Can one exist without the other?

Readership: All; Men;
Theme: Validation; Feminine Submission;
Length: 1,000 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes

My post, Expectation vs Experience (2025/5/2) offered an analysis of a debate that began under How to Induce Humility in a Proud@ss Woman (2025/4/23). The discussion was about whether women who are attracted to dominant or rogue men are either wives or wh0res, respectively.

Pixelazer reduced the debate to two bullet points.

  • Oscar: Don’t marry a girl who’s into abusers, criminals, and thugs.
  • Thnking: All girls are into abusers, criminals, and thugs, so your point is meaningless.

The main purpose of this blog is to provide a forum for Christian Red Pill discussion that might educate and minister to men, especially younger men like Thnking. So I’ll write one more post on this debate because I believe Thnking’s curiosity (and probably also many other readers’ too) has not yet been satisfied.

I was intrigued by Thnking’s geometric analogy of rectangles and squares, paraphrased as…

All squares (promiscuous women) are rectangles (attracted to scary). But not all rectangles are squares.

This got me thinking in terms of superposition, and I put together a more complex Venn diagram of Women’s Attraction vs. Promiscuity.

img-1783678652-6a50c6bcec2cc3.02363682.jpg

Let’s carefully consider this diagram and see if we can come up with some more insights.

Here, the qualities of a ‘good wife’ encompass many things, but the key traits are being chaste, respectful, and submissive.

  1. Regarding Genesis 3:16 and Ephesians 5:33, box A and B may be the same box (Red Pill 101).
  2. Women are typically unable to make a distinction between dominant men and rogue men, so B and C may be the same box (Jack’s point).
  3. Combining 1 and 2, and because AWALT, boxes A, B, and C may be the same box (Thnking’s argument).
  4. If 1 is true, then there is no distinction between D and E (i.e. straight women are attracted to dominant men and are promiscuous), and H and I (i.e. straight women are attracted to dominant men and are NOT promiscuous (corollary to Thnking’s argument).
  5. If 2 is true, then there is no distinction between E and F, G and H, J and K, and L and M (corollary to Jack’s point).
  6. If 5 is true (i.e. L = M), then women who are attracted to dominance (rogue or not) and are NOT promiscuous (box L) may very well prove to be a good wife (corollary to Thnking’s argument).
  7. As indicated by vector N, women who are attracted to dominant rogue men and are NOT promiscuous may be highly susceptible to becoming promiscuous. (Not sure if this has been explicitly stated yet, but it’s very important to the argument.)
  8. Similar to 7 and indicated by vector O, women who are NOT promiscuous and are wife material, but who are attracted to dominant rogue men, may also be susceptible to becoming promiscuous.
  9. Because of 2 and 8, women in box L are more risky than women in box M (coincides with Oscar’s main point).
  10. Because of 9 and because of the current state of the SMP/MMP, perhaps box L doesn’t exist in certain paradigms of reality?

In summary, Oscar and Thnking agree that the red boxes (promiscuous women) are a bad bet for marriage. However, the contention is over the green boxes, namely…

  1. If 2 is true, combined with uncertainty surrounding 8, i.e. whether a woman being attracted to dominant men but cannot discern the difference between good men and F_ckboys should be a deal breaker.
  2. If box L exists, i.e. women who are attracted to dominant rogue men and would be submissive wives (necessary for Headship), and who can also resist sexual sin.
img-1783678246-6a50c526af8fa1.75736963.jpg

Concerning 1, in general, this is a question of whether she has sufficient agency and maturity to enter into marriage. The answer all depends on the character of the woman in question and her track record (Oscar’s main point).

Concerning 2, The likelihood of 8-10 in the previous list being true depends on a combination of the following conditions.

  1. Homeschooling.
  2. How close she is to her father, i.e. whether she feels loved enough to appreciate male dominance and resist rogue attention.
  3. Whether the woman is able to discern the difference between dominant men and rogues (i.e. 2 is true). If not, then fathers and brothers are needed here.
  4. How much she is involved in a Christian community, i.e. her peer group / herd influence.
  5. Whether the woman is indeed attracted to dominant men, but NOT rogues (???).
  6. How much agency and self-control the woman possesses (individual factors).

All of these are known to decrease the probability of a woman becoming promiscuous (vectors N and O).

I also want to point out that point 10 in the first list disagrees with the stance that Oscar has taken in the past, in which he has suggested that women worthy of wifing up do exist in certain communities, but that it is very important for the family and community to be involved in the process to ensure things turn out well.

Oscar could quickly clear up the confusion if he could tell us whether he thinks box L exists, and why or why not.

If it does exist, then it’s fair to say that all women are attracted to ‘ScArY’ (as per Thnking’s argument that AWALT).

If not, then I believe it is because there is a very high probability that women who are attracted to rogues will invariably act on that attraction. Perhaps the reason is because women who are strongly attracted to dominant rogue men cannot enforce boundaries or don’t know when to escape temptation (i.e. vector O always happens).

I know this analysis is probably more syntactic than what most readers would care for, but it is offered in the hope that it might help readers understand the issue of contention and reach some conclusions. It’s also a good exercise in logic — and one that illustrates the limitations of logic.

Related