Over at Seasons of Tumult and Discord, Alkibiades drafted a rough formula for predicting the probability of a beta provider being cuckolded. Silas Reinagel chimed in to express an optimistic view of Christian behavior that I wish I could support. Alkibiades replied to Silas:
I think Talleyrand would be able to comment more accurately on his experiences with the devout than I could. I believe I lack sufficient experience with devout Christians to give a definitive answer one way or the other on their likelihood of cuckholdry.
I began to reply in the comments with what little I know, but it seems I have a lot to say about that very little.
Most Christians fall off the horse to the left or to the right, as with Luther’s drunken peasant. In my neck of the woods, the so-called Churches of Christ, we see two broad movements comprising roughly 90 percent of the congregations (I made that number up). To the right, the fundamentalists have been circling the wagons for decades. They don’t think about anything because they don’t have to: God already told them all they need to know. To the left, the mushy evangelical types don’t think about anything because God will tell them anything they need to know if they wish for it hard enough.
Jostled about a fair amount, but still holding on in the middle are a few congregations whose leaders and pillars care about truth enough to think about it, to pray about it, and to avoid trusting fully in what they think reason or the Spirit tells them. We are men, we are fallible. My entire adult life as a swineherd has been spent in one of these congregations. As a teenager, my parents took me to one of the mushy liberal places. My grandparents strictly attended the fundamentalist congregations.
The mushy liberal congregations are completely stupid about sex. I recently remembered a co-ed camping trip we took where the adults provided absolutely zero chaperonage. I usually slept on a parking lot where the bugs couldn’t get me quite so easily, and where I could see the stars. One morning I walked back to the main campsite at dawn, before anyone else was up, and was shocked to find six or seven guys and girls all sleeping in a tangle in the same large tent. All clothed, but spooning in plain sight. This congregation is now actively subverting or controverting most of the peculiar doctrines that make the Churches of Christ interesting.
Somewhere on the other side of the spectrum is the congregation my grandparents attended, which was virtually an extension of the Christian university across the street. One of the female professors at the university confessed before the congregation her long-standing affair. She was fired from the university, and I believe she left the congregation. This congregation had, from what I hear, stopped slouching quite so much to the fundamentalist side, and so she was not kicked out of the church directly.
The congregation I attended until a recent move had a fair amount of sexual misbehavior among the members. None of it was tolerated, but sincere repentance (so far as it can be determined) was accepted. The elders had strict policies about divorce. In one instance, a couple with children separated, and the elders allowed both the man and woman to remain members so long as they were working toward reconciliation. When they found out that the woman had started dating, they told her not to return.
The leaders of this congregation, strong men all, may have been mildly stupid about the nature of feral females in the way most social conservatives are stupid. From the podium, at least, females were not pedestaled. Father’s Day and Mother’s Day were given comparable treatment, with Father’s Day having the obvious advantage in terms of relevant sermons. No Mariolatrists here. But the young alphas had their harems, and the betas were very courteously HATE HATE HATED. I doubt that very much fornication was going on, but not because I trust the women. It was at this congregation that I saw the most spectacularly beautiful wellspring of cleavage I have ever seen in public, in real life. My wife was right there with me, and she was staring, too. No, not because I trust the women, but because I know the men. They, like me, stank too much of swine.
I grew up in a fundamentalist Church of Christ in a rural farm town. Most of the men were farmers/ranchers, and were the grandsons and great-grandsons of the cowboys that settled the area. Most were ex-military too. These were hard men and there was no question who was in charge both in the church and in their homes. Infidelity and divorce were so uncommon as to be considered bizarre. They would have been baffled by the whole “alpha/beta” terminology. To them, leadership and dominion were what was expected of you if you were a man. Placing a woman on a pedestal would seem as alien and effeminate as cross-dressing.
The odd thing was that this church took the intellectual side of Christianity deadly seriously. These rural farmers and ranchers could translate New Testament passages from Koine Greek and were experts in the intracacies of first century Roman politics. Looking back now I see one other thing that strikes me as odd. They almost never discussed religious topics outside the church. They never advertised their faith at all.
About 15 years ago I moved to a major city and I’ve tried attending various Churches of Christ many times since then. They have rarely seemed much different than any other evangelical megachurch. They are hyper-emotional and feminized. They seem to preach “turn the other cheek” quite a bit, but I’ve never once heard mention of “I come bearing a sword”. The announcements are always about the activites the women and children pursue. The men mostly have a look of defeat.
A year ago I returned to my hometown church for the first time since leaving. It’s dying. There are only a couple of dozen elderly women and a handful of middle age couples left. Another generation and they are done. I think they were just a lagging indicator, and that I was fortunate to grow up in a time and place where the past was still alive and the future hadn’t arrived. To me, it looks like the soft muddled feminized default culture is spreading to all churches.
RP-in-TX
I just moved to one of the rural areas surrounding Austin. Would you be anywhere nearabouts?
youeumaios@gmail.com
“These rural farmers and ranchers could translate New Testament passages from Koine Greek and were experts in the intracacies of first century Roman politics”
This is so typical of the old school C. of C. I think it’s gone now.
No, I’m in a suburb of Fort Worth. Although “nearabouts” is kind of a relative thing by Texas standards.
I’m afraid you’re right about the old school C. of C. too. I’ve pretty much given up finding a church anything like that, at least in this area. Pity. Those old guys taught me to have a spine. Looks like I’m going to have to do the same for my son without any help.
Pingback: Weekend Link Fest – My ideal woman edition « Seasons of Tumult and Discord
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Hot Sexy Israeli Girl Conspiracy Edition | In Mala Fide
It’s interesting, when talking of different churches attended.
Here in Melbourne, we attend a small baptist church in the outer, outer suburbs, and I thoroughly enjoy going.
The congregation has an average age of 50, which has come down from 65 when we started attending a few years back. The pastor of this church is also big on the educational side of Christianity, so in his sermons he will discuss the etymology of the bible, and yes, first century Roman politics.
He’s also not afraid to call a sin a sin, but I don’t take it personally when he’s been known to speak of bearing children out of wedlock as being against God. It’s a lesson, and some of us are slow learners, I guess.
Since the congregants do tend to be older on the whole, I don’t know that there’s a lot of fornication going on. I don’t want to know, actually.
But the men are the men, and the women are ladies, and that’s what I’d prefer my daughter to see around her rather than the slappers out at the clubs and pubs.
“The congregation has an average age of 50, which has come down from 65 when we started attending a few years back.”
Average, median, or mode?
Sadly, in these times this is both the sign of a serious congregation and the sign of impending evanescence.
While some have passed on, others, younger, have joined.
….and the betas were very courteously HATE HATE HATED.
I’m not clear how was this shown, please elaborate. Thanks.
tannen, the church-going females clearly experienced the same disgust for beta males that all feral females have. But because these females have been indoctrinated with “Nice is a virtue”, they would (visibly) swallow their bile and play friendly.
Dating and marrying a bilious woman, sounds like a slow death to me.
tannen, you appear to have missed the point entirely. These females were nauseated by the beta males they had no intention of dating. They are all sparkling eyes and luscious smiles for the young alphas.
I reread the post again and saw that I had missed the “very courteous” bit. Courteous hatred, interesting concept. But no, didn’t miss the point entirely; only partially. I thought the betas might have had a chance or two at relationships. But I was wrong. So, just like in the secular arena, beta males are revolting to women. Too bad.
I suppose I’d be whiling away life as a single, non alpha sinner in the Church of Christ as in most other denominations. Sometimes I wonder whether it’s worth limiting myself to dating Christians…..(scratches head, sighs in despair/disgust). In the end I just can’t get around the differing worldviews, though.
Interesting blog BTW. Cheers!
“I thought the betas might have had a chance or two at relationships.”
Greater betas do get relationships (I’m not using the Vox hierarchy here, N.B.). They get the alpha leavings. Because the field consists of fairly conservative Christian girls, the leavings are more likely to be worth having than in other groups.
“I suppose I’d be whiling away life as a single, non alpha sinner in the Church of Christ as in most other denominations. Sometimes I wonder whether it’s worth limiting myself to dating Christians…..(scratches head, sighs in despair/disgust). In the end I just can’t get around the differing worldviews, though.”
Homeschooled girls are your best bet.
“This is so typical of the old school C. of C. I think it’s gone now.”
North Alabama still has a fair amount.
I am a non-alpha single Christian man of a
traditional church in Fairfield , Ohio and
it was a Godsend that I found this church.
Am I courteously, hate, hate, HATED by
the women of my congregation? No, but the
pickings are very slim. Then again, I am a
confirmed bachelor that is too set in his ways
to even take a shot at marriage or relationships.
As far as rejection goes, I earned that a long
time ago and that was before I got the full
truth of feminism and the marginalization of
men.
I lament the feminization of the churches, however… rejection of men occurred long before feminism, and in all sectors of society. Working with young men I’ve noticed that this seems to hit men harder than it does women: they are almost entirely paranoid of it, both from men and from others. Mostly? They fear rejection from male role models, their Dads, etc.
Women are TOLD from birth by society that we’re here to be measured [on a scale from 1-10, for example]. When men find out they are also to be found inadequate they may be surprised and become paranoid that they are being ‘hate hate hated’ whether that is or is not, in fact, the case. You can be rejected and not hated. The hate you feel may be projection [you hate them for rejecting you, so it's easier to imagine the women hate you, justifying your own emotions].
Perhaps the most productive thing to do when we are rejected [male or female] is to look at ourselves and change our own behavior. Far be it from me to suggest a specific change – that is likely individual… but
clearly trying to control others [with their faith, or otherwise] is not something the strong old church men we all admire so much ever engaged in…
Just food for thought. :) [p.s. Church girls don't hate hate hate Betas myself... but we don't want to marry a guy whose self concept is primarily determined by what women 'supposedly' think of him - rather, one whose self concept rests in what God thinks of Him and whose attitude reflects this confident self understanding in Christ.]
Hello, Screwtape. Nice to cross swords with you.
Pingback: Snowflake doesn’t want me to talk trash about church girls. | Riding with the King
I suppose that we’re talking about bad betas then (the exclusively nice guys, not the steady and reliable husbands) and bad alphas too, judging from the sad harem comments. Any man who follows the Bible should have a healthy mixture of both qualities, esp. as true manhood goes beyond simplifying labels. Some of the patriarchal beliefs around here sound like the Vision Forum, though it interestingly enough has men be both alphas and gentlemen; they can be sickening sometimes in their mush gush, but the lost combination of strength and gentleness is one sadly lost to many in this age.
“I suppose that we’re talking about bad betas then (the exclusively nice guys, not the steady and reliable husbands)”
This does not, however, justify their mistreatment; such men need Biblical guidance, to become more like strong Christ in every way. In fact, re-reading the article, looks like I was wrong: it appears that regular, good and reliable betas were the type being referred to here as the ones mistreated and sometimes abused. There’s no remote excuse for that; such women are fools.
Jennifer said: “I suppose that we’re talking about bad betas then (the exclusively nice guys, not the steady and reliable husbands)”
Steady and reliable are beta traits. Women are not attracted to steady and reliable. Do not mistake me, they value those traits highly, but the traits themselves are not attractive. This is analogous to intelligence in women. Many men value it, and ceteris paribus will seek it in a woman, but intelligence is never the prime mover in attraction.
There’s another dimension I did not address here, and that is the way that Christian women who have settled for steady and reliable nice guys treat their husbands. In addition to porking up and dressing like MHMR inmates, many treat their non-obese, reasonably good-looking, well-dressed, financially successful husbands with open contempt, in public. One of the few wives I knew at my C.o.C. congregation who stayed slim and attractive was also enough of a harridan that she could be heard griping out her husband in the courtyard after Sunday services less than a hundred feet from the doors.
My friend, Hump, came to visit me about a year ago, and he stayed the night with some friends from that congregation, a couple he had known before their marriage, which was about 8 months before that. The wife had become visibly overweight. He woke on a Sunday morning to hear her screaming at her husband about not being able to find a red pen (school teacher, natch). Husband supplicated and offered to go buy a pen immediately.
The three other young wives I recall at that church (membership 600) who remained slinky and attractive (in order of descending hotness):
* Married to a non-Christian
* Briefly abandoned her husband and two young children in search of fun. She returned when she discovered she was pregnant. No public repercussions or consequences.
* Youth minister’s wife
All other slim and pretty women were either unmarried or over 35.
“it appears that regular, good and reliable betas were the type being referred to here as the ones mistreated and sometimes abused. There’s no remote excuse for that; such women are fools.”
The point of contention, Jennifer, is whether women like you who express correct ideas in this context are able to apply them in practice. Most women, Christian or not, are surrounded by good and reliable betas who they consider unattractive and unfit.
Jennifer: “bad alphas too, judging from the sad harem comments”.
The alphas with harems line was way too vague. By it I meant to refer more to female misbehavior than male. Any single man even resembling an alpha in a church collects female hangers-on, who will disdain lesser men.
Well Emaios, I’m happy to say that I generally have been attracted to “betas”. Generally I hate that term, because it’s simplifying to men, but I know the basic meaning (funny how Gamers disagree on a beta’s range of fortune; Vox Day thinks they actually have it pretty good). I like a good mixture, and I think it’s because all the men I’ve seen have confidence and good hearts; the arrogant type has always turned me off. The general imbalance we have now no doubt has to do with the culture; men are either taught to be entirely beta, or resort to being alpha to generally get laid.
Jennifer, you have just clearly exposed an inability to comprehend what you read. The Beta in Vox’s socio-sexual hierarchy is completely and totally different from the Beta as understood by most of the rest of the reacto-sphere. No beta in the Vox system is actually a beta in the Roissy system (for lack of a better designator). Vox-betas would be called alphas by Roissy et al.
That this is so is largely Vox’s responsibility; I won’t argue with his categories (indeed I think he’s on to something deeper than he has presently analyzed), but he did co-opt the term “beta” for his own uses.
“I think it’s because all the men I’ve seen have confidence and good hearts”
This is your second major, like, you know, really heinous comprehension failure. Men with confidence and good hearts are not Roissy-betas. They lean alpha, whether or not they collect notches. Going by the Vox system, you appear to be trying to distinguish between Vox-alphas and Vox-betas. The men whose existence you acknowledge and approve of are Vox-betas. The men whose existence you acknowledge and disapprove of are Vox-alphas or Vox-sigmas.
Most men do not understand Vox’s hierarchy, as indicated by the number of Gammas who think they are Sigmas. Women are even less likely to comprehend, not having lived and played in that sphere. I suspect, however, that Vox’s system can be generated from a small set of axes; of opposing traits that can be understood more intuitively:
* masculine vs. emasculated
* self-oriented/narcissistic vs. other-oriented
* socially-embedded vs. socially-detached
I’ll hint you three permutations:
* Masculine, self-oriented, socially-embedded: Vox Alpha
* Emasculated, other-oriented, socially-embedded: Vox Delta
* Emasculated, self-oriented, socially-detached: Vox Omega
Questions to all readers:
* given these axes, how do you make a Vox Beta?
* what would you term an Emasculated, other-oriented, socially-detached man?
* Masculine, other-oriented, socially-detached?
“The Beta in Vox’s socio-sexual hierarchy is completely and totally different from the Beta as understood by most of the rest of the reacto-sphere”
That was quite clear to me, and other gaming sites have also differed with each other when it comes to deeper definitions and practice advice. I’m uncertain whether Roissy would call all Vox betas alphas, considering how withering his type often is about men who practice basic self-control or humility. Vox’s definition of beta is similar to Athol Kay’s, Dalrock’s, and Susan Walsh’s.
“Men with confidence and good hearts are not Roissy-betas. They lean alpha, whether or not they collect notches”
I agree, these fellows have the strong frames men need, which I’ve stressed elsewhere. So you lean more towards the Roissy-alpha, then.
Thanks for the interesting info/permutations.