The single women of Amarillo, Texas

Having recently discovered that Amarillo, Texas has a surplus of single women, I thought I’d look up some of these women on an online dating service. Here are quotes from some of their profiles:

“My faith is in God. I love Jesus and want to live my life in a way that is pleasing to Him.”

“Love having God in my life. He's helped me through some very tough and scary stuff. Need to know that is a priority in my potential match. At least the believing in Him part!”

“I have a relationship with Jesus, not a religion. I would never date a non-believer. I am seeking a godly man who loves the Lord and seeks to please Him with his life.”

“I also love music and children, worshiping the Lord Jesus Christ, and spending time with my family."

"I love GOD.”

“I simply believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God he came, died for our sins, rose from the dead, and now sits at the right hand of the Father God. And He will return one day.”

It seems that in order to date a woman in Amarillo, Texas, you need to love God and Jesus, or at least be willing to pretend that you do.

You also have to love other people’s kids, because nearly all these women have at least two of them.

Besides these two flaws, they seem like nice people.

* * *

In contrast, if you find a Manhattan woman’s dating profile that says anything about religion, it is likely to say something like:

“I have been becoming more spiritual with age and believe in the power of the universe.”

I think that’s code-speak for believing in the post-Christian goddess of Mother Nature religion. Yuck! I think it's easier to deal with Jesus. At least Jesus is a Republican.

Comments

[Rain And]

Yuck! I think it's easier to deal with Jesus.

The Mother Nature Jesus will probably be cooler about sex before marriage. Also the Manhattan airheads probably have less bastards for you to raise.

[Brandon Berg]

"I have been becoming more spiritual with age and believe in the power of the universe."

Ah..."spiritual but not religious." All the warm fuzzies, with none of the pesky rules!

[Jason]

"Besides these two flaws, they seem like nice people".

I am not religious myself. But I have noticed that people ARE nice in places like Amarillo where religion plays a big role. On the other hand, I find people are more rude and sometimes downright mean in the more secular large cities on the coasts.

[SFG]

Sure, love thy neighbor. The few evangelicals I knew were very nice.

Yeah, I'd pretend to be religious if I had to. I don't have much in the way of ethnic loyalty, and after a while people are going to start thinking I'm gay.

[Half Sigma]

Brandon Berg: "Ah...'spiritual but not religious.' All the warm fuzzies, with none of the pesky rules!"

Not entirely true Brandon. There are dietary restrictions.

[superdestroyer]

Rain And,

I doubt if many of the kids are Bastards. Most of the single women in Amarillo are divorced with children. My guess is that they married young and are now divorced and that the ex lives somewhere else (like Dallas or Denver).

[arglebargle]

Anyone who knows any girl from high school that became religious later in life knows that these girls used to be sluts.

It would be very easy to sleep with these women. You could even discuss the pain of abstention together. Just like two fat people do before splitting a pint of ice cream.

[Hubbert]

"Ah...'spiritual but not religious.' All the warm fuzzies, with none of the pesky rules!"

I don't think it's the "rules" as much as the self-consistent logic (once you accept the initial premises). Usually there's a sacred text that you are supposed to *read,* *memorize,* and *think* about. You might be encouraged to learn an ancient language (Catholic: Latin, Protestant: Greek, Jewish: Hebrew).

[Peter]

Dunno, Half, your postings seem to be getting snarkier by the day ...

[superdestroyer]

arglebargle,

Most of the women in Amarillo did not find religion after the divorce. They were probably religious while growing up and have now become more religious after the divorce. That is one of the reasons they marry so early as compared to NYC. Look at http://www.city-data.com/housing/houses-Amarillo-Texas.html and see the age distributions

I'm a mother nature goddess worshiper. I'm not really worried about having an incoherent belief system since most of the GOD folks spend the best morning of the week praying to the Space Ghost and giving money to charlatans. If that's coherence, I like being flighty. I mean, honestly, I feel pretty rational...I eat what I've found to be healthy, try to do right by animals and the planet, and worry about people, too. I have lots of friends who think like me and I'm pretty sure we'd all run over the puppy instead of the pedestrian.

I have a background in science, so I'm not pulling shiite out of my ass or anything, I like reasoned, measured approaches to problems and try to err on the side that causes the least damage, and this is where I ended up.

Back to topic - I've found religious chicks to be the freakiest. The earth goddess chicks are fun and can let go and are comfortable with the act, but how can you beat someone who is balancing guilt, fear, desire and seething repressed urges?

[Gannon]

My gf is catholic, although her father is jewish. She believes in Catholicism, within reason. By the Half Sigma, according to the New York Times you are a software programmer in your eraly forties. Are you married or looking for your wife? What age range ar you looking for? 25-32?

[roissy]

You also have to love other people’s kids, because nearly all these women have at least two of them.

Besides these two flaws, they seem like nice people.

lol. having banged a couple of texas girls, these personals ads ring true. most of them are god-fearing girly girls with bastard kids from an early disastrous relationship to a bad boy. if you are a northeasterner from the big city coming down to tx to visit, decked out in your fitted european blazer and designer jeans, and have decent game and are in shape you can capitalize on the "expert from afar" phenomenon and clean up down there. their religiosity is no problem -- just ignore it. they secretly like it when men are disdainfully agnostic. also, give their kid(s) some props, like "aw, she's a cutie. definitely has a star quality about her. i could see her on stage." bam, easy lay.

of course, after a while listening to their bible thumping and their kid screeching you'll want to pump and dump them as fast as you can and get the hell out of dodge. you won't feel any guilt about this because you were never planning to raise another man's child. you weren't, right? good.

[Armed & Dangerous]

"She believes in Catholicism, within reason."

Funniest thing I've read in a while! At what point does she consider Catholicism to be bullshit(besides the no premartital sex part)?

[Gannon]

She is strongly against abortion, but considers the prohibition of contraceptive methods BS. Also, she believes that usually the uglier girls become nuns.

[superdestroyer]

People should look up the data instead of speculating using stereotypes.

http://www.censusscope.org/us/s48/m320/chart_house.html

[Brick Oven Bill]

Nice post, Half Sigma.

[Hubbert]

According to Census scope, the "female headed households with children" does indeed appear larger than the "without." (7.66%/12%). The wildcard is why a single person is not considered a "head of household," and the fact that "single non family households" are not broken down by gender.

So it's not clear what percentage of the single women 25-40 have children or not from the censusscope data.

[Joshua Holmes]

This is a pretty common pattern in a lot of evangelical and fundamentalist churches. The "singles" adult group is made up of three classes:

1. Bitter divorced women with children, who either married or had a long relationship with a cad.
2. Bitter but financially and emotionally stable beta males who were ignored until their 30s.
3. Genuinely grossly unattractive people.

#3 is pretty uncommon these days.

The problem is that the church group wants to marry off the singles, but the #2 doesn't want to pay for the kids of (and absorb the bitterness of) the #1. Religious he may be, but he sees no good reason to pay for someone else's kids, doubly so when they're likely to be the kind of people he hated when he was younger. I think Gary North has written about it, but I can't seem to find the article.

Those entries look like the #1.

[Gannon]

@Joshua Holmes: that reminds me the story of an American friend of mine of around 30 years who was looking for a wife. The congregation started to hook himup with divorced women with kids. Then he grew close to a nice ninteen year old girl and the comgregation got very hostile. True story.

[Peter]

This is a pretty common pattern in a lot of evangelical and fundamentalist churches. The "singles" adult group is made up of three classes:

1. Bitter divorced women with children, who either married or had a long relationship with a cad.
2. Bitter but financially and emotionally stable beta males who were ignored until their 30s.
3. Genuinely grossly unattractive people.

#3 is pretty uncommon these days.

Your #2 group surprises me. I just don't think of deeply Beta males as being particularly religious. That might be due to their fascination with sci-fi and fantasy, interests that are somewhat incompatible with Christian fundamentalism. Deeply religious men, fundamentalists at least, have always struck me as being heavily Alpha. It's worth knowing that the two most Alpha sports organizations in the world, the NFL and NASCAR, are closely tied in with Christian fundamentalism.

[slwerner]

"Your #2 group surprises me."

While I have no personal knowledge regarding this subject, it seems perfectly reasonable that beta men would make up some portion of such a group (those #2's) - at least transiently.

Thay are likely "sold" on the idea of joining in by the promise of meeting good, marriage-minded women. Then, when they actually start to get to know the pool of women better, they realize that they are the #1's (as described above).

But, there's likely always a steady flow of new #2 recruits coming from the ranks of ever-hopeful beta males.

[Hubbert]

Peter, think of the Flanders boys grown up with degrees in engineering and accounting.

slwerner, I would think the majority of these men are lifelong church participants.

NASCAR, are closely tied in with Christian fundamentalism.

NASCAR? A sport that was founded on the activities of moonshine running hill jacks and redneckery?

[slwerner]

"I would think the majority of these men are lifelong church participants."

I really wouldn't know, myself. I was just going with Peter's impression's of beta men, and my own impressions of human nature.

If such men were, in fact, lifelong church members, it would still seem likely to me that they would still only be transient members of any "singles" group - especially one filled with bitter divorced women. One can imagine that they'd enjoy a lot of initial attention from the women (sizing them up as potential mates), which would play well to their egos. But, prolonged interaction would wash away the novelty, and the guys would wise-up and realize that they'd rather be single than marry one of those who would be described as the #1's.

And, I would add, it seems to me that at least some of these women are using church affiliation as a way of saying "if you want sex, you're going to have to commit to marrying me first". There are plenty of other avenues for single women who are willing to try to trade sex for relationships without Biblical prohibitions.

[Joshua Holmes]

Hubbert is right on both accounts. The beta men in evangelical singles groups have two characteristics:

1. The typical beta inability (or lack of desire) to lead and command.
2. A genuine commitment to Christian charity, ethics, and morality.

We've been over #1 1000 times. #2 is more new to you folks, not having grown up in fundy circles. The simple fact is that Christian virtues of humility, meekness, patience, gentleness, etc. are terrible in the dating game. Confidence, pride, brashness, boldness, even outright jerkship are all ways to get going in the dating market. If you're taking the Christian commands of modesty and gentleness seriously, you're not waving your tail feathers. You can't imagine a pump and dump. You don't have hardness. No edge.

The result is that, if you grow up in this kind of church and are a beta male, you watch as the church's girls start "missionary dating", a cute term for "trying to drag this jackass who wets my crotch to church". If the church is from an area that's low-class enough, all the preaching won't matter much. Those girls are getting knocked up.

Condensed version: for every NASCAR Baptist, there's another one trying to reconcile the Epistles of Romans and James.

[David Alexander]

The problem is that the church group wants to marry off the singles, but the #2 doesn't want to pay for the kids of (and absorb the bitterness of) the #1.

I suspect a similar issue is at play within the black community as well. I'd imagine that there are a good number of black men with no children who are uninterested in marrying women with existing children, and I'd imagine many are leery of becoming a substitute child support check. Then, there are men with existing children who are leery of taking on more children, and I'd imagine there are women who don't want to deal with "baby mama drama".

The congregation started to hook himup with divorced women with kids.

The primary reason the congregation set up him with divorced children is because the divorced mothers are viewed as fragile and in need of a male more than a single woman with no children. If they were single without children, I would imagine that there would be less emphasis on him dating those women.

I just don't think of deeply Beta males as being particularly religious.

Stop conflating nerds with beta males...

[Hubbert]

slwerner,

I'm speaking of Joshua Holmes' "another one trying to reconcile the Epistles of Romans and James," or if you prefer, the Flanders Brothers, not someone who decides to attend church in the way that Hugh Grant's characte attended single parent meetings in "About a Boy."

As to the transience, these groups are often semi-required for a serious church attender. Churches usually have two periods; one being a "worship service" (sort of like a "keynote" or "plenary session" if you will), and the other being "Sunday School," which is typically segregated by demographics. So young Rod & Todd Flanders typically go from 5th Grade [Boys?] Sunday School, to Junior High, to Youth Group, and then to a "College & Career" (and possibly involved with a university-based ministry such as Campus Crusade for Christ. If he graduates from high school or college single, then (depending on the congregation), he will be in the "Singles" Sunday School class, which may also hold social events at times other than Sunday morning. The quality of the participants is not always as bad as described here, but there does seem to be a great deal of frustration among both sexes. The point is that in many churches, not participating in such a group means withdrawing from a significant part of what is expected (namely, Sunday School participation).

[heretic]

"The simple fact is that Christian virtues of humility, meekness, patience, gentleness, etc. are terrible in the dating game. Confidence, pride, brashness, boldness, even outright jerkship are all ways to get going in the dating market."

Great point. This is also true for peoples from conservative immigrant cultures. Speakig from experience, you may be raised from childhood not to date or even kiss a chick. Talking about sex is verboten. In fact, admitting you have a penis is taboo. So, you are groomed, or rather coerced, into getting into an arranged marriage.

The sad part is that a lot of these men (and women) have such pathetic social skills by this point that there may not be much options for them besides the arranged marriage. A big caveat is that a lot these guys might have good jobs and can, therefore, afford a 'mongering' lifestyle where they go to foreign countries and have sex with (often times) ultra hot foreign prostitutes. I've done that and have decided that this 'second place' social life is not actually that bad. If women are waiting to get hit on by the roissy's and Virgil Kent's of the world, the beta male with means or relative means has to fight back with whatever tools at his disposal. I don't apologize for fantasizing about wanting anal sex with the next batch of 18yo Ukrainian whores this year.

The other really sad part is that a lot of guys and girls from these immigrant families enter into these forced relationships that end up being far from ideal. They may put up with it because of kids or extended family pressure.

Arranged marriages and fundy lifestyles are not portable outside of their close social circles and/or native countries. Raising americanized kids in america and expecting them to get some arranged marriage chick your mom picked out is often unrealistic.

"The congregation started to hook him up with divorced women with kids."

Gannon, what happened to this guy? Did he capitulate and accept the used up single mommies?

"Stop conflating nerds with beta males..."

I don't get it. There is some overlap between the two groups, is there not?

[Peter]

The simple fact is that Christian virtues of humility, meekness, patience, gentleness, etc. are terrible in the dating game. Confidence, pride, brashness, boldness, even outright jerkship are all ways to get going in the dating market. If you're taking the Christian commands of modesty and gentleness seriously, you're not waving your tail feathers. You can't imagine a pump and dump. You don't have hardness. No edge.

Maybe so, but I've always thought of religious people - men as well as women - as being more likely to marry than their less devout counterparts. Statistics probably bear this out. At least some Christian men figure out ways of overcoming the drawbacks their values may present.

[heretic]

The other thing I wanted to say is that a lot of these couples are beta males and beta females, by american standards. So, in essence, they are going to have a higher likelihood of popping out the next generation of beta losers.

[Hubbert]

As to the composition of singles groups, I haven't exactly experienced that quite as strongly myself, but am sure it's out there.

The point (just to diffuse the lurking feminists) is not that women aren't entitled to have sex. The point is that, just as a woman who is physically fit does not go to the gym to meet obese men, men who have sacrificed sex for years / decades are generally hoping for some sort of traditional family and not really eager to raise some other guy's bastards.

Here's a woman from 2001 quoting an (unnamed) source, who is just as bitter for her brother's sake as most men here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/fiori2.html
I've been in the ministry for 20 years and can tell you that pursuing jerks is definitely alive and well even among evangelical Christian women. They marry outside the faith about 6 times the rate of men because they think it's their will (not God's) to not only civilize the men but convert them to Christianity as well. No amount of reasoning will sway them. The end result is yet more broken families that the church has to take care of. Hence most 30s Christian singles classes are composed of 5-7 never-been-married men and 15 divorced women, a complete incompatibility. The women usually end up leaving after I point out that the New Testament (Matt 19:9, 1 Cor 7:10-11) forbids re-marriage for anyone divorced for a reason other than adultery and state that I have every intention of honoring this command. The wonderful result is that they burden liberal churches with the fallout of their past misadventures while I'm able to use my limited resources to preach the Word of God to people who are really interested in what it says.

[Hubbert]

Stop conflating nerds with beta males.I don't get it. There is some overlap between the two groups, is there not?

It's not precisely defined like the words you use in Freshman chemistry.

Alphas have easy access to women. They could be macho lacrosse-playing hedge-fund managers, or ghetto thugs that Spitzer's whore spent her personal time with.

A beta is often bland and may be considered to have nothing "wrong with him," but doesn't succeed with the ladies. Exhibits varying degrees of nerdiness.

"Nerd" is a pretty wide swath, anyway. Are we talking about anybody who passed calculus, anybody who isn't a lacrosse-playing hedge fund manager, or just pimply-faced geeks who work at comic book stores and are creepily obsessed with occult role-playing games?

A somewhat separate issue is extremely socioeconomic status (what Spungen initially thought of). This generally is an impediment to popularity with the ladies, but watch Judge Judy a little and note the number of offspring that those imbeciles have compared to the Dilberts who quietly pay taxes and keep the electrical power grid running reliably.

[David Alexander]

I don't get it. There is some overlap between the two groups, is there not?

I should have stated that while most nerds are beta males, not all beta males are nerds. Not every beta male spends his day on science fiction websites or wikipedia editing articles about the newest high speed rail line in Europe. A beta male can easily be active outgoing male who for some reason or another doesn't attract women.

So, in essence, they are going to have a higher likelihood of popping out the next generation of beta losers.

Fun question: Does the pairing on an alpha male and a beta female create alpha or beta children, or is there some magical hybrid of the two?

"Nerd" is a pretty wide swath, anyway. Are we talking about anybody who passed calculus, anybody who isn't a lacrosse-playing hedge fund manager, or just pimply-faced geeks who work at comic book stores and are creepily obsessed with occult role-playing games?

I consider nerds to be those who fall in the third group that was listed. There are plenty of attractive and sociable people who pass calculus, and a LAX playing hedge fund manager tends to have some social skills due to the need for networking to be employed in such positions.

This generally is an impediment to popularity with the ladies, but watch Judge Judy a little and note the number of offspring that those imbeciles have

As I like to point out, my formerly unemployed ex-con older brother can easily secure sex with women in his social milieu. I would refuse the sexual advances of those same women. These men are able to secure sex, but only in the limited confines of their social realms.

[Gannon]

"Hence most 30s Christian singles classes are composed of 5-7 never-been-married men and 15 divorced women, a complete incompatibility."
That's exactly my point. intead of putting these never before married men with compatible twentysomething women the church expects them to marry used up divorced mothers. Like I told, my thirty year old friend was getting a lot of verbal abuse for dating this 19 year old girl,, instead of the divorced women in their early thirties. He just left the church, and continued to date the woman, until they broke up after a year or so.

[heretic]

The great thing about being single and beta if you have at least relative financial means is that you get an ever changing supply of 18yo ultra hot, foreign latin, white and asian pussy to fuck each year. If you are an alpha male who settled down, you are still relegated to (at best) hot pussy that never changes, except to get older each year. Getting married to a trophy wife is like subscribing to playboy- and getting the same magazine copy each month. Possibly, guys like me would need to ask if we are just going to cheat even if we get married, having experienced some unreal whore pussy out there. I literally have fucked as hot chicks as some ultra players, although I did have to pay for it. Sometimes the hooker actually falls for you. That's is where it gets interesting. Most mongers choose to put the toys back in the sand box before they leave, however.

[YUPPPDDD]

"Fun question: Does the pairing on an alpha male and a beta female create alpha or beta children, or is there some magical hybrid of the two?"

DA, I said this in passing on another site and I meant it, you had a better chance of producing a better looking daughter for Iman than with the basketball player she actually chose, even though he might be considered more of an alpha male than you. Here is a pic of Iman and (I'm pretty sure) her daughter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/answer_this/152908327/

The following was on roissy's site, and I believe it's true. The 6 things women look for in men in terms of attraction are:
height, race, looks (esp facial appearance), appearance of money, game and IQ.

However, that means that some men who don't have great facial looks will have other alpha male traits to render them alpha males and will possibly get alpha females to procreate with and produce beta female daughters. Good or bad, if women were as selective about facial bone structure as men, this would not happen anywhere near as much.

Other examples, of a good looking parent producing a beta female:
Whitney's kid:
http://socialitelife.buzznet.com/2005/03/10/bobbi_kristina_browns_12th_birthday_party.php

John Edwards had a daughter but this is a little unfair because she's not that ugly:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2007/10/11/cate-edwards-topper.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-10-campaignkids_N.htm&h=74&w=129&sz=43&tbnid=Qj1Qkaz7NRsJ:&tbnh=74&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djohn%2Bedwards%2Bdaughter&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1

And, of course, everyone remembers Chelsea.

[David Alexander]

intead of putting these never before married men with compatible twentysomething women the church expects them to marry used up divorced mothers.

Personally, I don't see what's so bad about dating and marrying a single mother, but then, my dad married a single mother who eventually became my mom. :)

[David Alexander]

She is strongly against abortion, but considers the prohibition of contraceptive methods BS

One of the reasons that I'm pro-choice is because some women cannot use chemical contraception due to various side effects, and thus, discover that despite using a condom or an alternative method, they're pregnant. As I've stated before, I am in no position to control her choice in having a baby.

[slwerner]

David Alexander - Personally, I don't see what's so bad about dating and marrying a single mother…”

David,

Long time, no argue.

Well, maybe not so much and argument here as a differing take on those single mother types being discussed. I’m sure there are plenty of very marriageable single mothers out there who’ve realized that they made a mistake in their choice of ex, and who are now ready to form a strong relationship with a stable man. But, perhaps I’ve just grown to jaded, and I’ve come to believe that for every one of these such women, there are 4-5 women who are looking for nothing more than help in footing the cost and effort of child rearing.

By way of more set-up to my point, I’m not sure if it’s attributable solely to modern Feminism or not, but there seems to have developed this idea (especially among women) that as far as “fathers” go men are disposable and interchangeable. I’ve noticed a lot of women seem to react to men’s issues with paternity fraud with a “what’s the big deal?” attitude, believing that it shouldn’t matter to a man who’s child it really is, simply that they should devote themselves to that child regardless.

That said, it seems to me that a lot of these single mothers who now profess their great Christian faith/ethics have a deeper agenda than their relationship with God at work.

If memory serves, the early Christian Church took steps to care for the widows and orphans in their midst. Even today, it is help up as a great act of charity. I think these women are largely trying to capitalize on such a notion of the “duties” of the Church. In out modern era, divorced/abandoned single mothers and their children are the new “widows and orphans” for the Church to care for. Gannon gives a very apt example of one Church trying to “force” an eligible bachelor towards their collection of widows and orphans.

Now, why do I see this as a bad thing? Perhaps it’s my noting of human nature, coupled with too much listening/reading of Marc Rudov (the fact that my wife listens to him and says that he has it exactly right about women tends to give him credence in my eyes), that leads me to conclude that the women in question, though “burned” by their first “bad boy(s)”, still long for a “bad boy”.

Their excessive professions of faith strike me as some combination of denial and obfuscation of this underlying desire of theirs. They’re trying just a little too hard to convince others of their “changed ways”, at least in my opinion. If they gat what their looking for, they’ll be able to “sell” the church on their good intentions of settling down to raise their children with a new loving husband and father, and the church will respond to their seeming sincerity by trying to set them up with a good beta man.

If all goes well, they might just find a man who’ll be able to support them and provide them a good home. It might look a neat and tidy, but I see something more sinister at work.

Getting back to comments I made earlier, I have my suspicions that many of these women use their church affiliation to get out of having to put-out to get a guy to commit. As I see it, their playing on the internal moral compasses of the “Rod’ & Todd’s”. they really aren’t interested in the good boys for sex – bad boys are still the ones who do it for them. It’s just that they’ve learned through painful experience that they cannot count on the bad boys they love to f__k to provide for them. So, they’re now willing to compromise a little sex with a man they don’t really care for in order to get the desire support for themselves and their children.

But, David, as I once expressed to you in the past, I don’t believe that adults are able to easily change the habits they’ve formed over years. Sexually adventurous women, who like the bad boys are going to continue to want those bad boys – even if they’ve managed to land a beta patsy to take care of them and their children. And, as Marc Rudov suggests (and as you once suggested that you would be amenable to allowing in a marriage) such women are bound to become bored with their nice-guy, and with a ready-made babysitter in their newly acquired spousal unit, they’re now well positioned to get back to their preferred lifestyle – going out and hooking up with those “real men” they crave. Good for them, bad for the poor chump who’s committed himself to them out of the best of human intentions.

David, maybe I’m altogether wrong in my view. Perhaps, as I’ve suggested, I’m simply too jaded. But, I just can’t shake the feeling that my years of observing people have lead me to the correct conclusions as regarding this matter.

[roissy]

the best thing to do with these single moms looking for beta providers to raise the kids of badboy cads is to deny them that support and cast them to the icy wastelands to fend for themselves.

but since betas are so weak i won't be holding my breath.

[superdestroyer]

A different spin between Bad Boy and beta male, is that many of them originally married men who were older but at the same maturity level (20 y/o white female marrying 25 y/o white blue collar male).

However, after a few years of marriage, the woman matured mentally much more than the man did. So her prince charming is not a can't hold a job, never finishes anything extended adolescent (along with infidelity and substance abuse). Thus, the divorce.

Now there back in church full time and wanting a husband who matches what they want. However, the men are now living in Dallas, Houston, Denver, Albuquerque living the life of a middle aged adolescent.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

@slwerner

You have done some thinking. I tend to agree with your analysis and conclusions. Especially with regard to people of the "profess too much" strain.
Bottom Line:
The contempt that women have for a patsy will outlive and eclipse any gratitude they may initialy feel. Indeed, the more dire their circumstances when Mr. Beta plays white knight the greater the contempt.

[slwerner]

Superdestroyer - ”However, after a few years of marriage, the woman matured mentally much more than the man did. So her prince charming is not a can't hold a job, never finishes anything extended adolescent (along with infidelity and substance abuse). Thus, the divorce.”

Your take may be closer to reality than mine, or not. I really don’t know. But, your view does ring true, and no doubt does cover a number of the class of women being discussed/speculated upon. They may truly want (or believe they want) a stable man to make a fresh start with.

Yet, when you look at the examples HS quotes, they really do seem to be over-playing their relationships with God.

I’d be far more convince of their sincerity if their ads read more like: ‘Looking to make a fresh start with a committed Christian man” rather than someone who has obviously had no trouble spreading her legs for someone she couldn’t keep or who wasn’t worth keeping proclaiming, “I have a relationship with Jesus, not a religion. I would never date a non-believer. I am seeking a godly man who loves the Lord and seeks to please Him with his life.”

I’m just not convince that she’s convinced that she wants to marry Ned Flanders – she seems to be trying too hard to convince herself (and everyone else, for that matteer) of it.

And, putting my skeptics hat back on, I can understand why a woman who’s been cheated on would prefer to find a man who’s stated Christian values would dissuade him from also doing so to her; but, it is not self-evident to me that this in any way implies that she is not of a mind to cheat on him, only that she doesn’t want him to be cheating on her or leaving her regardless of her intentions. I suppose it’s just the cynic in me that figures she’s working hard to put on a “super-good-girl” front so that her “knight in shining armor” won’t suspect a thing when she starts “working late”, going to “Tupperware parties”, or even off on that “weekend antiquing” getaway with her “girlfriends”. She was looking for a deeply committed Christian man, so this MUST mean that SHE can be trusted, right?

I suppose I should disclose that my views are probably tainted by an incident I heard about no too long ago. The account was relayed to me by someone else, so I cannot be sure of the exact deals nor accuracy, but I do believe that the overall story is true. There was a guy who worked in IT in my organization some years ago. I know a few people who’ve kept in close contact with him (the ones who’ve told me this story). Apparently, this guy married a woman who was described as “way out of his league”, who was a single mother down on her luck. I don’t know if they met through a church or not, but when I knew the guy, he was a tea-totaling, straight-laced regular church attendee. (the Ned Flanders moniker would be a good fit)

From what I understand, it lasted about two years before she dumped him for some rich guy. Her “knight in shining armor” of a husband only found out after she served him with divorce papers that she had had a series of affairs on him. It seems to me that she only latched onto the poor guy to set up a base-camp for her “treasure hunting”.

Since hearing this story, I’ve tended to look at single mothers who seem too eager to find a nicer-than-average-guy (i.e. Christian man) with a jaundiced eye.

[keypusher]

"the next generation of beta losers"

Why so much hostility for betas? Self-hatred, in many cases? Alpha males are, by definition, rare. There is something silly about an outlook that consigns 80% of the male species, including the outlooker himself, to loserhood.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

"Why so much hostility for betas? Self-hatred, in many cases?"

Nobody likes a chump, not even a chump himself. That isn't to say that all betas are chumps, just that the chumps give the other betas a bad name.

[slwerner]

Tired of Smoke Rings - "...chumps give the other betas a bad name."

That's a good way to put it. I was going to make some weak "but for the grace of God, there go I..." derived "identification with them" remarks.

But your way is just so much better, and straight to the heart of the matter.

[Half Sigma]

As Groucho Marx said, "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member."

[David Alexander]

But, perhaps I’ve just grown to jaded, and I’ve come to believe that for every one of these such women, there are 4-5 women who are looking for nothing more than help in footing the cost and effort of child rearing.

My experiences are peppered by the relationship that my parents have had over the past 30 years, so I'm personally hesitant to throw out the idea of dating and marrying a single mother.

but there seems to have developed this idea (especially among women) that as far as “fathers” go men are disposable and interchangeable. I’ve noticed a lot of women seem to react to men’s issues with paternity fraud with a “what’s the big deal?” attitude, believing that it shouldn’t matter to a man who’s child it really is, simply that they should devote themselves to that child regardless.

I've always found this idea to be rather dangerous. While some blame feminists, one can easily blame child support and welfare checks for creating the equivalence of men as simply financial support, and others can blame the relationships of men to their wives and children. If one grows up with a bad or unproductive father or marries one, one can begin to presume that fathers are useless men who are only good for financial support. The people who are more likely to believe in the usefulness of fathers are those who grew up with good fathers and married them.

So, they’re now willing to compromise a little sex with a man they don’t really care for in order to get the desire support for themselves and their children.

Is that any different from an extremely beautiful woman looking for a rich husband to secure financial resources for herself? Is it any different from an ugly woman mating with an man that she has no attraction towards in order to have children?

they’re now well positioned to get back to their preferred lifestyle – going out and hooking up with those “real men” they crave.

I could ask why these good men can't "improve" their sexual attractiveness to these women in the confines of their own relationships, but that's asking a silly question. It's not easy to be Rod Flanders in public, but alpha sex machine in private...

Perhaps, as I’ve suggested, I’m simply too jaded. But, I just can’t shake the feeling that my years of observing people have lead me to the correct conclusions as regarding this matter.

I understand the caution that's needed in dating single mothers, but one has to be careful in dating any woman to filter out traits that could show up at any time. For every single mother who decided to raise the child of a bad boy, there are plenty who didn't have the child due to contraception or abortion.

but since betas are so weak i won't be holding my breath.

Some betas date single moms since it's the equivalent of getting a discount on a hot girl. A 7 with a kid is less picky than a 7 without a kid.

Besides, if some betas don't hang around single moms, that creates more competition on the existing supply of women.

The contempt that women have for a patsy will outlive and eclipse any gratitude they may initialy feel. Indeed, the more dire their circumstances when Mr. Beta plays white knight the greater the contempt.

That's probably the best course of action. Avoid "saving women" who will only tolerate your existence and bad habits because of the infusion of income and financial stability. I suspect that's why my parents relationship worked out so well since my mother was financially independent at the time that they met. She was never looking for a father for her kid and a check to support her lifestyle.

If you're a middle class male, stick with middle class single mothers as a security measure. If you're interested in helping a poor single mother, a relationship is not going to solve her problems, whether they are emotional or financial.

[slwerner]

One of many points from DA - "I could ask why these good men can't "improve" their sexual attractiveness to these women in the confines of their own relationships, but that's asking a silly question. It's not easy to be Rod Flanders in public, but alpha sex machine in private..."

David,

I do appreciate the thoroughness of your response. I believe you bring some valid and thus valuable perspectives into the discussion.

I would especially like to respond to your remark which I’ve quoted.

I would have to image that Christians, especially devote Christians have any number of “hang-ups” regarding great sex. I would judge that for most (even many who are not so devote), frank discussions of techniques, positions, et. al. are strictly taboo (to inject another frictional cartoon character/icon – Hank Hill).

[cynicism]
I have to wonder if one reason the women we've been dicussing profess to prefer Christians is that they are counting on their inherent repressiveness so that they will NOT be very demanding on them, and easily pleased with the tamest of acts. No need to make much effort over a man who's little more than a babysitter/ATM.
[/cynicism]

Personally, I tend to believe that performing better and being a better lover can be seen as a matter of self-help/self-improvement. While I’m certainly no “Roissy”, knowing how to please my wife, and doing it regularly brings me a lot of satisfaction. I’d place myself as solidly “beta”, but I don’t believe that beta necessarily equals bland and boring, it’s simply a recognition that only about 10% of all men have those characteristics which can define them as “alpha”.

For the rest of us, we ought to do our best.

Having discussed such matters before, I know you find it hard to believe, but there are actually a great many of us who are happily married and who enjoy great sex-lives – even into out 40’s and beyond. Of the couples I know, those that are the happiest are the ones who openly show great affection for one another; and who, though they are unlikely to come right out and say so, give an indication of having a good sex-life.

Personally, I’ve always been floored by those surveys that show that married couples only have sex once a week on average. WTF, are people really too busy to enjoy one of life’s must pleasurable experiences? Do they really have something better to do? I really have to think that if more people (betas) would just put the same effort into their sexual performance as they put into a host of other “hobbies” that there would no longer be this (mis)perception of betas as duds.

That’s my take on it, anyway.

[David Alexander]

I would have to image that Christians, especially devote Christians have any number of “hang-ups” regarding great sex. I would judge that for most (even many who are not so devote), frank discussions of techniques, positions, et. al. are strictly taboo (to inject another frictional cartoon character/icon – Hank Hill).

I would understand how certain religious Christians would have trouble with their sexuality and its expression even within the confines of a marriage, but I've never understood the Hank Hill types who seem be afraid of their own sexuality in private. I'm relatively free-flowing about sex in private, and it seems strange that anybody would try and suppress such beautiful and natural human trait. I've been watching King of the Hill for its entire run, and while Dale's public discussion of some of his habits can come across as creepy, Hank in private seems far scarier due to his rigidity and fear of his emotions and sexuality.

You may have a point about their preference for religious men. They're unlikely to cheat and the women in their religious circles are unlikely to view them as potential sex partners as well. In addition, the single mothers receive the benefit of a community that is willing to support them with various services to reinforce their marriage such as group counseling.

Of the couples I know, those that are the happiest are the ones who openly show great affection for one another; and who, though they are unlikely to come right out and say so, give an indication of having a good sex-life.

I still find it relatively hard to believe despite the fact that my parents are relatively affectionate towards each other, and very candid about their satisfaction with their sex-lives. I still don't see how one can simply enjoy sex with the same person for thirty years, but some people seem to be able to do so, especially in light of the many older Caribbean men that I've met who frequently cheat on their wives with a varying number of willing female partners. I don't want to cheat, but when you see an overwhelming number of disloyal males, combined with studies, anecdotal stories and blog posts discussing how women want sex less than their male counterparts or the infrequency of sex in marriage (especially after children), it makes marriage less attractive, and the bachelorhood with multiple female partners look highly attractive.

I’d place myself as solidly “beta”, but I don’t believe that beta necessarily equals bland and boring, it’s simply a recognition that only about 10% of all men have those characteristics which can define them as “alpha”.

Contrary to what others may think, I'm rather content being a beta, and if that means that I manage to miss out on sex, it's probably better than way then to using perfectly useful intellectual and emotional capacity on creating and maintaining a faux-alpha personality.

[slwerner]

DA - "Contrary to what others may think, I'm rather content being a beta, and if that means that I manage to miss out on sex, it's probably better than way then to using perfectly useful intellectual and emotional capacity on creating and maintaining a faux-alpha personality."

I guess I might not be clear on what delineates alphas from betas. I had the idea in my head that alphas were typically the rich or the very good looking (and to throw in a little Roissyism, had lots of sexual partners). But, apparently muscularity also counts, it seems. Being as I am very muscular (along with being reasonably good-looking and making a relatively high income) I just might be pushing the limits of "alpha" - except for that lots of sex partners part.

I know it doesn't add up for you, but I really have been happy with my wife, and her alone. I do enjoy some of the attention I get from women at the gym, but I know (and have resolved) it's never going to go anywhere.

Likewise, my wife enjoys getting "hit on" by men - makes her feel good all day long. But, even though I suppose we could take advantage of "opportunities", we end up having a lot of fun talking with one another about those things that happen to us.

Hearing that a guy has been coming on to my wife reminds me of how sexy she still is. It kinda turns me on. I know there's a little extra thump in the hump on those sort of days. And, times when I've related another woman’s attentions, my wife response with, "I'm going to make you forget all about her" - which she backs up very nicely, thank you.

I'll still identify myself as a beta. from the outside looking in, we probably seem fairly normal, average, if you will. I've been quite happy raising a family (two now in college, one still in high school), and doing the whole homeowner in the burbs thing. I know you big city/east coast types tend to turn your noses up an sniff at such a mundane life. But I'm quite happy. (and, maybe, just maybe, a part of me is still trying to “sell” you on the concept)

And, like you suggest, why go to all the effort to try to create and maintain some faux-alpha persona - especially if one has no intention of trying to capitalize on it for sex.

[trumwill]

I would have to image that Christians, especially devote Christians have any number of “hang-ups” regarding great sex. I would judge that for most (even many who are not so devote), frank discussions of techniques, positions, et. al. are strictly taboo

Interestingly, I've been having a discussion/debate on this subject. I expressed that (when I was single) I would be hesitant to move forward with someone that was saving themselves for marriage because I'd be concerned that the moral stance might actually be a cover for sexual repulsion. Phi, who actually hangs around in fundamentalist circles, disagrees and took great exception to my comment.

[slwerner]

Trumwill - "I expressed that (when I was single) I would be hesitant to move forward with someone that was saving themselves for marriage because I'd be concerned that the moral stance might actually be a cover for sexual repulsion."

Looks like a lively debate going on over there. Herein, given HS's choice of examples, we seem to be dealing with women who have already NOT saved themselves (at least for any future) marriage.

On the one hand, they put out statements that seem to make them seem pure as the driven snow, but they're coming from failed relationships with kids in tow.

Now, it is possible that some are coming from a perspective of wishing to do things differently this next time, and have a genuine religious reason for abstinence.

I just get a feeling that if they're so "up front" about it, there might me some other reason that they'd rather not have to discuss. Their previous experience may have left them less inclined towards sex overall, or, their "over-sell" may be cover for just wanting to force commitment first.

Still, it may be an over-compensation for just not being interested in sex with the men they find in church, but not with other men of less savory character - something else they'd not wish to discuss in the context of trying to land a babysitter/ATM.

This remains the possibility that makes me most suspicious. Admittedly, just my own conjecture.

[Peter]

I had the idea in my head that alphas were typically the rich or the very good looking (and to throw in a little Roissyism, had lots of sexual partners). But, apparently muscularity also counts, it seems. Being as I am very muscular (along with being reasonably good-looking and making a relatively high income) I just might be pushing the limits of "alpha" - except for that lots of sex partners part.
I know it doesn't add up for you, but I really have been happy with my wife, and her alone. I do enjoy some of the attention I get from women at the gym, but I know (and have resolved) it's never going to go anywhere.

You've brought up a problem with the definition of Alpha that never seems to get satisfactorily resolved. The usual Alpha = many women definition doesn't readily account for men who are married, or in steady relationships, and aren't out looking to score with as many women as possible. Men like this get overlooked because most participants in blogospheric discussions of Alpha-ness seem to involve men who are single and usually girlfriend-less.

Now, it could be argued that men who have good jobs, commanding personalities, muscular physiques etc. are Alphas even if they're not out chasing women due to being in marriages or monogamous relationships. That's almost good enough ... but without the "scoring" factor, we cannot be sure.

Other men present a sort of reverse problem. There are some men who do not display most outward Alpha traits yet seem to have very good luck with women. Many artsy-type guys are like this. Do they qualify as Alpha due to their regular scoring, or does the lack of other Alpha traits condemn them to Beta status?

[SFG]

I'll still identify myself as a beta. from the outside looking in, we probably seem fairly normal, average, if you will. I've been quite happy raising a family (two now in college, one still in high school), and doing the whole homeowner in the burbs thing. I know you big city/east coast types tend to turn your noses up an sniff at such a mundane life. But I'm quite happy. (and, maybe, just maybe, a part of me is still trying to “sell” you on the concept)
I'm sure you are happy. But you probably grew up in a place like that; I wouldn't expect a small-town person to like New York (which may make me an atypical New Yorker, who knows?). I also don't see myself with a wife and kids; there's just too much risk associated with losing your job and the wife divorcing you and running off with half your stuff. I just don't see the market as stable enough for me to raise a family. Keep in mind that I have a VERY low risk tolerance (Vanguard index funds all the way, baby!) so I'm far from average and do not give life advice to anybody. I'm not anti-marriage or anti-suburbs, I'm anti-me-married and anti-me-in-the-suburbs. Much as I may hate and fear being surrounded by the Southern sports fan, he's probably got a much better life than I do with friends he knows and shares things in common with and a loving family and supportive social circle in his church.

Yeah, my genes are gonna die out. They're not useful here anymore anyway; it's a marketing economy now.

[Beta Version]

"Yeah, my genes are gonna die out. They're not useful here anymore anyway; it's a marketing economy now."

I'm a beta male, too. I'm kinda happy. It would probably be better if I were an alpha male, but I'm sorta resigned to this existence. It's not that bad in this day and age, in a way. You can go for paid sex in this country or a foreign country. Internet porn is everywhere.

Basically, I probably could settle down with a beta chick, but I see this as a losing proposition. For one, I wouldn't be able to enjoy prostitution. Second, I'd be giving it up for a less attractive chick than I could pay to fuck. Maybe, if she were really open to an 'open' relationship. Maybe there is something to be said for companionship. But, again, in this day and age, you just hang with other betas (your 'boyz') and that really, really takes care of a lot of companionship issues. Plus, how many beta women can talk about biology or physics- my beta friends tend to be extremely smart, including on erudite subjects like these. Moreover, the only thing I hear from (seemingly) the vast majority of married guys on the internet is how marriage sucks. On how the sex aspect fizzles after the short early stage no matter how hot the chick is. On how the chicks turn into fat, bloated whales. On how the nagging gets worse. I'm sure there are exceptions, of course.

I think there is only one reason to seriously get married: to have children. The problem is that your chances of producing alpha kids is far less with a beta chick. I figure if I don't have a good chance of giving my kids more than what I got, what's the point?!? I guess I've come to the conclusion that my genes suck, and the world won't miss them. Initially, when you reach this conclusion, you're pissed off. Then you start reading about the vast scope of humanity and realize that it's not such a big deal. We are just small cogs in a vast human network ultimately, whether we are big or small. Some of the greatest men in human history never spawned. Beethoven, Mozart, Newton, Faraday, Brahms... Humanity went on. Just try to be realistic about yourself and make the best of your situation in an unfair world.

[David Alexander]

I'll still identify myself as a beta. from the outside looking in, we probably seem fairly normal, average, if you will. I've been quite happy raising a family (two now in college, one still in high school), and doing the whole homeowner in the burbs thing. I know you big city/east coast types tend to turn your noses up an sniff at such a mundane life. But I'm quite happy. (and, maybe, just maybe, a part of me is still trying to “sell” you on the concept)

There's still a part of me that dreams every night about having a beautiful wife (with nails of course) and three kids in some quaint suburban home living a normal, average life. Hell, I even have the perfect house in mind too. Yet somehow, I see all these hot women in real life or in porn, and I question if I can stay in a committed marriage when there are all these other women that I would prefer to have no-strings attached sex with. An open marriage just isn't an option in most cases, but I really wish there was some way to get the best benefits of a strong emotional bond, and varying sex partners who meet my needs.

If you're not lying slwerner, I'd say that you're a very lucky man. :)

[Vim]

Although an academic, I am reluctantly an alpha. I say reluctantly because being in charge is time consuming and distracting and above all, I love just sitting back and thinking or reading.

I think womanizing is boring and artless. Excessive need of female approval is like excessive need of human approval in general, sycophantic. I just don't think it's a healthy way to go about things.

In my past, I knew a lot of women in various stages of becoming pregnant in their teens, having a series of children for irresponsible men, moving to the church and marrying more stable men in their 30s. It seems to be a function of the cultural and economic conditions and not specific to the women themselves. (I had no interest in women of this sort as they are uniformly not intellectual.)

That being said, since many are offering advice on how to charm these women, it's fairly simple,

"All women, by their nature, are fragile and weak: they are attracted to the male in whom they see strength." - Malcolm X

(He's not right about all women of course but he's right I think for this demographic.)

In general, these woman are seeking strong men because they feel weak: obviously a woman that started out good looking with lots of sexual control over men (and usually by extension social control over other girls) and ended up older, heavier with kids and a low paying job isn't going in the upward direction in life. If you make her feel stronger then psychologically, you are what she is looking for.

You need to be the person in the relationship that knows where things are going and be definite on that. It's important to establish that if she ever cheated on you, you would leave without a second thought to her. Obviously as time goes on this threat will become toothless, but the point is to set things on a firm basis. They place a lot of stock in a person who is socially dominant so it's good to have her spend time around you in a situation where people defer to you and to her by extension. For a computer nerd, this can just mean showing her that all the other nerds look up to you.

In general, I don't recommend women like this unless you actually are a strong personality as you have to earn your keep with them which is tiresome.

Of course, it is entirely possible to marry a woman like this and for her to just be loyal without any effort on your part. Being a duplicitous slut takes a lot of energy and eventually it gets old and people want to stop. I think this goes for any gender but for women, it seems like this sort of behavior takes a heavier physical and psychological toll than it does for men.

[slwerner]

DA - "If you're not lying slwerner, I'd say that you're a very lucky man."

David,

I'm being straight with you. And, yes, I do believe I got lucky. I know all too well that many marriages are not happy - the loveless, sexless arrangements you dread. I can understand why guys are opting more and more for what has been termed a "marriage strike". For guy's looking at marriage today, it's a lot of commitment, sacrifice and responsibility on their part, with little increased benefit over remaining single (and lots of risk in case of divorce). I do understand you guy's dilemma.

I guess I just like to remind people that it can and does happen that marriages work out, and people can be happily married –and even continue to have great sex-lives. If one does not feel that they can commit to monogamy, they certainly should not marry. I certainly don’t seek to judge others for their lifestyle choices. I do feel, especially at sites like this one, that I am often judged poorly for mine. Perhaps that’s why I’m inclined to stand-up for the institution.

Which relates back (at least to some extent) to the primary issue of single mothers with their high demand levels of potential male partners. I’m of a mind that they’ve somehow failed to get the memo. Despite all the area in which women have made great strides of advancement, they now find themselves loosing ground on the control over men in the marriage arena.

It used to be that men pursued women trying to convince them to marry them – back when women were the gatekeepers to sexual access. Now, with so many women putting out so easily, not to mentioned reduced societal pressures on men to marry, those who try to assume the gatekeeper position find that they cannot gain that power over men.

It just makes it that much odder that less marketable women (those with kids and probable relationship baggage) would try to set such high acceptance standards for men to pursue. It’s as if they are oblivious to their younger, willing, and unencumbered competition.

I guess for me, when something doesn’t seem to make logical sense, I tend to suspect that there’s more to the story than meets the eye.

I guess it probably makes no more sense that I can champion marriage on one-hand, yet suspect the worst sort of motives in some who would seek it on the other. But, hey, I never claimed to be perfect, nor even consistent.

[slwerner]

Vim - "In general, these woman are seeking strong men because they feel weak: obviously a woman that started out good looking with lots of sexual control over men (and usually by extension social control over other girls) and ended up older, heavier with kids and a low paying job isn't going in the upward direction in life. If you make her feel stronger then psychologically, you are what she is looking for."

Vim,

In the grander scheme of things, I believe you are correct. But, this is why the specific case of such women placing high demands on men seems to make no sense to me. Perhaps I'm not assessing this correctly, but the Rod & Todd Flanders type don't strike me as the "strong" sort of men women would seek - especially if their looking for a man to boost them back up.

I’m running different scenarios through my mind trying to understand this (perhaps it’s some sign of mental instability on my part that I’ve become so obsessed other this otherwise meaningless issue?).

I wondered if perhaps their initial “high-flying” experiences have left them dubious of “alpha” males, and they’ve simply resigned themselves to living out a “beta” life. Perhaps they see devout Christian men as the best possibility for such a goal.

Still, when you look at their statements about themselves, they seem to be to be screaming of a false humility. From my experience, a truly pious person does not “wear it on their sleeve”. You’ll often not know how religious they are until you’ve gotten to know them better. These women in HS’s examples are making to big a deal about their supposed piety. One is almost tempted to suggest that if their being honest, they would do better to become nuns rather than seek out men.

The cynic in me is stuck with the sense that these women are somehow looking to prey on the morals of devout Christian men. Perhaps you can offer something to counter this impression I get?

[Peter]

It just makes it that much odder that less marketable women (those with kids and probable relationship baggage) would try to set such high acceptance standards for men to pursue. It’s as if they are oblivious to their younger, willing, and unencumbered competition.

Not all of them may have high standards. I would imagine that some women in these positions are happy to accept the first relatively decent men who come along. Even (gasp!) nerds.

[slwerner]

Peter - "Not all of them may have high standards."

To be honest, my opinion is based on this underlying assumption: a woman specifically pointing out her Christian morals/faith is a de facto statement that she will not have sex before marriage. Now, I may be wrong about this, obviating much of my concern over their motivations, but I've yet to see anything to suggest to me otherwise.

And, that's really the crux of my issue. Why are they demanding a man who will commit to marry them first?

I my estimation, a woman willing to accept the first decent man to come along would not be setting this high hurtle (given today’s generally looser standards). Unless they’ve truly committed themselves to these religious principles, a woman who’s obviously been sexual in the past seems almost hypocritical in acting as if she's now “saving herself for marriage”.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I would be less suspicious if they had been less emphatic about their devotion to Christian principles. I could buy, “looking to start fresh with a good Christian man”. I have a problem with “I have a relationship with Jesus, not a religion. I would never date a non-believer. I am seeking a godly man who loves the Lord and seeks to please Him with his life.”

Not that I have any problem with a woman making a strong statement of her faith and devotion. My problem is that this is supposed to be her prospectus regarding dating her. “Christian woman seeking Christian man”, pretty much says the same thing – without all the excess drama. Is this woman looking for a man, or putting up a fence to keep them out? If she’s actually looking to just chase them off, why go to the trouble to advertize.

My view is that she’s painting herself as extremely devout, and demanding the same in any prospective mate because she either over-compensating for her own doubts about faithful commitment, or she attempting to conceal the reality that that she doesn’t intend to be so faithful herself. It’s that cynic thing again.

Again, I could be entirely mistaken in my view, but for now, I remain suspicious of their true motivations.

[Vim]

slwerner:

From what I know of women like this on a personal level, and this could be a gross generalization on too small a sample, but they tend to think if other people think something about them then it's true.

So the first step in changing their life for them is going around loudly convincing others that they have changed their lives. If other people believe it then they believe it at least temporarily.

I think it's true to say they accurately access that a stable man will give them the life they want so they choose that sort of guy.

You should also keep in mind, they are status seeking and while guys that drink too much and get into fights have a lot of status in highschool, they don't have that much status by the mid thirties.

Church also provides an alternative social atmosphere where they can increase their social standing.

Also, Jesus and God are all powerful male figures who are said to be all too willing to provide ...

There is so much here really. It's hard to put everything I know about these sorts of women into a short comment.

The scenario of women like these running off with other guys, I have seen it many, many, many times. It's definitely a very possible result of such a relationship. One woman I knew in struggling to describe why she left her husband actually said she felt like he was a homo because he was TOO MUCH of a good father: taking care of kids, helping with the homework, washing their clothes etc, etc ...

[slwerner]

Vim - "The scenario of women like these running off with other guys, I have seen it many, many, many times."

I see your points about the church as a proxy for both stability and status.

But then you go and make this statement which only goes to make my case for me.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

@slwerner

I am in complete agreement with your observations and conclusions. Further, I don't really see any lack of consistancy regarding your support of marriage and the gimlet eyed view that you bring examining the motives of those that may seek to corrupt the institution for their own ends. You have a healthy level of skepticism and the wisdom to apply it judiciously, too bad more people don't share these traits.

[slwerner]

Vim – ”So the first step in changing their life for them is going around loudly convincing others that they have changed their lives.”

I neglected to address this point.

I’ve seen a similar pattern in people I’ve known who spent years in a sexual free-for-all party mode, then decided that they were ready to settle down. As you suggest, they’d go around making a big deal about their change of heart/change of lifestyle – trying to convince themselves while trying to convince everyone else.

In every single case I know of, they failed to change their lifestyle, and ended up cheating on their spouse in fairly short order. This is why I keep telling David that I do not believe that adults change their “set in” behavioral patterns – once a partier, always a partier; once a taste for bay boys, always a taste for bad boys.

[Peter]

Peter - "Not all of them may have high standards."

To be honest, my opinion is based on this underlying assumption: a woman specifically pointing out her Christian morals/faith is a de facto statement that she will not have sex before marriage. Now, I may be wrong about this, obviating much of my concern over their motivations, but I've yet to see anything to suggest to me otherwise.
And, that's really the crux of my issue. Why are they demanding a man who will commit to marry them first?

You are right.
When I said that the women don't have high standards, I was thinking in the usual terms (usual in blogospheric discussions, at least): they're not insisting on men who work as i-bankers or BIGLAW partners, who drive alphanumerics, play cartball, have NFL season tickets, etc.

[Gannon]

"In every single case I know of, they failed to change their lifestyle, and ended up cheating on their spouse in fairly short order. This is why I keep telling David that I do not believe that adults change their “set in” behavioral patterns – once a partier, always a partier; once a taste for bay boys, always a taste for bad boys."

That's true. The best strategy for a man to to marry and form a strong bond is to look for a teen bride. Teen girls aren't ruined yet and can still lead virtuous lives.

[slwerner]

Gannon - "The best strategy for a man to to marry and form a strong bond is to look for a teen bride."

I wasn't specific before, but, in those cases that I know of, both men and women who had been partiers failed to change. I don't want to travel down the sexist road of saying it's okay for men, but not for women. You and I have been over that before.

[Vim]

slwerner:

"But then you go and make this statement which only goes to make my case for me."

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just discussing different sides of the issue. On pragmatic level, it really is up to the individual woman whether she is done with the type of behaviors that aren't working for her in the long run: choosing abusive or irresponsible partners etc etc ... It's completely possible for a person to spend years WANTING to change their attitudes but never actually managing it. It doesn't mean they are lying when they say they want to change or disingenuous in their attempts to be different people but it does mean they are going to hurt you and themselves when they can't live up to what they promise.

These women have usually had sex driven relationships in the past (in other words sex is almost the ONLY reason, men in their past have been commited to them) so maybe they over-react by assuming giving sex away too cheaply is the root of the problem.

It's not really a switch for them as they have always used sex as a way to gain control over men.

All of this sort of talk precludes a genuine relationship which could quite easily form.

When the relationship works out with the stable men, these women can be almost militantly devoted to these men as in he's a 'good man' or he's a 'strong man', their knight in shining armor basically. It can be easy to look good relative to the the previous string of jobless losers.

Obviously, the pivotal question is whether she has decided that a strong man is one that is persistent and loyal or one that is intimidating and selfish. ( This sort of reminds me of an essay I read once ... it was centered on competing ideas of strength: the strength that comes from having moral boundaries and the type that came from not having moral boundaries. )

I think in the beginning of the relationship however when they don't know you very well and you don't know them very well, it's important to keep grounded in the reality of the type of person with whom you are dealing and their ideas of femininity and masculinity, strength and weakness.

[slwerner]

Vim - "These women have usually had sex driven relationships in the past (in other words sex is almost the ONLY reason, men in their past have been commited to them) so maybe they over-react by assuming giving sex away too cheaply is the root of the problem."

&

"Obviously, the pivotal question is whether she has decided that a strong man is one that is persistent and loyal or one that is intimidating and selfish."

Good points, Vim.

Definately a different perspective to consider.

[superdestroyer]

A few years ago, the Washington Post ran a series of articles about being at a teenage girl half way house during the Christmas Season. It was the regular attempt by the Washington Post to win a Pulitzer Prize (they obviously succeed occasionally).

One of the best points of the articles was the difference between the white girls and the black girls. The author of the story used the short hand of too few fathers versus too many fathers.

The black girls had mothers who had never married but father children with men in short term relationships. Almost all of the black girls had no relationship with their fathers.

The white girls had mothers who had been married and divorced several times. They came from a family of half-siblings, step-siblings, step fathers, etc.

I suspect that the women in Amarillo are much more on the too many father tracks (married high school sweatheart, divorce, married bad boy, divorce, now looking for stable husband/provider).

[Vim]

Gannon:

"Teen girls aren't ruined yet and can still lead virtuous lives."

On the other hand, I have also seen situations where people get into relationships when they are young and become completely different people by their late twenties leading to a disasterous disintegration of the relationship.

Sometimes they come to feel they have never had a chance to choose any other way of doing things.

It all depends. I don't really think there is any perfect way to go about a relationship. I believe it's important to be aware of the general patterns (which are predictable) and to be sensitive to when things might be going in the wrong direction.

[trumwill]

I have a question for slwerner and others that are either in their late twenties or above:

Are you (or would you be if you were single) attracted to the same people now that you were when you were 17? 21?

My tastes changed remarkably between 17 and 21 and 21 and 25. I grew older and I started getting a feel for what kinds of relationships with what people worked. I found that there were certain types that I admired but wasn't actually happy with. At 26 I would have actually rejected or broken up with girls that I would have considered ideal a year before in favor of people that I might not have even noticed.

Am I that unusual in this regard? Is it that outlandish that a woman's tastes might genuinely change as she experiences different things?

[slwerner]

trumwill asks - "Are you (or would you be if you were single) attracted to the same people now that you were when you were 17? 21?"

At 45, I'm a bit removed in years, but I can tell that what I "thought" I wanted in a woman when I was 19-20 turns out not to have been what I know understand that I did want in the end.

I met my wife when I was 21, and aside from looks, she was not what I thought I wanted. When we met, she was dating someone else, an "alpha", a football player, who treated her like crap.

While we had little in common in terms of background, we got to be friends, and I learned things about her that probably wouldn't have come up during the normal "dating" process. She actually confided quite a bit in me (she had been basically shunned by must of her friends for dating a black guy), and I think she started talking more intimately to me out of some sense desperation about needing some to talk to.

So I got to find out things that she would have normally been talking to girlfriends about. It was a closeness with a girl that I did not know I that would enjoy the way I did. Knowing her fears and desires, and what she was looking for in life, I one day just came out and told her I’d be a better guy for her.

Well, almost instantly I discovered that I much preferred a sexually aggressive and demanding woman. I also found out that I preferred a woman who would stand by me through thick and thin – like telling her boyfriend that I was taking her away from him, and doing so in front of a bunch of his teammates. And, I found out that I prefer a woman who challenges me to do better – like living up to my contention that I’d be the better man. I didn’t think I needed to get my shit together and get serious about life, but she pretty much made me do it anyway. In retrospect, I am very grateful to her for being demanding upon me – it showed how much she really cared for me. Until I met her, I didn’t think it would matter so much to me that a woman care so deeply.

Okay, I probably gave you way too much info – at least way more than you were looking for. That’ll teach you to ask open-ended questions!

But, to your point about persons tastes changing due to experience, I fully accept that it IS the norm. Still, must people make genuine changes in their prespective without making a big public fuss over it. And, people make lots of changes that others don't really notice. People just don't need to "advertize" there changes, unless their trying to capitalize on them.

[Peter]

Are you (or would you be if you were single) attracted to the same people now that you were when you were 17? 21?

I've certainly changed in this respect. When younger, I preferred women who were, if not quite dependent, at least on the clingy side, while today that wouldn't be too appealing.

[trumwill]

I was responding to your contention that "once a taste for bad boys, always a taste for bad boys." I also disagree with your earlier contention about "once a partier, always a partier". People do change over time. To be sure such changes are less common in adulthood than they are when growing up*, but a fist in the gut (such as being stuck with the child of a bad husband and father) will do the trick well into a woman's twenties. I think that a lot of the changes are genuine and not part of a hustle.

And, I found out that I prefer a woman who challenges me to do better – like living up to my contention that I’d be the better man.

I hear you on this one, brother. When I was at a fork in the road and had to choose between my wife (who was not then my wife) and another woman, the fact that my now-wife challenged me to be a better person (though not in a drill sergeant kind of way) and the other was supportive of my least healthy self made all of the difference in the world.

Still, must people make genuine changes in their prespective without making a big public fuss over it.

I don't disagree with you (much) on this point. Sometimes I think it's often a sort of "fake it till you feel it" sort of thing, but other times it's the old adage that there is no evangelist like a former sinner. Half of the most anti-smoking people I know are former smokers. That sort of thing. I'm personally not big on turning a love of Jesus a spectator sport (it's the staid Episcopalian in me) or any loud proclamations of morality and religiosity. When I was young and single I joined a rather expensive dating service that unbeknownst to me was Christian-oriented. Good grief was that a waste of a lot of money.

[slwerner]

Trumwill - "I also disagree with your earlier contention about "once a partier, always a partier". People do change over time."

Fair enough. Much of what I put out there during the course of this discussion was intended to feel-out others for their perspectives.

I do see the point you are making. Still, I think that certain "habits" aren't so easily changed by just declaring that one has decided to change.

My comment that you reference comes from something that David Alexander and I went around on some time back. I was making specific reference to habits that people had "ingrained" into them over the course of years, and in their adult lives – specifically, the sexual preferences.

My examples come form people who spent years leading a Roissy-inspired life, then, as they got older (35-40) decided that it was finally time that they settled down. I don’t know exactly what inspired them to decide that they were going to change (Perhaps they had a introspective moment reflecting on the passing years, or perhaps they met someone they thought was special), but everyone of them made a big effort to tell everyone about it.

My specific examples are of three men and two women, who all got married, but within the span of just a couple of years got divorced over their subsequent infidelities.

Perhaps I over-simplified by proclaiming "once a partier, always a partier", but I couldn't think of a good slogan for someone who’s not been monogamous for many years finding it hard to give that lifestyle up. I don’t believe it’s impossible, just very hard.

And, in that same vein, I most surely tried to over-simplify this line of thought to get "once a taste for bad boys, always a taste for bad boys."

Still, I think that anyone, man or woman, who’s been with exciting sex partners will, if they find themselves with someone else who is not, at some point in their lives yearn for that sort of excitement. This too goes back to something I exchanged with David earlier on in this thread about beta men trying to be better lovers vs. the potential for hang-ups in devout Christians to be willing to try to do so.

If a woman who has, shall we say, been around the block, decides (for whatever reason) to settle down with a deeply devout Christian man, it would seem unlikely to me that she will be able to “teach” him to be a better lover (I would imagine that much of the interaction/instruction required would not be well received by such a man – “How does she know all this? She must still be a slut”, if I were to guess).

Thus, unless he had also had a “history” and a religious conversion, the poor guy is probably not going to be especially good at it – ever (sorry to have to say). I don’t see how that at some point she cannot become weary of waiting for him to figure it out, and start remembering the “fun” she used to have.

Now, let me back up and explain that I’ve recently started listening to a commentator named Marc Rudov – a brash, in-your-face, anti-Feminist , alpha male type (who my wife informs me is pretty much dead-on in what he says about women). One of his main contentions is that despite what we’ve been repeatedly told, women do have strong libidos (he points out the huge sales figures for vibrators as one indication), and, that ultimately (I see this as applying primarily to betas) in order to “keep” a women, a man has to be able to please her sexually (in his words, even if she isn’t cheating, she’s thinking about it). I’m sure there are exceptions, but I think that he is on to something.

In this information rich age, women are going to know (or soon find out) if their guy is a “dud” in the sack. If he is a dud, they’ll likely be wondering what they’re missing out on. And, if their own experience tells them he a dud… well, you can get that picture.

[Peter]

I'd have to say that Megan put it best, in her classic rant from a couple months ago:

I can have extravagant, promiscuous, incredibly good sex before marriage, with whomever I choose AND have a wonderful life in all respects. I can be thoroughly loved by a man I love outrageously, NO MATTER WHAT SEX I HAVE before that relationship. Me and my adored can also have fantastic sex and make arrangements with each other for unconventional forms of sex and still have a loving and supportive relationship. I CAN HAVE SO MUCH GOOD SEX and never be punished for it in any form. Yep. I can have all sorts of crazy kinds of sex and be a great engineer and have a good job and have friends and family adore me and never ever suffer for AS MUCH SEX AS I WANT TO HAVE. Lots of conscientious fun sex, with whomever I want, and NO BAD CONSEQUENCES. Even though I am a woman. Having sex.

[slwerner]

Peter - "I'd have to say that Megan put it best, in her classic rant from a couple months ago"

Would you happen to have the link to that - I'd like to understand the context.

[Peter]

Peter - "I'd have to say that Megan put it best, in her classic rant from a couple months ago"

Would you happen to have the link to that - I'd like to understand the context.

Right here.

[SFG]

It is funny. I agree with her on global warming but not on math. I guess you can't find someone you agree with on everything. ;)

Or disagree. Hey, Hitler was right about building the autobahn.

[Markku]

It's very simple to define alpha. It refers to high rank potential in a primeval herd.

Rank potential is the will and ability to fight for one's place in a status hierarchy. It's root is in self-confidence and tolerance of conflict. An individual with high rank potential tolerates conflicts well or even enjoys them.

Rank potential is conveyed by subtle non-verbal communication. It is very difficult to fake because one has to be congruent for it to be effective. It's mostly inborn but may be trained to some degree.

Actual social standing may not always correspond to rank potential. Many criminal psychopaths have high rank potential despite being imprisoned and thus having very low social status. Psychopaths in general have high rank potential because they lack self-doubts, conscience, and feelings of anxiety and fear. Another type of example of rank potential not corresponding actual social status is someone who inherited his high position but could never have achieved it on his own merits. The history of royalty knows plenty of weak monarchs.

Women find high rank potential very sexy in a man. Looks factor partly into a man's rank potential because the very features that women tend to find attractive in male looks are formed by high levels of testosterone, the effect of which on male behavior raises rank potential.

A woman's raw sexual attractiveness depends almost completely on her looks and age and has little do with her rank potential.

If a woman's rank potential is very high, it will cause her a great deal of problems if she's not also very beautiful. This is caused by the fact that the succesful completion of the human mating ritual requires that a man has a rank potential at least roughly equal to that of the woman. It is natural for a woman to test the confidence, resolve, and leadership abilities of a man during the mating ritual, which tests will be the harder the high the rank potential of a woman. In case of women with the highest rank potentials, only alpha males are able to seduce them. But alpha males, being men, don't see much point in seducing ugly women regardless of their rank potential.

A shy and submissive man has the best chances of success with shy and submissive women.

[Bobby]

I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe in FORGIVNESS but no way in Paris,Texas would I date a woman who has a kid by another man, not matter how much she claims she loves the Lord. We can brothers and sisters but LOVES... NOPE

Jesus Christ says marriage is a one time deal...

I am 25 I keep myself fairly pure... No kids out of wedlock and I was never nor I have been primiscous....

You have a child youre not the woman for me... GOd Bless You

[Bobby]

I dont believe in sex before marriage, but I will tell you that when I do get married and start having sex, Its whatever,whenever....

I am strict in my religous beliefs.... But you have these christian women who were ran through and have children out of wedlock and now they want a nice decent man...

I am 25 and most of you who were in your 20s will agree... Some guys are just a little too intelligent for the average woman and if youre not an idiot who uses flattery to get into their pants they wont like you...

You notice that if you are a upright guy and moral girls seem to get turned off and then insult you then 5 years donw the line after they married those "Nice" men and have kids they want to run behind you talking about how much they matured???

Nice guys dont finish last, they just dont settle first....

Vim, you are so correct bro, I would never date a recent convert to the Lord Jesus Christ who has children out of wedlock...

I wouldnt put my nose up to them, or beat them down and look down upon them, but you must be out your friggin mind if you think that I will settle down with some woman who has let some low life men sleep with her..

I look at it like this, I am a decent guy, and if you dated jerks and thugs before me why would you want me now because the men you really wanted dogged you out and now your rep is busted... Nope

I know that their are some classy woman, who havent screwed everything who had standards and I rather wait for her than being so typical as into rushing into bed with every and anything and then calling on God and saying you love God now, when all you are looking for is another man to have sex with.... God fogvies and I can forgive but I dont want to compete with her other sexual partners, nor have to deal with sharing my new wife with some other man who is coming to pick up hs son. Nope, doesnt mean I am better. Just that it would bother me and I dont want to enter a marriage with someone who has other men from their past coming around still.

And women will try that weak psychology that got them into being single men. Youre nt man enough for me an dmy kids. your too judge mental..

Well if your a single mom the guy you let get your pregnnt is not man enough for you but you had unprotected sex with him. And maybe if your were more judgementa maybe you wouldnt be a single mom..... Toodles the new Moral Majority...