your Green Beret husband could shoot it from the hip while smoking a big cigar."

No no... she's a hostage dufus... the green beret saves her with the .50 beowulf... and she gives herself "reluctantly" to him later that night... in a one night stand... while pretending he may actually fall sweep her away to his home and live happily ever after.

pay attention!
Giraffe September 07, 2012 3:11 PM: Holy smoke, not your typical Friday.

Nate, saw a used Para Ordnance PT14-45 in a pawn shop today. They want $500. I always wanted a 1911.....

What do you think its worth? Looked well used.
Stickwick September 07, 2012 3:15 PM: It would work, Stickwick. Just think about it. The .50 Beowulf is long, hard, powerful and has a huge umm..."muzzle blast". Your Green Beret husband could shoot it from the hip while smoking a big cigar.

Okay, buddy, that's it. We're at full degeneration now. Sometimes a long, hard, powerful gun with a huge muzzle blast is just a long, hard, powerful gun with a huge muzzle blast. The cigar, on the other hand ... :^D

[By the way, "Beowulf" is just about THE coolest, most alpha name a huge-caliber pistol could have.]
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:15 PM: Nate,

Oh yeah I forgot about that. Sorry, I was dreaming about some beer I drank the other night. It was good.
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:16 PM: Stickwick--

Whoa. You can't go full degeneration. You need to hold some back. Believe me, it could get worse.
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:17 PM: Nate, saw a used Para Ordnance PT14-45 in a pawn shop today. They want $500. I always wanted a 1911.....

You want double stack .45? Springfield XD.

You want other .45? 1911. Bar none.

Para-Ordnance? C-c-crappy.
Nate September 07, 2012 3:17 PM: Any para 1911 is worth 500 bucks. You can't lose money on that deal.
Nate September 07, 2012 3:17 PM: But I agree with STG58...

I hate Para.
Giraffe September 07, 2012 3:17 PM: [By the way, "Beowulf" is just about THE coolest, most alpha name a huge-caliber pistol could have.]
stg58]

Its cute when the ladies try to talk guns, but the "Beowulf" is a rifle cartridge, generally.
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:17 PM: Stickwick, the .50 Beowulf is a rifle.
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:18 PM: Stickwick is thinking of the .500 S&W. It is as big as a Ruger 10/22.
Giraffe September 07, 2012 3:18 PM: Thought I might offer them 400.
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:19 PM: That is all I would ever pay for a Para.
Giraffe September 07, 2012 3:20 PM: Maybe she was talking "guns" as opposed to "rifles". My bad.
Stickwick September 07, 2012 3:21 PM: No no... she's a hostage dufus... the green beret saves her with the .50 beowulf... and she gives herself "reluctantly" to him later that night... in a one night stand... while pretending he may actually fall sweep her away to his home and live happily ever after.

You're a little too good at this, Nate. Only modification I would make is that Mr. Green Beret would take his reward for his efforts in a manner that is simultaneously brutal and sensitive. There would be a mild bit of token resistance before succumbing to his smoldering, virile charms. (I think we've got a pretty good start on a romance novel, there. Who gets the credit?)
Nate September 07, 2012 3:21 PM: "Its cute when the ladies try to talk guns, but the "Beowulf" is a rifle cartridge, generally."

Hey... no stock and a 12 inch barrel.. and the AR-15 is legally a pistol.

And really... what lady isn't satisfied with 12 inches?
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:21 PM: Physicists are generally rather precise...
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:22 PM: And really... what lady isn't satisfied with 12 inches?

The fifty foot tall woman.
Nate September 07, 2012 3:23 PM: "You're a little too good at this, Nate."

Oh I hear that all the time...
Stickwick September 07, 2012 3:25 PM: Its cute when the ladies try to talk guns, but the "Beowulf" is a rifle cartridge, generally.

Really? Well, sheesh, there goes my gun cred. It's still a super-cool name for anything to do with guns.
Stingray September 07, 2012 3:26 PM: Holy crap . . . go out for a couple of hours and . . . what the hell happened?
Stickwick September 07, 2012 3:28 PM: Oh I hear that all the time...

Ba-dum, tish!

Holy crap . . . go out for a couple of hours and . . . what the hell happened?

Pandemonium.
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 3:29 PM: Who gets the credit?

The fifty-thousand "authors" who will copy it word-for-word into their own works.
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 3:31 PM: Holy crap . . . go out for a couple of hours and . . . what the hell happened?

The usual.

Popcorn? Extra butter.
Stingray September 07, 2012 3:33 PM: Popcorn? Extra butter.

Ooh, ooh! Yes, please.
Giraffe September 07, 2012 3:33 PM: You want double stack .45? Springfield XD.

My brother's got an XD-M in 40. I didn't care for the trigger.
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:34 PM: "You're a little too good at this, Nate."

Oh I hear that all the time...

Play softball much, Stickwick?
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:34 PM: Giraffe,

You can get trigger jobs on Springfield's. There are different styles of trigger on the XD's. I got the good kind.
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:37 PM: Hijacking complete.
Giraffe September 07, 2012 3:39 PM: I believe they are striker fired. Methinks that a substantial amount of travel is therefore necessary. Don't like that.

But:
1. I could be wrong that they need travel,
2. Or I could get used to it if it was smooth.

I have a ruger mark 2. That's the kind of trigger pull I like. That may be all wrong on a combat arm. I'm a noob to "combat" handguns.
Stickwick September 07, 2012 3:39 PM: Play softball much, Stickwick?

Evidently.
Cane Caldo September 07, 2012 3:43 PM: @VD, Stingray, et al

The phrase "It might be considered an added bonus" is what I keyed off of.

Within the realm of things that are not solely about pure sexual attraction, but are LTR considerations (which as has been noted come soon after and muddle with, the initial attraction) as bonuses or deal-breakers: comparing a state of a person's faith to the state of a person's education is silly. Most men don't care one way or another about a woman's sheepskin (income or outright brainpower might be different matters). Every Christian ought to be concerned with not being unequally yoked.

Anyway, it was an unnecessary for me to have made the comment.
Doom September 07, 2012 3:46 PM: This is a silly churchian lie though. No man, to my knowledge, has ever corralled a woman by suggesting they go to his place and check out his bible. Bzzz... Religion might, and I do mean might, be mentioned during the flirting, getting to know stage, but even then it's more like the notion that if she says she has ticks but all else is good you assure her you have matches. The church can lie all it wants, no one believes that (well, anyone who has dated even several women).
Josh September 07, 2012 3:51 PM: ".50 shades of green beret"
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:56 PM: Cane Caldo and Doom,

You are ruining our perfectly good thread hijack! Don't change the subject.
stg58 September 07, 2012 3:57 PM: This is a silly churchian lie though. No man, to my knowledge, has ever corralled a woman by suggesting they go to his place and check out his bible.

I corralled my wife back to my apartment to check out my guns. She thought I was a serial killer for a while.
Stingray September 07, 2012 3:59 PM: ".50 shades of green beret"

Doesn't there have to be some kind of sparkly half man/half animal type creature that is oh so sad? Let's not kill the formula, mmmmkay?
stg58 September 07, 2012 4:00 PM: mm...green sparkles...
Stickwick September 07, 2012 4:10 PM: You are ruining our perfectly good thread hijack! Don't change the subject.

Yeah, point of order! You can't unhijack the hijack, can you?

".50 shades of green beret"

Okay, since that's by far the most apt name for our cheesy romance novel, we've now got three authors. I suggest we condense them into one nom de plume. How about "50 Shades of Green Beret by the well-known French author, I. M. Hornée."
Stingray September 07, 2012 4:11 PM: Cane Caldo,

As you said, in terms of a LTR, for a Christian it should be. When it comes to visceral attraction, the two are equally comparable. Having said that, what should be and what is, are quite different and many women will forgo many things they once thought were important for a man they attracted to.
Kickass September 07, 2012 4:11 PM: What the hell?
stg58 September 07, 2012 4:13 PM: What the hell?

My thoughts exactly.
Stingray September 07, 2012 4:15 PM: Yeah, point of order!

Oops! Sorry.

Green sparkly vampseal with a .50 Beowulf with a 12 inch barrel. Got it.
Kickass September 07, 2012 4:18 PM: Dread ilk my ass. Stickwick, have you been drinking? I feel like I walked in on spin the bottle. Yep/cb/critical, quick come back and start a fight. Nate is at critical mass here.
Stickwick September 07, 2012 4:23 PM: Green sparkly vampseal with a .50 Beowulf with a 12 inch barrel. Got it.

Now we're back on track.

(This was a good post about Game. I have no idea what happened -- I'm probably partially to blame -- but at least we managed some meaningful discussion before it went completely off the rails.)
Stickwick September 07, 2012 4:28 PM: Dread ilk my ass. Stickwick, have you been drinking?

Heh. Unfortunately, no. I'm pregnant, so it's just run-of-the-mill hormonal craziness.
Kickass September 07, 2012 4:33 PM: Good on you and yours and that explains it. Congrats.
SarahsDaughter September 07, 2012 4:35 PM: Congratulations Stickwick!
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 4:39 PM: Dread ilk my ass. Stickwick, have you been drinking? I feel like I walked in on spin the bottle.

What, these things don't fill you with dread?

This is the real secret behind the libertarianism here, you know: not a resistance to being led, but an inability to stay on track for more than thirty seconds before dashing off after OOH SHINY! *dashes off*
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 4:41 PM: Congrats, Stickwick!
Stingray September 07, 2012 4:42 PM: Stinckwick,

Congrats! Hormones . . . aren't they grand?
Nate September 07, 2012 4:47 PM: Stickwick...

It isn't mine.

I'm almost certain.
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 4:49 PM: Hang on a second. Where were we? Guns or something?
Nate September 07, 2012 4:49 PM: Stingray...

StiNkwick?

REALLY?

is that a petname or something?
Spacebunny September 07, 2012 4:50 PM: Congratulations Stickwick!
Stingray September 07, 2012 4:51 PM: OH MY!!!! That's one hell of a typo! Could make an interesting pet name though . . . ; )
Stingray September 07, 2012 4:52 PM: I was just sending my kids for a bath . . . that must be it.
Doom September 07, 2012 4:57 PM: Stickwick, pregnant? Fuh me running. I always thought you... were... well... uhrm... impregnable!

And I often think I fell into a game of spin the bottle here. Damn kids.
Curlytop September 07, 2012 4:58 PM: Damn it! This is why I hate leaving a thread when it gets hijacked!!!

Stickwick September 07, 2012 4:28 PM
Dread ilk my ass. Stickwick, have you been drinking?

Heh. Unfortunately, no. I'm pregnant, so it's just run-of-the-mill hormonal craziness.

Congrats Stickwick! I remember those hormones quite well.
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 4:58 PM: I was just sending my kids for a bath . . . that must be it.

Yours are regular stinkers, too?
Stickwick September 07, 2012 5:05 PM: Thanks, everyone!

Stingray: Too funny on the typo! Yes, I'm really enjoying this hormone overload, and so is everyone around me. I think this is the closest to functional insanity I'll ever get.

Nate: Let's hope you're right. You're a redhead, no? My husband told me if this kid comes out anything other than blonde and blue-eyed, I'm in BIG trouble.
JDC September 07, 2012 5:08 PM: Re: What the church is teaching women (and men I will add).

I am a member of a conservative denomination in what I would call a largely conservative congregation. No arguments about gay marriage, no arguments about female clergy, no arguments about abortion.

In Bible study last month we were going through Ephesians - and we got to that bit in chapter 5 where Paul outlines submissiveness in a marriage. Women submit to your husbands, as the husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of His church.

What always gets me is the almost reliable complaint about submission. It's not fair, it's not right, it's not in keeping with cultural norms, my husband is a meanie and an idiot.....

The reminder I always like to add is that both parties are to exhibit submissiveness. The wife to her husband and the husband to Christ. And when husbands understand that their role as head of household is taken from Christ's sacrifice for His church...that usually helps.

In my experience, churches have done a terrible job in this arena, usually not addressing submission / head of household at all - because the notion that a women should submit to anything, let alone her husband is ludicrous. And for men, for them to display sacrificial love to their wife and/or family is perhaps equally ludicrous in our country.
Idle Spectator September 07, 2012 5:08 PM: After reading all the Christian advice, I think I can sum it up.

1) Stick penis in a glass box in case of emergencies.
2) Allow her to break glass box at her leisure while penis-owner stands around waiting.
3) While said penis is in glass box, it is unusuable in other situations.

I'm pumped. Let's do it.
Stingray September 07, 2012 5:09 PM: Yours are regular stinkers, too?

End of summer, hot humid days, playing outside with their friends . . . phew yes! I love that smell though, as much as it stinks. It's how kids should smell this time of year.
Mrs. Pilgrim September 07, 2012 5:15 PM: JDC, ask 'em if they think the "love your wives" part should also be optional. I mean, after all, it's not fair, it's not in keeping with cultural norms, their wives are meanies and idiots...
Curlytop September 07, 2012 5:15 PM: Stingray September 07, 2012 5:09 PM
Yours are regular stinkers, too?

End of summer, hot humid days, playing outside with their friends . . . phew yes! I love that smell though, as much as it stinks. It's how kids should smell this time of year.

Amen! That has been a much welcomed addition to our move. If the kids aren't in the neighbors' fields across the street, they're across the dam gawd knows where in the woods. It's a great life. :-)
jay c September 07, 2012 5:33 PM: Clever. You get a gold star today. Or a beer.

Beer.
Cane Caldo September 07, 2012 5:34 PM: @Stingray

Yes, I'm aware of the realities of our times...all times. I tend to key on things like this because I see what appears to be too much acceptance, and not enough prescription against. Churchians are so stupid, etc, etc.
Grendelizer September 07, 2012 6:02 PM: @Nate

Got a muzzle brake with the .50B?
Nate September 07, 2012 6:08 PM: Stickwick... in all seriousness darlin'... congratulations. I'm gonna light a Romeo y Julietta for ya'll tonight.

God bless.

1 – 200 of 224 Newer› Newest»

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>: <$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts

Current Reading:
Cambridge Medieval History Series, Vol. I
Current Playing:
ASL S15
Current Writing:
Arts of Dark and Light: Book Two