The Christian Hostility To Becoming Attractive


Modern Christianity is broken.  While I could detail a lot of specific points, it all boils down to attitude.  The modern Christian really doesn’t care what the Bible says, they want to do things their way.  This is especially true of the leaders in the church.

One of the most significant hold-overs from the early Church that is still present within the protestant churches is in the form of attitudes toward sex.  Jesus predicted what would happen in His parable of the wheat and the tares and soon after the church was planted took root… the enemy scattered his own seed.   Men like Augustine and Jerome, prolific writers with a hatred of all things sexual, especially sexual pleasure.  Their position was that sex was vile, disgusting and sinful even in marriage.  Noteworthy is the fact that Jerome got tapped to make the official translation of the Bible for the church.

One of the key points introduced in the early church that is completely contrary to Scripture is the idea that men and women are equal with regard to sexual morality.  The truth is they are not because there are two different standards of sexual morality for men and women.

  • There are some things men may do that women are forbidden to do.  One example is a man can have more than one wife, but a woman may only have sex with her husband and sex with any other man is adultery.
  • There are some things men are forbidden to do that women may do with impunity.  An example is if a man lies with another man as with a woman, that is an abomination.  However, the only way sexual contact between women is wrong is if it’s incest (Lev. 18:17-18) because there is no other prohibition on such activity.
  • The difference between men and women in the area of consent to marriage provides the final key to understanding the lack of equality.  The consent or lack of consent to marriage by an eligible virgin is meaningless.  She may be married against her will without consent through rape (Deut. 22:28-29).  She may choose to marry and do so, only to have her father annul the marriage without regard to her desires  (Numbers 30:5).  The man, however, not only gives his consent but also his commitment to marriage with the act of intercourse, every single time.

Yet, early church thought leaders like Augustine and Jerome rejected the Biblical standard, claiming marriage was formed by consent and sex had nothing to do with it.  In addition, men and women were both held to the same new and perverse standards of sexual morality which claimed all sex was vile, disgusting and even within marriage sinful, thus all should avoid it at all costs.  In short, the early church threw out what the Bible said in favor of pagan practice, Stoic philosophy and Roman law.

The true effect of these changes was to lay the moral foundation for feminism.  Feminism cannot be defeated as a philosophy until its moral foundation is destroyed and that cannot happen until Christians return to the Biblical standard that the early church rejected.

Officially things have changed a bit in modern times, but the underlying attitude has not.  Polygyny is so well-supported in Scripture that it cannot be opposed on any rational basis, but it still meets strong opposition because it bothers people.  That an eligible virgin is married when she first has sex is even more strongly opposed and pointing out that God simply does not have a problem with sexual contact between women is anathema.  Yet, that is what Scripture reveals.

The Depraved Passion Of Feminism

Feminism is the moral philosophy established by the early Church, claiming that men and women are equal.  The doctrine of equality that was promulgated by the early church is the moral foundation of feminism.

This idea of equality is not what drove a “monogamy only” policy in the early church, rather, it seems to have been early church leaders reacting to Roman law.  The Romans did not recognize the structure of polygyny and the early church seemed to have distanced itself from the practice in order to conform to the Roman standards. Centuries later the church claimed the “tradition” of monogamy was holy writ, banning polygyny.  It just so happened that such a ban facilitated their conflict with the nobility.

Likewise on the idea of consent being required for the marriage.  St. Paul made it clear in his first letter to the Corinthians that the father was still in absolute authority over his daughter and he may choose to allow her to marry or he may choose to not allow her to be married.  The point is the father has the authority to make that choice.   Ignoring Scripture, the church usurped the authority of the father and required the consent of the woman in a church ceremony under the authority of the church in order for her marriage to be valid.

For the vast majority of the people at that time such a requirement was irrelevant.  However, that was of particular importance to the nobility because a valid marriage was required for the children to inherit.  Only the nobles had anything of significant value to pass on to their children.  Dynastic considerations and inheritance were the reason why the nobility had long practiced arranging marriages for their children with an eye toward conserving and consolidating their holdings and power.  Another aspect was first cousin marriages were frequent and most Christians today would be appalled to learn that such a union is not forbidden by Scripture.  The church’s strategy against the nobility was a long game, because by taking control of marriage and usurping the authority of the father they significantly weakened the nobility over time.

Unintended Consequences

One has only to read the works of the Patristic church fathers like Augustine and Jerome to know they would be rolling in their graves if they comprehended the result of what they had done.  Over time the solid foundation of feminism settled and grew stronger, waiting until social, political and economic conditions finally changed to allow feminism to flourish.

One must keep in mind that the changes the church made when they threw out Scripture and replaced it with pagan beliefs, Stoic philosophy and Roman law increased the power of women over men.  The behaviors taught within the church to men produced a likewise interesting unintended consequence.  The church’s elevation of women as paragons of virtue (with the development of the cult of Mary) caused men to put women on a pedestal and idolize them as possessing qualities they did not have.  In doing so they debased themselves, but that was relative.  When we read “knight in shining armor” the operative word there is “knight.”  A warrior.  He wears armor because he fights and kills.

At that time in history the social, political and economic structures kept women in check.  However, over time the process accelerated and in the twentieth century women finally achieved political, economic and social equality. Men were no longer masculine and dominant, they became feminized from the cultural conditioning.  The cultural axiom of “never hit a girl” completely ignored the question of “what if she deserves it?”  The ingrained philosophy was that women never deserved it.  Women took full advantage of that situation.

The major changes began during the industrial revolution with women’s increasing economic value.  Later came women’s suffrage and the accumulation of power progressed as women gained political power.   With industrialization and education on a mass scale women gained economic power and the ability to support themselves without the need for a man.  Biologically a huge change came with the introduction of hormonal birth control, which allowed women to take control of their fertility.  The results were predictable and women began to behave in a manner never contemplated by Christendom.

The Return To Biological Attraction

Without a real “need” for a man and no objective consequences for being sexually promiscuous, women exercised their freedom in ways that were shocking.  Divorce became endemic, with half of all marriages ending in divorce.  That women actually filed the paperwork in about 70% of such divorces is misleading, because demonstrably women were capable of making things so uncomfortable within the home that the man filed for the divorce.  The laws concerning divorce were stood on their head with the introduction of “no-fault” divorce.  “No-fault” divorce is somewhat of a misnomer because what it actually means is either party can file for any reason or even no reason at all and the divorce will automatically be granted.  The rules for settling a divorce changed as well and the women became the big winners.

The result, today, is that over 70% of the men between the ages of 25 and 34 are currently not married.  Of the men from 20-29 who do not have a college degree, over 20% have not been employed in the past 12 months.  Dr. Helen Smith wrote a polemic, “Men on Strike” to describe the phenomena of men “checking out” of a system that is arguably designed to destroy them.  Indeed, it is difficult to look at the way the rules are arranged and come to any other conclusion.  That there can be no rational discourse on this is another indicator of the true state of things because any attempt at such is branded as misogyny.

Yet, within the church, the old bias against sex and the fear of biological attraction continued.  While the women embraced their promiscuity in response to their biological attraction to some men, the church tended to blame the men.  That this is another aspect of feminism was beyond their comprehension.


In the final years of the 20th Century an interesting thing happened and men began to make a systematic study of what women were biologically attracted to.  Research was performed and a body of data accumulated.  With the previous data available new avenues of investigation were taken and more data collected.  This data was analyzed and systems were developed that allowed a man to stimulate biological cues within women through behaviors and attitudes.

The backlash from feminism was loud and long, especially within the church, was because within the sexually promiscuous environment what men wanted was sex.  All the research was effectively done to answer a simple question:  “What do I need to do to get laid?”  The men doing the research were known as “Pick-Up Artists” or “PUA’s” and they became hated.  The fact that the research took place and was analyzed from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology is irrelevant.  That the investigation was done for the purpose of facilitating promiscuity is irrelevant.  The primary mistake of removing God from the equation had taken place well over a thousand years prior and that had been forgotten.

The observations, conclusions and theories about stimulating a woman’s biological attraction became known as “Game” due to a book by Neil Strauss titled “The Game.”  The idea of Game was tied to the “Red Pill” analogy from the movie “The Matrix.”  The blue pill puts you back to sleep, you wake up and everything is normal.  The red pill takes you down the rabbit hole and you learn the truth that has always been hidden from you.  The Red Pill encompasses much more than merely Game, it is a perspective that tries to recognize feminism for what it is and the truth of what is happening in society as a result of what feminism has done.

Fit To Rule

One of the most difficult aspects of understanding female biological attraction was that the standpoint of evolutionary psychology was and is incorrect.  Hypergamy was not an evolutionary development, God did it and the event is recorded in Genesis 3:16.  That was not noticeable within the church until the latter half of the 20th Century because it was not until the advent of unrestrained hypergamy resulted in rampant promiscuity that the underlying tenets of Game were researched and explored.

Genesis 3:16 says, in part, “your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

The particular Hebrew word translated as “desire” in English is only used two other places, one of which is Genesis 4:7 in which the desire is to conquer.  The other is in the Song of Songs 7:10, where the desire is sexual desire.  For centuries Bible scholars argued whether the word “desire” in Genesis 3:16 meant the desire to conquer or a sexual desire.  There was ample evidence in the real world that both existed.  The problem is that it wasn’t until we had the data from the study of women’s biological attraction that we learned that it is not an either-or question, it’s both.  That stands a lot of Biblical scholarship on its head.

Observably, if a woman is interested in a man (meaning there is some attraction there) she responds with a desire to conquer, to overcome.  This takes place as what is known as a shit test or a fitness test.  Fitness test is a far better term from a Christian perspective for reasons you’ll understand shortly.  If the man passes the fitness tests more attraction is generated and as he continues to pass the fitness tests the desire changes from the desire to conquer (she stops testing him) and is replaced by a sexual desire.   This process is so well understood that we could literally call it “Game 101” for beginners.

The problem is one of perspective.  The Red Pill community and particularly those with a focus on Game tend to fall completely in the evolutionary psychology area in terms of the underlying motive behind this.  They claim it’s an evolved behavior.  From a Christian standpoint the answer is clear because that section of Genesis 3:16 contained two points.  Her desire would be for him, and he would rule over her.  We can condense that to say “her desire is for her ruler.”  Since she doesn’t have a man to rule over her yet, we can look at it from the front-end and say “her desire is for a man to rule over her” or a bit better,

“her desire is for a man who is fit to rule her.”

Now the two points go hand-in-hand quite nicely and we can see why she first tests the man, to ascertain whether he is fit to rule her.  If he passes the tests and she decides that he is fit to rule over her, her desire to try to conquer him is replaced with sexual desire for him.  It is the “fitness to rule” that is the elusive component that Game has tried to define as a group of attitudes and behaviors, not physical appearance.  Certainly physical appearance adds to the attraction, but it is the underlying attitudes and behaviors that are most attractive and signal that the man is fit to rule over her.

Observe the qualities women appreciate: high confidence, masculine dominance, an attitude of amused mastery and ZFG, a very high level of state control and a focus on his mission.  These are the qualities of  a man who is fit to rule and women find such a man attractive at a biological level.  In addition to that are other qualities like kindness, humility, truthfulness, loyalty and fidelity that one really wants to see in a ruler. However, given the traditional shaming of biological attraction, women never mention the issue of biological attraction and when asked what they are attracted to they focus on the qualities of a good ruler.  Which leaves men thinking all they need to do is be a nice guy and then they couldn’t understand what it was that women really wanted.

Visually, one way to differentiate men has always been by appearance because some men look better than others.  Some men have an appearance that is very appealing to others.  One aspect of masculinity is the ability to project masculinity and dominance to others.  A strong, muscular physique adds a great deal to that, as does height.  These are aspects of a man that women find attractive as long as the other components of being fit to rule are present, but in and of themselves they are merely appealing.  This is one reason why men were so confused when they began to study Game.

It cannot be denied that Game is a learned set of attitudes and behaviors, which means that a man who would not otherwise be considered “fit to rule” can become “fit to rule” by learning the rules and adopting the various aspects of Game.  In other words, a man can shift his attitudes, change his behavior and become more attractive to women.

The Church:  The Origin And Last Bastion Of Feminism

The idea that a Christian would be in sin because they worked to increase their attractiveness value is particularly egregious, but that is the current attitude of the church.  It has been interesting to watch within the manosphere as various Christians came to grips with Game.  The arguments over whether Game was moral, whether women had agency, lots of things got discussed and it was obvious there were strong emotions.  However, what is most interesting is the overt hostility of Christians in general to Game.

Watching their responses has been interesting.  I recently used an example of teaching a boy just a bit of game.  There was a girl he wanted to get to know, but she was pretty and got lots of attention.  My advice was to walk over to where she was with her girlfriends and talk to them, not her.  Ignore her.  Just be the happy and fun guy he normally is, but ignore her.  When she demanded some attention, tease her.  She would react, tease her some more.  Finally tell her that he couldn’t take her anywhere because she couldn’t behave in public.  That would get her desire to do something with him to show him she could behave in public.  Anyone who knows this is already aware that it’s Game 101.

A certain group of Christians objected, saying that what he was doing was a form of lying, of putting on a false face.  No, he should be demonstrate his “Godly masculinity” by explaining that he wanted her, he wasn’t going to chase her or beg her, she would have to make the decision to come to him.

Well, anyone who has eyes can see what was happening.  Following the instructions, he demonstrated rather than explained.  Was she pretty and desirable?  Of course.  She already knew that.  He demonstrated his desire by choosing to spend time with her.  He demonstrated that he would not beg her or chase her, what he did was get her to chase him.  He didn’t lie or put on a false face, he actually ignored her until she decided she wanted attention from him and communicated that.  What’s not to like about actions rather than words?  For Christians with their deep-seated fears and insecurities, there is evidently plenty not to like about Game.  This goes hand in hand with the ongoing crusade by both men and woman in the church to stomp the masculinity out of the boys and men.

Then came the moral question of whether working to make one’s self attractive was the right thing to do and the shaming was heaped on.  The fact that Game works isn’t the question, the problem is that women are not supposed to like that stuff.  Really.  They said that.  Like they get to decide what women respond to.  Then came the twisting of Scripture and the tone policing.

The real problem was I pointed out the difference between single women and married women in the church, that a huge percentage of the married women are pathetically easy to seduce.  Any reasonably attractive and game-aware man understands this if he visits a few of our modern churches.  The single women will compare him to every other man they know, but the standard of comparison for the married women is their husband.  The fact that the feminist church works hard to make its men unattractive is a known fact but they don’t want to hear about it.

This is one of the reasons why the modern churches are so opposed to any form of self-improvement in a man that would make him more attractive to women, especially learning Game:  The men know they cannot compete.  They fear confident, masculine, dominant men and the pain they feel when they see their women reacting to such a man is off the scale.

The modern church is a broken mess.  Women rule them with angry frustration because in the process of taking power that was never granted to them, they stomped the masculinity out of the boys and men using a variety of shaming techniques.  Masculinity is literally seen as a source of shame in the church today and is attacked at every point.   The leaders forced the men to drink the Kool-Aid of “mutual submission” and “servant leadership” such that the outcome was predictable.  While the “Y” chromosome exists, masculine and dominant men are few and far between in the churches today.  The women have voted with their feet, which is why they almost exclusively “date” non-Christian men.  The feminized Christian men are so cringe-worthy as to be beneath their threshold of attention.

All a man has to do to completely prove the foregoing is to take the basic Red Pill advice of learning Game, hit the gym and get in shape, improve his income and start approaching women.  Improving one’s appearance and increasing earnings is not viewed as a bad thing, per se, but let it be known that you’re learning Game and all hell will break loose.  The only reason for a man to learn game is to increase his biological attractiveness to women.  It is on that point that the modern church will attack with ferocity.  While the modern church has the medieval attitude of hating all sexual desire, because of feminism that hatred is now directed solely at men.

This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Christian Hostility To Becoming Attractive

  1. feeriker says:

    EXCELLENT work, Toad! I’m going to share this with a few Christians of my acquaintance who are on the fence about this whole thing. I’m eager to see their reactions.

  2. Renee Harris says:

    Who put a The Y in Deuteronomy that kings should not have multiple wives or horses because it was hard his heart away from God
    Obviously it’s not scripture because a man who Marriott many women as he wants.

    • Renee Harris says:

      The lies not the Y

    • Art says:

      Obviously Deuteronomy 17 doesn’t prohibit the king from having more than one wife, any more than it prohibits him from having more than one horse. The exact same words are used for both horses and wives.

      He isn’t suppose to go hog wild and horde up a ton of women (like Solomon did with his 1000 wives and concubines). There was nothing wrong with the king having 3-5-10 or even 20ish wives like King David did.

      Solomon violated all three aspects of Deut. 17 (horses, wives, and gold/silver) and his heart turned away from the Lord (like Deut. 17 said would happen).

      David on the other hand, had a goodly number of wives, quite a few horses, and quite a bit of gold and silver, yet his heart never turned away from the Lord (except in the matter of Uriah). Scripture explicitly states that David remained wholly true to the Lord otherwise.

      • Just Some Guy says:

        @Renee Harris ; @Art

        You’re both mostly right but still slightly off. First, he was not guilty of violating Duet 17 in the fact he had multiplied horses and money. We are told that he was blessed exceedingly by God because of his request for Wisdom. For example, see 1 King 4:27, 1 Kings 10:14-28. These were examples of how great he had been blessed, not a rebuke. Now as to the wives, he was not guilty of multiplying wives, exactly. He was guilty of taking foreign wives. See 1 Kings 11:1-11. It restates the decree not to marry foreign women in verse 2 “from the nations of whom the Lord had said to the children of Israel, You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods.” and then explicitly states what he did and for whom in verse 8 “And he did likewise for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.”

        It wasn’t the number of wives, it was who they were, that led him astray.

        • he was not guilty of multiplying wives, exactly

          Deuteronomy 17:17 says the king is not to multiply wives lest they turn his heart away from the Lord.

          David had 8 wives and God took credit for giving him those wives. In addition, David had some concubines. His wives did not turn his heart away from the Lord.

          Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. They turned his heart away from the Lord.

          From that, David did not multiply wives and Solomon did. We don’t know how many wives “multiplying” turns out to be but it was more than 8 and less than 700.

          It wasn’t the number of wives, it was who they were, that led him astray.

          I agree that his foreign wives turned his heart from the Lord, but saying that it was only the foreign character of the wives is to ignore Deuteronomy 17:17, which makes no mention of where the wives might come from.

  3. Pingback: Five Is Not The Number You Want | Toad's Hall

  4. Pingback: Jordan Winsby Tells Lies | Toad's Hall

  5. mala says:

    “However, given the traditional shaming of biological attraction, women never mention the issue of biological attraction”

    Well that just isn’t true, is it now?

    “A strong, muscular physique adds a great deal to that, as does height.”

    I find this too general. Too much bulk is a turn off. Too much height is, as well.

    My advice was to walk over to where she was with her girlfriends and talk to them, not her. Ignore her. Just be the happy and fun guy he normally is, but ignore her. When she demanded some attention, tease her. She would react, tease her some more. Finally tell her that he couldn’t take her anywhere because she couldn’t behave in public. That would get her desire to do something with him to show him she could behave in public. Anyone who knows this is already aware that it’s Game 101.”

    I’ve no doubt this works well with girls and women who cannot pick and choose their man! With anyone else, it might seem a bit childish, and that is not sexy!

  6. Pingback: Advice For A Young Man | Toad's Hall

  7. Pingback: Theology For Men of the West: The Cargo Cult of MGTOW | Toad's Hall

  8. Pingback: Strategy For Men of the West: Polygyny | Toad's Hall

  9. tpt says:

    Reblogged this on The Politics Times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s