I’ve often been quoted of the following – “Marriage is no insulation from the sexual marketplace” – and at the risk of piling on to what I initially knew would be the click-bait du jour of the blogosphere this week, I was reminded of this quote as I read through the now infamous spreadsheet of sexual excuses as compiled by a 26 year old husband for a 26 year old wife.
You’ll have to excuse my tardiness in posting this week, but I wanted to allow this story some time to develop before I threw my hat in the ring. My expectation was that most takes on this sex denial log would be from a unilaterally feminine-primary perspective and predictably ridicule the husband for his efforts while absolving his wife of any culpability for her ‘reasons’ for not wanting to get after it with him.
Needless to say I wasn’t disappointed, but as an added bonus we got an indignant insight into what a feminine-primary culture expects men not to expect in marriage (spoiler alert, PUAs called this long before Feministing did).
There’s a lot to unpack here, so I’ll begin with the most obvious issues first.
The most glaring omission I’ve read in most of the posts regarding this couple so far is that, in a blatant effort to lessen the negative impact on the wife, very few bloggers have included the entire Reddit post to draw conclusions from:
The first thing we have to do is a bit of Red Pill math to understand the context in which this situation takes place. We have a couple that married young by modern standards. Both are 26 and have been married for 2 years (i.e. married at 24).
Furthermore they’d been monogamous for 3 years prior, thus they met and paired up at the age of 21.
This is as much as we know about their history, but in context we’re looking at a guy who in all likelihood married a 24 year old girl for the same feminine conditioned, idealistic reasons he had for pairing up with her at 21.
I don’t have any evidence to support the idea that this guy married his wife due to religious convictions, but I don’t think it’s too far a stretch to presume they had somewhat regular sex in the 3 years prior to marrying.
I also can’t confirm that either party had sex with anyone else prior to their meeting at 21, but if we consider that both likely had average sexual experiences between 18-21 we’re only talking about a window of around 4 years in which either had any opportunity to experience anyone else before they met.
I’m establishing this because if I had to speculate, both are the husband and wife are operating from Adolescent Social Skill Sets, and thus have no real frame of adult reference learned through dating (LTR or STR) with which they can base their expectations in marriage.
However, as we’ll see in a moment, a fem-centric culture is only too willing to fill in the blanks of that lack of social reference for them.
Spreadsheet Guy
A woman’s imagination is the single most useful tool in your Game arsenal.
Every technique, every casual response, every gesture, intimation and subcommunication hinges on stimulating her imagination. Competition anxiety relies on it. DHV (demonstrating higher value) relies on it. Sexual tension (‘gina tingles) relies on it. Call it “Caffeinating the Hamster” if you will, but stimulating a woman’s imaginings is the single most potent talent you can learn in any context of a relationship (LTR, STR, ONS, Plate Spinning.)
Spreadsheet Guy is learning this now no doubt. He’s done what most men do: attempt to litigate with evidence and deductively solve his problem by appealing to his wife’s reason with a token effort to enforce his ‘being in the right’ by exposing her to a marginal amount of dread.
What he fails to account for is that even if she responds with more frequent sex, any sex they do have will be the compromised result of her negotiated obligation, not her genuine, motivated desire.
The frame you enter into monogamy/marriage with sets the tone for your future relationship. Spreadsheet Guy is simply following the male deductive approach to problem solving and making appeals to his wife’s reason by graphically showing her (and now all of the internet) the evidence of his correctness.
Appealing to women’s logic and relying on deductive reasoning to sort it out is the calling card of a Beta mind. There is nothing more anti-seductive for women than appealing to her reason. Arousal, attraction, sexual tension, subcommunication of desire, all happen indirectly and below the social surface for women.
It’s not that women are incapable of reasoning (hypergamy is one logical bitch) or are crippled by their emotion-based hindbrains, it’s that if you’re asking her how to be more attractive you don’t Get It. It’s in the doing, not the asking.
I can’t fault the guy for his effort; he simply hasn’t learned that women never want full disclosure of anything – and particularly anything that shines an unflattering light on them.
Nothing is more gratifying for a woman than to believe she’s figured out a man using her mythical ‘feminine intuition’. Spreadsheet Guy doesn’t give her the option to use her imagination and solve the puzzle – just like most guys who believe the trope that ‘open communication is the key to a good relationship®’ he spells it out for her in no uncertain terms – and with a marginal amount of above-board Dread he expects (I presume) the problem with her sexual frequency will be solved for him.
From a male perspective, and particularly that of an uninitiated beta male, negotiation of desire seems a rational solution to the problem. Men tend to innately rely on deductive reasoning; otherwise known as an “if then” logic stream.
The code is often something like this: I need sex + women have the sex I want + query women about their conditions for sex + meet prerequisites for sex = the sex I want.
One very important element of Spreadsheet Guy’s actions that needs to be understood is the convenient comparisons being made in regard to the transactional nature of sex, and the expectations men (and to a lesser degree women) place on their conditions for sex.
Of course the first feminist retort is that men should never have any expectation under any circumstance of receiving the gift of a woman’s sexuality for any reason other than that she wants to fuck him.
Naturally this becomes problematic under the auspices of marriage wherein a man’s default presumption is that he is, if not entitled to, then certainly can expect to some extent that his wife will have sex with him.
This situation represents an illustration of the great schism between the old order social contract of marriage, wherein a man had a reasonable expectation of sex with his wife, and the new feminine-primary order wherein a man has absolutely no right, expectation or privilege to his wife’s sexuality.
Unfortunately for men the great deception of this schism serves the Feminine Imperative in that it still conveniently convinces men that they can expect sex while simultaneously shaming them for the expectation that feminine-primacy tells them they should expect.
This double-speak is necessary to insuring the certainty of long-term security needs that women’s dualistic sexual strategy demands.
Consider Choreplay: 5 years ago the same female author encourages men to do more dishes and help a woman out with her domestic chores because “nothing’s sexier” than a man who ‘shares’ the housework.
Translation: Perform these tasks and you will be rewarded with the “unadulterated lust” your wife has been reluctant to deliver – i.e. negotiated desire.
5 years later…“Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor,”
So the only conclusion we can really draw from this is that women encourage exactly the transactional mentality about sex that they now complain all men feel they are “owed”.
Spreadsheet Guy was caught in this presumptive trap – prior to marriage he’s sold the idea that he can expect his wife to be sexual with him on a regular basis, but only after he’s taken measures to prove that his wife isn’t upholding her end of the marriage bargain is he told that he in fact has absolutely no privilege to his wife’s sexuality under any circumstance – and furthermore that she holds unilateral control over his own sexual fulfillment under penalty of breach of (marriage) contract.
Spreadsheet Wife
As I began earlier, an entire social support network is more than ready to fill in the blanks left by Spreadsheet Wife’s lack of social reference.
The most obvious form of this comes from the comments and encouragement of women and feminized men affirming her prefabricated understanding of ‘what sex should be after marriage’.
Our sex life HAS tapered in the last few months, but isn’t that allowed?
If you need confirmation of the double-speak about sexual entitlement I outlined above you’ll find it in the words of the same woman before and after she’s married.
This is yet one more ready-made social convention for women to default to after she’s secured the provider-male her hypergamy demands in marriage. A woman’s sexual appetites are expected to “taper” off and she should be “allowed” this tapering and have a man understand and accept this fact.
Once again, The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one sex’s sexual strategy to become realized, the other sex’s strategy must be compromised or abandoned entirely.
And again, the Roissy / Heartist Prime Directive of Feminism:
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality
After all the back and forth I’ve been reading about this spreadsheet I think it’s time for men to come to terms with how the social contract that used to be marriage has fundamentally changed.
Marriage is no insulation from the sexual marketplace.
The advantages of being single and indefinitely dating non-exclusively (Spinning Plates) or stringing along a series of short term monogamous affairs far outweigh the risks of a lifetime of marriage in which no man should ever expect sex in terms of either genuine desire or even uninspired obligation sex.
In other words, men are entirely powerless to effect any degree of control over their sex lives under the auspices of a now feminine-primary definition of marriage. The only condition under which men have any degree of exercisable control over the their sex life is remaining single and retaining the threat-point of exiting any relationship when that satisfaction declines.
In Appreciation I went into detail about how women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate a feminine reality; this situation is a prime example of this.
Women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the risks a man must assume in unilaterally relinquishing any degree of control he might’ve been able to realize over his own sex life – and never to expect he could ever even have that control.
July 24th, 2014 at 8:57 pm
jacklabear,
The dentist, LIKE YOU, is a pathetic beta piece of shit. Your problem is not women. Your problem is that you put yourself in a pathetic whinning position beneath them.
July 24th, 2014 at 8:58 pm
YES! To Conan!
July 24th, 2014 at 8:59 pm
jacklabear,
The dentist, LIKE YOU, is a pathetic beta. Your problem is not women. Your problem is your attitude about yourself and where you assume to be in relationship to women.
July 24th, 2014 at 9:21 pm
Rollo, re: the catch 22…
All true. Men are absolutely in a no-win situation here; everything they do is a crime of some sort.
BUT. As Vox has pointed out, another name for a no-win situation is a can’t lose situation. Once you realize that you’re going to be condemned no matter what you do, you decide to do what you wanna do regardless of what women might say, since whatever you do is going to be “wrong” anyway.
July 24th, 2014 at 9:47 pm
@Mart, low expectations is the message. Actually NO! expectations is THE message, and it has been broadcast, yea verily trumpeted for two solid generations: Husbands are not permitted to have any expectations. The psychologist is only correct that that is the message. The message itself is extremely wrong and indelibly damaging us all.
July 24th, 2014 at 9:49 pm
@ Long Lost Youth
That girl has problems. Break up with her.
She doesn’t want to lock you down as a baby daddy, she has an impulse for a baby and you’re just a way to do it. One reason I bet is attention. Seeing and hearing the fuss when celebrities get pregnant, she thinks her like will “be better” (more attention) pregnant. Two, bet she thinks she’ll get unconditional love from a baby, which they don’t do. They can’t. They require love, they don’t give it.
Also, not to make you paranoid, but keep any and all text or emails from her. I get the feeling that you doing the calling off will create a ballistic response. Keep everything that can prove everything you did with each other was consensual. The way you described her, she ain’t right anyway, so best to be careful with a girl that ain’t right.
In fact, make that one of your sayings. Strike while the irons hot, still waters run deep…. Be careful with a girl that ain’t right.
@ Glenn
A cold ice cube, a big mountain, a light skinned Sade. All redundant.
Yuk yuk
July 24th, 2014 at 10:59 pm
water cannon boy
July 24th, 2014 at 9:49 pm
Short version: NEVER go out with a girl who is crazier than you are.
July 25th, 2014 at 12:07 am
[…] Case Study – Low Expectations (The Rational Male) […]
July 25th, 2014 at 12:38 am
Roosh left a link via twitter to a piece on the manosphere. He described it as part pro and part hit piece. The author took the case of a guy that had been repeatedly fucked around by women and how he found the manosphere as a place where other men shared his experiences and he found support in the community. Then she quoted how the SPLC described the manosphere as “hate that is based on ‘some’ facts.” And I would reply “Quite a lot of facts actually.” And this whole spreadsheet thing has now entered the long list of them.
So let me add some. This woman is damaging her husbands health in her actions. And I say that subconsciously she knows what she is doing, that her strategy, subconsciously, is to keep him at the precarious balance of bonded and his abandonment of her in order to take advantage of what Dr Larry Young, noted special on the biochemical nature of “pair bonding” call the “loaded gun effect”.
I once had this idea that women were driving up the cost of health insurance by their constant doctor this and doctor that. I was quite familiar with a few that just lived at the doctor. So I asked the pharmacist at my Walgreens what was the most common prescription she filled and she said without a bit of hesitation “Anti-depressants and Viagra for men.”
I have done a ton of research on the neuro-endocrine system and I am convinced that what is called the HPA axis is the basis of most health and mental health issues. It affects personality and the effectiveness of the immune system.
Dr Larry Young states that the biochemical process that creates the pair bond and monogamy is caused by sex. In the male, sex causes two different dopamine centers to be affected and the male receives the benefit of that dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin. But he is also “addicted” to his bonded female. As these other effects are incurred, stress agents, cortisol are also created in his brain. This is the “loaded gun” effect referred to above. It is the sight and smell of the bond female that keeps the gun from going off AND most importantly, the vasopressin released during sex WITH her. If she withholds that sex, then she reduces this level of vasopressin in his body and sets that cortisol loose on him.
And she subconsciously knows that it is in her best interest to keep that loaded cocked and just at the point of going off because it raises his compliance levels. And in some women, it is more than merely subconscious, it is downright fucking cruel. She enjoys watching him squirm of the bullshit power that biochemistry gives her.
Also I wrote about the “Social Competition Theory of Depression”, that depression is an adaptive artifact of social competition. The winner gains the “Winner Effect” of increase testosterone and loser endures a rise in his cortisol and causes an adoption of an attitude and posture that displays to the victor he will no longer be a threat. Continued loss keeps a continued higher level of cortisol and causes damage his immune system, his mental health, and can affect all other major bodily functions, specifically vascular health……
And causes impotency. This this pharmacists observation about anti-depressants and viagra.
So when this wife denies her husband sex, in the manner that she does, what I call “married guy doggie style”, (He sits up and begs; she rolls over and plays dead) then she sends him away, angry, humiliated, in the same way as the man that looses in social competition. And continued rebuke in this manner, year after year, takes its toll. It keeps his cortisol level high from the rebuke and it reduces the level of vasopression in his system. And in the end it takes a toll on his vascular system, his potency, and his mental health.
The list of illness, both physical and mental grows. Arthritis is caused by problems in immune system. You jack a man up with stress year after year and immune systems fuck up and cause and auto-immune malfunction. Just this week a finding came out that links fucking Schizophrenia to immune system malfunction.
It is also known that sex and ejaculations reduce the risk of prostate cancer because the sperm gets cleared out with more frequency reducing inflammation. But it also increases the health of the immune system due to lower cortisol from a lack of rejection and in a higher level of vasopression.
Now the NFL will just fall all over itself with its support of breast cancer yet say nothing about prostate cancer. I can just imagine the following PSA during the Browns game:
“Ladies regular sex with your husband will reduce his risk of prostate cancer and vascular disease. We need him to stay healthy to support our team. So please ladies Just Lay Back and Think of Cleveland”
July 25th, 2014 at 12:41 am
“Krauser – 26 lays out of 1000 approaches for a 2.6% success rate
SSG – 3 lays out of 27 approaches for a 11% success rate.”
Uhmmmm, at least one mitigating factor here…
If SSG gets 3 boring, lifeless, reluctant lays from an overweight reluctant housewife per month (36 a year…whoopee?), and Krauser gets 26 lays from better looking, more enthusiastic women, that would affect the calculation a bit, no?
If 5 minutes of Alpha is worth 5 years of Beta, perhaps from a male perspective 26 lays of hot, eager women is worth a hundred mediocre to pathetic lays to a resentful, passionless cow.
Oh, and Krauser still has his goddamn freedom to do whatever the hell he wants, doesn’t he?
Game. Set. Match.
July 25th, 2014 at 12:53 am
@Magent
“He’s lost because he is a vindictive loser.”
You know that how?
–He spreadsheets.
“Normal people do not create spreadsheets of their mates’ sexual or other behavior.”
Really? Why not if it proves a point?
–If you have to prove a point in a sexual relationship, you’re already a loser losing fast. And if you have to prove a point by spreadsheet, you should not be in a relationship with a human being but with a computer. Or an abacus maybe, for the old-fashioned types.
“Pre-Marriage when my girlfriend was constantly harping to me that I did not spend enough time with her, I broke down my average week in a spread-sheet, down to the minute. I shared my results with her verbally, and even offered to show her the pie-charts for her perusal.
She not only did not want to see them, she then miraculously shut up about it the whole matter.”
–Fantastic. She’s a keeper. Cling on to her. Once you have kids, you both can chart their pooping habits and vomiting schedules, and then share the charts with them when they get older to prove a point. Or something.
“She made a mistake (?) of marrying him.”
Right, because you know she’s a prize and he’s a loser.
–Not what I said. It’s a bad habit to impute your thoughts to others. Almost as bad as spreadsheeting. For the record, I think they are both losers.
“Or maybe she knew that he was a spreadsheet-making vindictive loser before they tied the knot, and that she was not attracted to him sexually in the least (normal women avoid spreadsheet-making vindictive losers)”
So, you lay out the possibility that she married him under false pretenses, knowing she was not attracted to him at all, and yet you still side with her?
–Again, imputing. Maybe I should chart your cognitive mistakes and show them to you in a more palatable form to make you see where you go repeatedly wrong. No, I don’t side with her. Pointing out that he’s a loser does not mean an approval of her behavior. Let me know if you need a chart or graph to illustrate that.
Mangina jackass. Or is it shrieking feminist harpy?
Hard to tell the dif sometimes.
–Indeed. Why not combine both then? Shrieking feminist mangina jackassy harpy. See? There. And yes, there is a chart for that.
July 25th, 2014 at 12:55 am
Minter is correct. She knows, and her deliberate withholding is as conscious as *anything* else she ever does. “She enjoys watching him squirm”
July 25th, 2014 at 1:25 am
jf12
“Husbands are not permitted to have any expectations. The psychologist is only correct that that is the message. The message itself is extremely wrong and indelibly damaging us all.”
Nothing in her statement indicates that. What is it with people’s low reading comprehension skills these days?
What she says is that both spouses were in the wrong: she for not being honest about her reasons for avoiding sex, he for his passive-aggressive nuclear reaction to her avoidance.
The wife then posted the stupid spreadsheet online, making things even worse. In a way, these two deserve each other.
It is a given that their problems are not just about lack of sex. The lack of sex is a symptom of a larger dysfunction, as demonstrated in their behaviors surrounding this issue. The sooner they go their separate ways, the better.
July 25th, 2014 at 2:55 am
Hey, numnuts,
I love you guys, even when you’re lashing out in your red pill transmogrifications. To be expected. Before game, comes HEALTH. Be healthy, and then march forth into game.
%
Detoxinator
Tl;dr… scroll down for link…
Emotional distress… divorce… produces cortisol… a very acid substance… friendly environment for cancer cells…
…we know that cortisol suppresses immune function…
…look at the beliefs driving that emotional state…
…there’s a number of patients that don’t want to make it, and use cancer as their checkout point…
…the most important question is do you want to live and do you have the desire to live…
…we’re all fighting… every single day of our lives…
…cancer is one of the richest, multibillion dollar industries in the world… if we found the cure for cancer, this multibillion dollar industry would fail…
…it’s amazing how cancer has been healed through proper diet and supplements…
…people don’t want to wake up and realize what’s going on… it would mean that they have to change… which is personal responsibility, and we don’t want to face that…
…why are we so upset about the concept of personal responsibility… because we have been programmed from childhood to be victims…
…once you know, now you are responsible…
…stopping here, listen on…
…and apply to your relationships with females…
July 25th, 2014 at 3:02 am
@Wanderer & @Lost Young Guy:
> I had a similar experience that baffled me and was wondering if I could get a little clarity from this community
LOL- Happy to help!
First off- yes, there are girls out there who want to be a momma real bad.
For one of several possible reasons they’ve *got* to scratch the baby itch, but they don’t want to (or don’t understand how to) follow the usual protocol of: 1) find guy, 2) woo him, 3) rope him in to a stable relationship, whether married or common-law, 4) make sure the structural issues for raising a child are taken care of, and finally- 5) get pregnant
__________________________________
> I was gaming this HB9 girl for about a year. She had a boyfriend the entire time but eventually she broke things off, I believe, so that she could get with me
Yup- Most likely BF#1 wouldn’t give her the baby she wanted, so she nexted him and moved on to try with you
__________________________________
> Naturally the girl and I started hooking up. There were no phone conversations, few texts and only the minimal amount of dates. It was just her coming over to my house or me going over to her house and us fooling around. But the strangest thing DID NOT happen, we did not have sex. This was obviously strange to me. It was all the more peculiar because the girl literally could not keep my dick out of her hand or mouth. She was passionate and feral for me and it had been obvious to me for a long time.
> I made several moves to try to escalate things to intercourse (and I claim to be no pro at this) but every time I was turned down. I would l go get a condom and she would say that sex wasn’t going to happen because she wanted a relationship with me first. At the time, I was seeing her only once a week at the most, and that was not enough for her. Blah, Blah, Blah.
Hmmm- manipulating you by withholding sex.
This girl was highly disciplined too. In spite of her own desires, she was willing to take you to the edge with “almost” PIV sex, but keeping you just at the edge . . . to make sure *she* would end up with the upper hand
All guys reading this: what @Wanderer describes is *the* biggest red flag you can encounter with any woman.
A woman who uses sex withholding to manipulate you, whether to get a baby or for any other reason, needs to be nexted. No further questions asked. End-of-discussion.
Nexting the girl will sometimes bring her to her senses and she will come back with her tail between her legs:
But (and this is *major*) if you take her back, she can never be trusted.
Field-tested- by me and other guys of my acquaintance.
Don’t even think about marriage or a de facto relationship with this woman.
You can only have her on an FB basis, or in MLTR terms, she can only ever be a “secondary”
__________________________________
> But several times, usually later on in the same evening she would beg me to put it inside of her. I would reach to get a condom and she would scold me in a hushed voice that she wanted to feel me raw
>I hooked up with this girl numerous times over the course of three months, it was always passionate, but we never had intercourse
LOL- like I said. This woman was *excellent* at manipulation
Iron discipline.
Used excellent Girl Game: build up the blue balls . . . the breathy voice . . . the subcommunicated compliment
Props to you, man, for staying the course, and not putting yourself in line for 21 years of child support . . .
FWIW- I had to next a woman who was using sex withholding to try and get me on the baby train too. Been there, done that- didn’t get the T-shirt, fortunately!
Now, let me say, as a warning to you and to all the other guys reading this:
There are women who will do *anything* to get a baby out of a guy. I always thought the “pin through the condom” thing was an urban legend until a guy I know caught a GF red-handed doing exactly that. Came into the bedroom while she was unawares wondering what she was up to, and kept quiet while he watched her do the deed.. He said he couldn’t believe it. She used a safety pin to poke a hole right through the center of the condom package, presumably thinking he wouldn’t notice the small hole in the heat of the moment later on. Fortunately had the common sense to insta-next the woman.
Another guy had no “saw it with my own eyes” proof, but he said he was convinced his ex-GF was taking his used condoms & trying to use the sperm somehow, if he went out of the room after sex.
Guys . . . really, you *have* to next a woman who is trying to get pregnant by you.
__________________________________
Now concerning one mental construct you have:
> both of these girls are what most people would consider “Good Girls” and not “Sluts.”
You need to lose this concept.
The Good Girl/Slut; Madonna/Whore dichotomy is a concept generated millennia ago in European society that does *not correspond to the real world*!
It’s not real, and it doesn’t have actual predictive value for the man who wants to understand the woman who he’s involved with.
July 25th, 2014 at 3:07 am
The definition of hypergamy that I have found to be most useful is an original and simple one: seeking someone who is above you.
(Notice that it said above “you”, and not above “everybody”.)
A woman seeks a man whom she innately perceives to be above her.
The reason for this is that submission appears to be a fundamental and innate female trait (which requires enabling conditions in order to be expressed), and a woman cannot look up to a man who is not above her, or follow a man whom she also has to lead.
I think that economic and socioeconomic considerations are at best secondary, with respect to “being above her” (there are many counterexamples), and “trading up” (whether only at a high threshold, or as a continuous hobby) involves something more/other than hypergamy (as defined above).
.
George said: “The point I made is that the origin of hypergamy is NOT innate, (chromosomal) and to think it is gives it undeserved validity as a universal female trait. If we consider it as such we remain “plugged in”, we are merely still reacting to it, controlled by it. I think It is actually a choice made possible by opportunity and conditioning of both sexes.”
A desire that necessitates choice can be created through conditioning, and the choosing itself is facilitated by opportunity.
Women are being conditioned to be extravagantly materialistic, but they are certainly not being conditioned to submit to men.
So, whether or not “hypergamy is innate” depends on the definition of “hypergamy” that is being used, which George did not provide, and condescending (see the end of his first comment) assertions in ALL CAPS require more than “cuz I said so”.
.
George said: “The attitude necessary to track, document and compile the spread sheet is an EXTREMELY MAJOR TURN OFF for any normal person. This is something appropriate for accounting or engineering, not a sexual relationship regardless of the context.”
We don’t actually know anything about his “attitude” or what he was trying to accomplish, and context is always important, because it clarifies the “path of causes”, states of mind, and intent.
I am not disputing that all of this is beta and problematic in several ways.
Nevertheless, the time and effort required to write down 30 occurrences in 30 days is less than trivial, and that short list had to be put into some kind of a table in order to be readable. Focusing on that seems to be missing the point.
.
Mart said: “He’s lost because he is a vindictive loser. Normal people do not create spreadsheets of their mates’ sexual or other behavior. … [more of the same]”
.
The Nature of a Man (July 24th, 2014 at 7:33 pm) provided a much more reasonable and plausible scenario:
“Essentially, she will have been constructing a narrative where he’s the one who is being selfish and unreasonable. …”
“He knows this is all bullshit, but always seems to come out looking stupid when they argue about it. Possibly, he’s even started to wonder if his perception is inaccurate.
“The spreadsheet lets him know that he’s not going insane. …”
.
@ Magent (July 24th, 2014 at 8:06 pm)
“Mangina jackass. Or is it shrieking feminist harpy? Hard to tell the dif sometimes.”
I vote for “mangina jackass”, since there are no screaming GIFs.
July 25th, 2014 at 5:34 am
I’ve noticed that cliches carping about alleged poor “reading comprehension” are a primary SJW tell. It’s almost like they can’t help themselves. Must have made a big impression on them in their formative years, before their minds fossilized.
As far as I can be bothered to decode it, it seems to indicate the venting of spleen against perceived disagreement, which is in contravention of Herd ethics.
July 25th, 2014 at 6:26 am
Mark Minter
July 25th, 2014 at 12:38 am
Absolutely!
Also see: Better Than Viagra.
July 25th, 2014 at 7:18 am
The story illustrates women’s complete duplicity. She posts the guy’s private correspondence to her….and then complains she’s an “emotional wreck”…nothing like creating drama to calm yourself down is there?
the next step would be for the guy to come back from his business trip and just make like nothing happened….like he didn’t know she posted it and it’s blown up on blogs everywhere.
But I could never do that…I’d blow up at her for posting a private note. then she’d blow up more…it would lead no where.
This woman sounds like a typical Cluster B personality type inappropriately creating drama to elicit sympathy for the plight she’s created for herself.
July 25th, 2014 at 8:42 am
Mark Minter
July 25th, 2014 at 12:38 am
Stress, the immune system and psychiatric illness
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smi.2460040405/abstract
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/06/30/schizophrenia-may-be-immune-not-brain-disorder/41033.html
July 25th, 2014 at 8:51 am
This bears repeating from this thread:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/27/women-in-love/comment-page-2/#comment-47879
Anthony Migchels
July 25th, 2014 at 8:01 am
I think the key is that men are more spiritual and rational and women more emotional and earthly.
This explains exactly why ‘men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa’.
‘Realism’ is earthly, practical. Women are more in tune with what is physically necessary. Men are more in tune with what is desirable.
Love is a function of the Spiritual, where all love comes from.
Men are in the world to give love, not to receive it. The only way a man can receive love is by being with the Spirit. The only way he can give love is by getting it from the Source first.
Women cannot love (or at any rate have a much lower capacity for it), all they can do is emotionally respond to stimuli. If they are loved (including what that practically entails), a woman can create good feelings, both for herself and her man.
The difficulty these days is that our society is now degenerated, that many women are severely traumatized by the time they grow up. Feminism obviously incredibly damages any female capacity.
As a result, it is very, very difficult to love them so much that one can break through the trauma and reestablish contact with the womans core.
===========
Yes! Look at gorillas. When the new head gorilla arrives he kills off all the offspring younger than 2. In human relationships step fathers (not all or even most) are notorious for molesting young girls.
I think it is one of the reasons Jesus said marriage was for life. (life was shorter back then). I’d say until at least age 21 for the youngest.
We have in fact designed a system for traumatizing children. And women don’t seem to care or notice.
July 25th, 2014 at 8:53 am
Mark Minter
July 25th, 2014 at 12:38 am
Stress, the immune system and psychiatric illness
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smi.2460040405/abstract
And one of the biggest stressers is bad family relationships.
July 25th, 2014 at 10:10 am
As a late 50s guy married to an American woman, I can attest to the veracity of this article. I spent most of my adult life as a hopeless white knight beta. We would go for years of her denying sex to me. But because I was a well trained beta, I didn’t fault her: I faulted myself and was ashamed that I wanted and needed sex and affection. Fortunately I came across sites like this a couple of years ago and my eyes were opened. (Among other changes I finally took up with a mistress to get the sex and affection my wife denied me for so many years.)
My advice to young men is to forgo marriage and build a happy, meaningful life for yourself. There are almost no benefits to men in most modern marriages and the potential downsides are enormous: you are on the hook with all the responsibilities and none of the benefits, while she enjoys most of the benefits and none of the responsibilities (unless she feels like it).
July 25th, 2014 at 10:36 am
Magent – “Game. Set. Match.”
LOL! Not what the question was, was it?
July 25th, 2014 at 10:49 am
Thank you Rollo for continuing to pull back the wizard’s curtain. There really is zero need for a man to marry, even if you have that compulsion to breed. It’s basically a given fact among beta men that sex will decrease after marriage.
July 25th, 2014 at 10:50 am
This post responates deeply with me. In a way I am going through a very similar situation right now, except that no spreadsheet is involved.
I have been with my wife for just over 10 years, long-distance for the first 4 years, maried for the last 3. I entered the relationship being as beta and politically correct as it gets, and stayed that way for most of that time. Needless to say intimacy between us consisted mostly of cuddling; there would be occasional flareups of passion when (what I now know to be) my alpha side showed, but I would play it down in short order to ‘not upset her any more’ and the passion would die down soon afterwards.
Then some 2 years ago I stumbled upon Dalrock’s website and proceeded to read all of it, several times, over the next few weeks. Then I followed the links to other sites, and repeated the process. Then I started to put their basic advice into practice: started exercising, shooting down fitness tests, asserting myself, and – most importantly in the context of the post – expecting regular sex. And my marriage went on a downward spiral.
In fact I could easily one-up the spreadsheet guy, by preparing a spreadsheet of my own with the days on which my wife threatened divorce and her reasons for doing so; by my own estimate, she has done it on some 50 occasions over the duration of our marriage. She is now an emotional wreck from all the good times-bad times drama, while I pretty much don’t care about the marriage except for paying the mortgage and the bills, and – and this is the crucial point – taking care of our now 2-year old daughter (concieved within a month of us getting married, come to think of it…). We sleep in separate rooms, have no friends in common – or pretty much at all for that matter – and hardly ever talked in the last few months, although that had a beneficial side effect in that she doesn’t threaten divorce anywhere near as often as before. As of today she and the daughter are visiting the family in our country of origin, and I will be off to do the same (except that all by myself) one day before they return. For the time being I have the house to myself, and with the hand on my heart I can say that her being away made a big improvement.
Our marriage is now a lost cause as far as I can tell; I would have divorced her in a heartbeat if not for our daughter, and she probably begins to realise this. We don’t have much money or assets to split, so that is not an issue in our case. I have a fairly detailed exit strategy prepared in case we do divorce but never mentioned it to her, not even as a way to get her to stop arguing. In a way I am perfectly happy to keep her hanging while I develop myself. I have a soft spot for children and would like to have more, ideally 3; I now realise that I will not have them all by the same woman, and have finally come to peace with this realisation.
July 25th, 2014 at 11:24 am
Normal people do not create spreadsheets of their mates’ sexual or other behavior.
And wives who honor their marriage vows don’t have to suffer humiliations like this. Unfortunately, spreadsheet wife, like most wives in the western world today, isn’t one of those wives. Sometimes extreme situations (about which someone is in epic denial) call for extreme measures.
July 25th, 2014 at 12:19 pm
Sadly, this is a case of a beta who does not understand the difference between passionate and obligated sex. My guess is that even when they were intimate early in the relationship, she never desired him enough to give him her sexual best. Once he was reeled in, there was no reason for her to have sex with him anymore. Luckily, he has figured out the problem before they had children. The best indicator of a woman’s true attraction to you is how passionately she makes love to you. Everything else is just details.
July 25th, 2014 at 12:46 pm
@Tom
Thanks for the perspective brother. It’s mind-blowing to think that type of behavior is fairly common. Discipline must prevail over discipline.
July 25th, 2014 at 12:54 pm
@New Yorker, I mentioned their Adolescent Social Skill Sets and I’m fairly certain this is one of the main contributing factors in this guy’s sexual frustration.
After getting with her monogamously at 21 and marrying her at 24, the guy simply hasn’t had the experience to mature into an understanding of knowing the difference between desire-motivated sex and a dead lay
She hasn’t had the experience / maturity to know how vitally important her sexual frequency and intensity is to a man who’s essentially bet his future life’s happiness and fulfillment on her reciprocating his desire.
July 25th, 2014 at 1:12 pm
Wanderer
July 25th, 2014 at 12:46 pm
It is all too common. But it is the way women work. Feminism has just made it “right” vs “normal”.
When ever the first mate gets in one of her moods and says “I’ll just leave” I tell her “Can I help you pack?” That shuts it right down.
Or when she gets too obnoxious and I tell her that I can find a replacement and she says “Well I’ll just get a boyfriend” I tell her “Can I help?” End of the conversation.
Even when we were dating and she wanted to “try out” other guys I would tell her “If you can find some one better I’m all for it.”
Funny. Women find that kind of self confidence very attractive But of course if you are hanging here you know that.
July 25th, 2014 at 1:15 pm
“bet his future life’s happiness and fulfillment on her reciprocating his desire.” If so, he (or any such person) made a VERY stupid bet…a bet almost guaranteed to be a looser.
July 25th, 2014 at 1:16 pm
BTW if you want to go back in history “Taming of the Shrew” was espousing game 400 years ago.
July 25th, 2014 at 1:24 pm
”You wear a top like that with tits like that…damn straight I’m going to be staring at your tits. I think Conan actually played it well, but I think as a standard move one has to realize the standard female playbook is to scold and/or shame. You lose if you accept that shaming frame instead of pushing back hard. You don’t want me staring at your tits, then wear a loose fitting sweater.”
Women dress like that to get Good-looking men to approach them. The low-grade women who might be decent-looking will devour the attention of average and below average men, but the women who are hot are only interested in being coveted and pursued by Enrique Iglesias. I remember seeing chicks in college who’d dress in the most outrageous skank outfits, showing off everything and scowling at all attention, but for the Alpha male.
July 25th, 2014 at 1:27 pm
I’ve even see a woman claim she had been raped by a guy. I was standing right next to the guy, and I asked her when did he raper her.
”Just now.”
”But I’ve been near him for the past 1 hour.”
”Well, he looked at me and I felt unsafe.”
There ya go. Average/ugly man dares to occupy space near a woman = He’s a rapist and possibly a child-molester, too.
Hot girl calls her a cow = ”HEHEHE, HE’S SO CONFIDENT.”
July 25th, 2014 at 1:46 pm
@ Rollo,
I agree that the guy is just too young (unless he was an Alpha…and he wasnt) to learn the difference in sexual experiences.
In terms of the girl, yes, she probably nees to become wiser on how to keep her man happy, but i think in this case, she has so little attraction to him that it does not even matter. She needs to find someone else whom she actually wants to have sex with.
July 25th, 2014 at 2:08 pm
@ George,
“jacklabear,
The dentist, LIKE YOU, is a pathetic beta piece of shit.”
and two minutes later:
“The dentist, LIKE YOU, is a pathetic beta.”
Hmm, I seem to have hit a nerve here. I wonder what that might be about.
Maybe some projection going on? Have to keep repeating it to convince yourself?
George wrote:
” I earn the money, my wife pays the bills and knows better than to forget.”
IOW, the wife has control of the finances.
That explains a lot.
I suppose ‘George’ would claim that the wife is his Executive Assistant.
July 25th, 2014 at 2:25 pm
@Hardwiggs,
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/07/criminalizing-omega.html
July 25th, 2014 at 3:15 pm
@ Mart,
I impute nothing. I read what you write. If you communicate poorly, that is on you. By the way, you communicate poorly. Or you don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe both.
“If you have to prove a point in a sexual relationship, you’re already a loser losing fast.”
Oh? Really?
Please, oh Guru, give me an example of the magical relationships you have with women where you are relieved of ever having to prove a point to them about anything.
July 25th, 2014 at 3:22 pm
@ DeNihilist
“LOL! Not what the question was, was it?”
Okay, fair enough.
Perhaps I missed your point. Please tell me what YOU thought the question was contained in the post I responded to?
July 25th, 2014 at 3:36 pm
Rollo,
I have read you post on Adolescent Social Skill Set (was there more than one) and while it is informative in a general sense, it does not go into a lot of specifics and examples.
Do you have a reference for that or could you elaborate a litte?
July 25th, 2014 at 3:37 pm
This poor bastard is still very young, and has immersed to his upper lip in the putrid realization that most wives, and certainly his, ‘love’ their husbands in the manner that a retailer values its trucks and distribution warehouses.
And now he’s no doubt watching his very personal pain ridiculed and redistributed through almost every major media outlet on the planet. Ouch.
Almost unbelievable to witness the lack of Emotional Intelligence displayed by commenters (on Reddit, not here) who thought that he did this to try to win her affection back. Nope. I’m sure its no coincidence that he sent it to her work email, as a spreadsheet.
I’m somewhat ashamed recalling that I once did something somewhat similar, but I already knew with airtight certainty where I stood long before sitting down to the keyboard to vent, and I knew it wouldn’t do any good.
And, the details of her account alone strongly indicates that he’s been mishearing her: She’s not coming home sweaty and gross from ‘the Gym’, it’s actually ‘Jim.’
July 25th, 2014 at 4:17 pm
jacklabear,
Yea, you hit a nerve. Actually YOU didn’t, your assumptions did.
Just because my wife pays the bills doesn’t mean she controls the finances. I provide her an allowance. I control the money.
Insulting me, picking at my personal life by making shallow assumptions and cheap shots does not strengthen any argument you may be trying to make. It only weakens whatever argument you wish to make. It indicates you personally believe whatever points I have made but you cannot accept them, so you attack me personally. Don’t shoot the messenger. if you cannot accept reality, one option you could choose is shooting yourself.
July 25th, 2014 at 4:51 pm
@Walawala; Yes, I too notice how a private matter between two adults became a public matter through publishing that spreadsheet online. Both parties are going to be tried in the court of the public opinion, but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that he comes out of it a lot worse. I’m guessing that he has a bag packed already, as he should. Shame he invested in a house with this woman, because unless she magically discovers more gas in her sexual gas tank, I’m predicting a) he sells the house and leaves or, worse b) he stays locked into a sexless marriage, humiliated through his exposure and shamed for his sexual desires.
This whole spreadsheet story illustrates Rollo’s dictum that in the absence of indignation, women will generate it themselves. I wouldn’t be posting this comment if the story never became public; I can’t imagine a single man I know who would ever publicize their sexual starvation as a matter of discussion with their friends, let alone before many, many beers. This is a shame that shrivels your manhood up, like salt applied to a slug. The fact that it’s public at all, having been posted by the outraged wife, tells me that the shared female indignation she’ll receive is more powerful and rewarding that working on intimacy issues with her partner. And if you needed any more damning evidence to get the hell out of that relationship, I can’t find it. Run, sir.
@The Nature of A Man: You nailed it sir, and I take my hat off to you. It’s gaslighting, pure and simple. So many times in the past, before I ever knew of the existence of the Matrix, I suspected that my girlfriends were re-writing the story of our relationships to their advantage. As a beta guy, I always capitulated to keep the peace, but my gut wouldn’t let me off the hook that something was wrong but I couldn’t see the outlines of it, so to speak. What the spreadsheet guy did was to start keeping track of his sexual frequency just to make sure his memory wasn’t playing him false. Now, while appealing to his woman’s logic (big mistake) and calling attention to the weighted-in-her-favor sexual frequency (worse mistake) are classic blue pill strategies, I applaud him for trying to get what was hidden out in the open, as it’s the struggle of a man finally waking up to the fact that the great deal that he thought he was getting was, in fact, no deal at all but the removal of every agency he formerly though he had.
I’ve been there and made those very mistakes myself. And it doesn’t matter in what shape you arrive in, after finally discovering red pill / positive masculinity; it only matters that you found it after all and you realize that your guesses, hunches and suppositions are being corroborated by men everywhere.
July 25th, 2014 at 4:54 pm
Magent – I have no question. LOL. It appears that you have two letters in your screen name spelled incorrectly. I do not attribute it to a failure to communicate. You do that very well.
July 25th, 2014 at 5:40 pm
@George
“Don’t shoot the messenger. if you cannot accept reality, one option you could choose is shooting yourself.”
So George, what is this reality based message that you think I should shoot myself over?
July 25th, 2014 at 6:13 pm
M.Simon,
“I’ll just leave” I tell her “Can I help you pack?”…“Well I’ll just get a boyfriend” I tell her “Can I help?” …Even when we were dating and she wanted to “try out” other guys I would tell her “If you can find some one better I’m all for it.”
Funny. Women find that kind of self confidence very attractive But of course if you are hanging here you know that.”
All great stuff. Love it. My wife was bragging about some fat guy of much lower social status staring at her ass the other day. She made this known in front of her family to me, trying to piss me off. I said, “just think, he could be your next husband”. Everyone laughed. I stay in very good shape, her friends are attracted, she knows it and knows I know it. One told her “man, you married a hotty”. She probably should have never told me that one….I am the best thing she has ever had or will have and she knows it. We have been married 20 years and made the commitment to never screw around on each other. That “commitment” doesn’t “seal the deal”. however, If she ever messed around and I knew it, she knows that would be the end of it and I would easily find another as good or better. She has literally said that she is “glad she married an “asshole”.
July 25th, 2014 at 6:15 pm
jacklabear
So George, what is this reality based message that you think I should shoot myself over?
Any will do, just pick one. Apparently you have problems with all of them.
July 25th, 2014 at 6:20 pm
@Wanderer I could only advise you to analyze each situation on it’s own merits. With HB9#1 I would ask you first how old she is and how does her financial situation compare to yours? Maybe she was so desperate to start a “relationship” with you because she was ready to climb off of the cock carousel and settle down. She was done with the Alpha fucks and felt it was time to move on to Beta bucks. This sounds like a situation where she thought you were susceptible to falling HARD for her if she gave it up. Were you really Gaming her for a year hoping she would break up with her boyfriend? That Sir is Beta talk. Alphas will game a girl and when the boyfriend excuse is pulled they next out (unless they can close her that night). It is not Game to hang around a chick for a year until she breaks up with someone.
As for HB6#2, yes there are situations where a girl will just want to fuck, NOW! This says nothing about her or you. She was in the moment and didn’t want to lose it by having any kind of talk about what sex “means”. Do not try to equate these two situations. These two girls were operating from different mindsets.
As far as a girl “wanting your seed” for a better experience, nope! As long as there is good lubrication a woman really won’t care if you are wearing a condom or not unless they have some kind of fetish for barebacking. Don’t laugh, anything you can think of is somebodies kink somewhere.
July 25th, 2014 at 6:54 pm
Rollo,
Thanks for stopping by on my site and reading my two cents on the topic.
Husband Tracks Sex on Spreadsheet: Does Wife Owe Him More?
I appreciate the different perspective on this topic. I’d like to comment on your thought:
If we follow an Evolutionary Psych perspective, women primarily get power in relationships from their greater reproductive value (sex is costlier for women and men want it more). Men have to match that power through a combination of meeting women’s needs for men’s own reproductive value (“alpha fux”) and survival value (“beta bux”). This usually translates into the “traditional” marriage…where an older man with some looks, status, and resources is a fair match for a cute, young, woman, who wants to primarily be a mother.
Marriage laws, however, now redistribute the survival power (bux). Particularly, no fault divorce and 50/50 splits essentially wipe out power that can be derived from an imbalance in resources (as they are designed to do). As a result, marriage is now dis-empowering for the individual holding more resources (usually the man), because they now have more to lose. Thus, in marriage, being resource poor is now powerful, and resource rich is costly.
That does not mean that men are powerless in ALL marriages, however, or that all women are unmarriageable. It just changes the “rules” from the traditional arrangement. Essentially, spouses must now be (and remain) roughly equal in resources to have equal power (and risk). Generally speaking, women will still have more value/power with sex though. Therefore, to equalize power, the husband will now have to be 1) more sexually attractive than the wife, and most likely 2) more helpful around the home to ensure she doesn’t “work less” and stays “in the mood” too.
Following that logic, we’re left with marriageable women being well educated, successful, career-oriented women, who are less attractive than their husbands. Put another way, husbands who are equally successful to their wives, equally helpful around the home, and also more physically appealing, are the only husbands who will have equal power. Complementary partnerships is out…equality (with something extra for the woman) is in.
So, what is this really all about? These marriage changes seem like an intra-sexual competition strategy by low SMV women. High SMV, young, attractive, women, who want to primarily be mothers, are really being priced right out of the marriage market. Now, these high SMV women, relying on their looks as power/value, will either 1) not be able to get a man to risk his resources on her, or 2) become “dissatisfied” when the marriage contract changes the desire/power balance in the relationship, rendering her now husband powerless and undesirable. Therefore, now only equal power and long-term marriage satisfaction can be found by their low SMV, professionally-successful rivals, as noted above.
Thus, this is not women vs. men… It is women vs. women, with men caught in the cross-fire.
July 25th, 2014 at 6:59 pm
@George
Right. So someone who doesn’t agree with your points is a “pathetic beta piece of shit” and should shoot themselves.
“It indicates you personally believe whatever points I have made but you cannot accept them…”
No, I don’t personally believe that it is a good idea to sue the dentist.
I personally believe it is a very bad idea.
It is also very inconsistent with your Super Alpha posturing. That’s why I called you out on it.
I also have a problem with your manosphere and Rollo bashing.
I personally believe that Rollo and other writers and commenters have done me and many other men a great service and I much appreciate that.
You now appear to be backpedalling and spouting standard red pill language.
So I ask you again, do you have any kind of unique, useful or coherent message to contribute to the conversation? What is your thesis that you feel I can’t accept??
July 25th, 2014 at 7:03 pm
OK, I have a game question :
Met a woman at a happy hour, isolated her, the vibe was good and she was throwing all the signals. We kissed after about 2 hours of talking, and she gave me her number.
She is about 10 years younger than me (me 40, she 30 or so). Looks-wise, a 7 or so. But she works at an unimpressive job at Nordstroms, vs. my high-level career.
We departed very friendly.
BUT, then this happened.
I did not contact her for 4 days, then sent a text. We exchanged 1-2 texts, but she didn’t answer the phone when I called.
Then she texted :
She : I’m sorry, but I thought about it and I am not interested.
Me (a few hours later) : I’m glad you said that. (taking a cue from this CH article.
Then she went outright rude :
She : Oh, ok. BTW, worst kiss ever.
That was pretty butt-hurt of her, as i) We kissed a couple times the first time. ii) I have been told I am a good kisser, and have made efforts to do it the right way.
So why is she so ruffled from my “I’m glad you said that” line? And what is the best response (since I want to practice Game, but don’t really want to see her now)?
July 25th, 2014 at 7:32 pm
eon
“So, whether or not “hypergamy is innate” depends on the definition of “hypergamy” that is being used, which George did not provide, and condescending (see the end of his first comment) assertions in ALL CAPS require more than “cuz I said so”.”
I agree, there is confusion concerning what definition we are using. Thanks for bringing this up. It is important we are on the same page in the dictionary so to speak. I am using the word hypergamy as Webster defines it – “marriage into an equal or higher chaste or social group”. This is the only definition provided in the edition of Websters I am using. It is important to note that the only qualifications are marriage and social status. The definition I am using does not reference sexual desire or weather one individual believes the other is superior or not. Every individual member of a higher social status group does not contribute to that groups social status or his individual social status. Membership alone provides status. Membership does not ensure sexual attractiveness.
The meaning of hypergamy in these discussions seems to be expanded to include sexual drive. I separate the two. Hypergamy is one motivation. Sexual drive is a completely different motivation. These drives themselves are independent and completely unrelated. I believe it is a mistake to attempt to combine the two concepts due to the resulting confusion. I do agree that most women attempt to combine the two in practice, some satisfactorily, some not.
http://therationalmale.com/2012/10/08/balancing-sexual-pluralism/
I typed my assertions in ALL CAPS not to be condescending, but because I feel very strongly about them.
“We don’t actually know anything about his “attitude” or what he was trying to accomplish, and context is always important, because it clarifies the “path of causes”, states of mind, and intent.”
I disagree with you about this. We have been presented with enough facts and context to correctly deduce the nature of spreadsheet guys attitude.
July 25th, 2014 at 7:35 pm
@Dr. J., thanks for dropping by, think about this for a moment; read through the comments here and elsewhere and notice the commonalities of men in ‘acceptable’ marriages wherein they hold the Frame of that relationship. One thing you’ll see is that each of these marriages maintains a degree of competition anxiety, most due to at least a passive sense of dread on the wife’s part. This situation, the satisfying / acceptable marriage mirrors that of a relationship in non-exclusive dating and long-term, unmarried, monogamy.
Essentially a good marriage is one in which both parties behave as, and have the tacit understanding of, a non-married or dating couple.
So what’s the advantage of marriage if the underlying behavioral set of a good marriage mirrors that of being single anyway? When the overwhelming consensus and even feminine social convention expectation is that sex tapers off after marriage, why get married if you know that the power dynamic will shift away from what will make for a good marriage?
Equality or complementarity, the basis remains the same; good marriages are the ones in which the couple retain the sexual anxiety and urgency of being single.
And just as an aside, the “help out around the house and you’ll get her in the mood trope” has been thoroughly disproven.
http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/30/choreplay/
Furthermore, this choreplay encouragement only contributes to the exact ‘transactional sex’ relation that women complain of when they believe men think that they’re ‘owed sex’. It’s just a carrot for the horse to pull the cart for, then women shame the horse for having the idea he might ever get it.
July 25th, 2014 at 7:47 pm
@Lost Young Guy….GTFO
Marriage? What about cohabitation or LTR in general? Move in with a woman, well you’re married without the paper as far as dynamics are concerned.
Screen your ladies, gents.
July 25th, 2014 at 8:03 pm
“Essentially a good marriage is one in which both parties behave as, and have the tacit understanding of, a non-married or dating couple.”
Good strategy. “If ever I get married, I’ll certainly try to forget the fact.”- Algernon in The Importance of Being Earnest LOL
“She hasn’t had the experience / maturity to know how vitally important her sexual frequency and intensity is to a man..”
While I suppose there are women who know and misuse this information, I’m inclined to believe the above is the case here and is likely the case in many, many, many other instances. Most women operate as “sex camels” (coined by Ray Romano) and have no idea men are so different.
July 25th, 2014 at 8:12 pm
Rollo,
Your point about chores is spot on. Other than “man stuff” I never do any. And if she misbehaves I will not even do “man stuff”. Unless it is costing me money.
But Dr. J makes an excellent overall point:
Thus, this is not women vs. men… It is women vs. women, with men caught in the cross-fire.
Your point about “keeping them anxious” about the competition is correct. I won’t tell you all the things I do in that regard, but I do work that one VERY HARD. All the time. My Dad did the same to my Mom. So I learned it at a very early age. But it wasn’t until I got my Alpha chops game that I practiced it.
July 25th, 2014 at 8:22 pm
Rollo,
The only power benefit I can conceive of for men in marriage, that beats “plate spinning”, is a Britney Spears / Kevin Federline situation. Essentially, that completely flips the traditional marriage model – where the woman is providing resource value/power to get an attractive man. Essentially, this is pretty much “pimp game”.
I’m not sure that level of game/attractiveness is a reality for most men though. Therefore, having the power to go into a marriage without resources…and walk away with the kids and $20,000/mo child support happens for women way more often than men. Nevertheless, it should be no wonder to anyone why young men are learning game, going to the gym, and becoming metro/spornosexuals…rather than “getting a good job”. Especially, when K-Fed started with noting and is now worth $6 mil and has the kids – while plenty of millionaires are now broke and alone after divorce. In the land of “equalized resources”, game, attraction, sex, and reproduction are the only power/value left.
July 25th, 2014 at 8:22 pm
Let me add (and you regulars have heard this before) I got taught game by my first GF. At age 18. It took me about 6 years to get reasonably good at it.
July 25th, 2014 at 8:30 pm
@Dr. Jeremy,
Kudos for identifying the correct target.
“This husband does not have the power to influence his wife’s desire to have sex with him when he wants it. In the primary definition of the word, he is impotent – unable to take effective action; helpless or powerless.”
“both the husband creating the spreadsheet and the wife posting it online is a power struggle over defining whether sex is owed (a form of legitimate power).”
“female-centric advice has attempted to shift the power dynamic even more in favor of the wife, by suggesting that the husband should not even have an expectation of sexual satisfaction in the marriage.”
“Only advice for men seems to come close to empowering the husband.”
“empowering the husband as an individual… may not work to empower him within his marriage.
Disses for then aiming away from that target
1. You suggest trying to figure out what the wife likes, and doing more of that (as if the husband hadn’t tried that first and foremost!).
2. You suggest witholding positive reinforcement until only *after* sex (which is the approach I took, getting me up to a whole four times a month …)
Your main error,of course is your absolute insistence the wife WILL respond properly to being treated properly. This view is contradicted both by general experience with women, and this specific individual woman’s actions. The sad truth is that women are much much much more amenable to negative reinforcement.
I have speculated elsewhere that psychologists are terrified of more men discovering the power of the dark triad, i.e. the dark side, over women. Bad boys get the girls, nice guys do not.
July 25th, 2014 at 8:53 pm
Mr. “jacklabear “
I am all very new to this, discovered the “manosphere” and this site a few weeks back. Please review the following closely. Perhaps you will find some answer. Read my response concerning our disagreement about the dentist carefully. I think you will find the answer you need there.
You stated, “@George. I have felt that your comments were a bit ‘off ‘ for a while now.
But it wasn’t until a comment you made at the end of the last thread (Separating Values) that you lost all credibility with me.”
Then subsequently, “So I ask you again, do you have any kind of unique, useful or coherent message to contribute to the conversation? What is your thesis that you feel I can’t accept??”
My response- I have no thesis “that you feel I can’t accept” nor will I propose one.
You “No, I don’t personally believe that it is a good idea to sue the dentist.
I personally believe it is a very bad idea.”
My response –What he allowed his wife to push him into was unacceptable to me. I am not here to defend all males actions (especially betas) regardless of their behavior just because they are male and we are part of the “Manosphere”. What he did was unacceptable to me. I run a business and would NEVER have done what he did (as described). Apparently you think babysitting betas and protecting betas is a required condition of being alpha? I am not your daddy and neither is the manosphere or Rollo.
You, “It is also very inconsistent with your Super Alpha posturing.”
My response – I do not know specifically what your concept of “Super Alpha” is. I have never considered myself “Alpha” per say. “Alpha” as described in this site and the “manosphere” is more objectively quantified than subjectively quantified. Apparently you have interpreted my words here as “Alpha” or as you put it “Alpha posturing” and you are implying that I am pretending to impersonate whatever your concept of “super alpha”is.
You, “I also have a problem with your manosphere and Rollo bashing.”
My response – I am not bashing the manosphere or Rollo. I simply disagree with the idea that hypergamy is an innate chromosomal trait and I stated why, (because that idea incorrectly validates hypergamy).
You do not enforce whatever argument you have by claiming this. You only weaken your argument because your claim only exposes the fact that you are hiding behind Rollo and the “manosphere”.
You – “You now appear to be backpedalling and spouting standard red pill language.”
My response – There is no “back pedaling” here. Read all my comments and more objectively and you will understand me better.
July 25th, 2014 at 9:06 pm
Britney had a slammin’ body at that time though.
I think the low SMV, professional rivals of the higher SMV women will really underestimate how many men will feel very at ease with the idea of not ever getting married.
The marriageable, successful woman that’s less attractive than the potential husband has already been going on with the large number of black women that are way over weight but use their job, degree, salary, as their ‘what makes me desirable’ list. It doesn’t work.
When more and more women ask me “well don’t want to get married someday?’ they’ll start receiving more and more a non-nonchalant no.
July 25th, 2014 at 9:09 pm
@jf12
I appreciate your feedback. To clarify:
– I suggest the husband finds out what his wife likes AND ONLY use it as a reward. Many times, the problem with men is that they are simply “nice” to their wives, hoping she reciprocates. Unfortunately, doing anything pleasing for her, when she is indifferent or cold, will only reward and increase that coldness.So, I only suggest he does “more of that” to reward her after she has pleased him in some way.
– I do not insist that the wife will respond properly for being treated properly. I insist that she will respond by being REWARDED properly. That is a small, but important distinction. Doing nice things and “hoping” doesn’t work. Reinforcing desired behaviors, while ignoring undesired behaviors, does work.
– Not everyone finds nice, cuddly, loving things rewarding. Ask a BDSM sub/slave. I suggested he discover what rewards her…not that he do “nice things”. It might be drama, fear, suspense, or even pain. Although it seems paradoxical, if his wife “enjoyed” drama or fear, he would be rewarding her with it…not punishing or negatively reinforcing her.
– A dark triad bad boy uses extinction and intermittent reward/reinforcement to have such power over women. Ignoring women, leaving, dread game, and freeze outs are a form of extinction – removing reinforcement for undesired behaviors. This is often confused with punishment or negative reinforcement. Essentially though, such men are simply making women earn what they want, and ignoring them when they don’t, rather than treating them well all the time. Such advice is completely in line with what I advise above.
– As for any terror of the power of the bad boy and dark triad, you might be right about my fellow professionals, but not me. I’m very clear why the bad boy wins in the end. For example, see here: Why Nice Guys and Gals Finish Last in Love.
July 25th, 2014 at 9:43 pm
Anon2
“She : I’m sorry, but I thought about it and I am not interested”
and then
“She : Oh, ok. BTW, worst kiss ever.”
Do not pursue this girl.
Work on collecting and then spinning plates.
July 25th, 2014 at 10:41 pm
George,
I agree on not pursuing.
But I am unclear on what I did wrong, and why she did a total 180. Perhaps things went too far in just the two hours from meeting…. I don’t know.
Plus, a rejection is even better when I learn something useful from it for the future.
July 25th, 2014 at 11:48 pm
@George, your understanding of hypergamy is based on a feminized definition of the term. You’ll find that hypergamy is much more than simply women’s propensity to ‘marry up’, and is very much the result of the hormonal and neurological particulars of women’s biology.
The Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic of women’s dualistic sexual strategy is a direct result of women’s biologically prompted, cyclic sexual impulses and evolved needs for optimization of the best genetic breeding opportunity, with the best provisioning and parental investment opportunity available to her.
Hypergamy is simply part of women’s neurological firmware.
When you consider the overwhelming evidence of women’s sexual preferences and arousal cues during different phases of menstruation (ovulatory shift), plus the mate guarding and contingent sexual strategies and behaviors men have evolved to instinctually counter women’s sexual strategies the conclusion is obvious – hypergamy is rooted in women’s biological make up.
July 26th, 2014 at 1:26 am
Anon2
July 25th, 2014 at 10:41 pm
You may have done nothing wrong. The main strategy I used when I was playing the field was: “Sleep with me naked. No sex. I like the body contact.” That was easy if she was running hot for me. And absolutely do not have sex. About 3/4 came back for more. And got it all. Take advantage of those running hot the very same day/night. The really interested will sort themselves out.
So I only got women who were very interested in me. Those just having an impulse never came back. But those who did rocked. BTW I remained on good terms even with those who just got naked with me. Women just LOVE men with that kind of self control.
Probably the inner hamster kicks in as well. “How can I be mad at a man I got naked with?” So I never got dissed in the social circles she ran with. The other ladies were still opportunities.
July 26th, 2014 at 1:38 am
George,
“I am using the word hypergamy as Webster defines it – ‘marriage into an equal or higher chaste or social group’.”
Under this definition, one cause may well be competition among women, exacerbated by conditioning, which could be viewed as a continuation of shoes -> purses -> McMansions -> higher caste (if they let her in).
However, to be valid, the claim of no genetic component must account for other possibilities.
Another cause of this type of hypergamy would be provisioning, which is definitely genetic.
In the past, especially during difficult times, status was much more highly correlated with survival than it is now.
Women who had an innate predisposition to secure the highest level of provisioning were the ones most likely to survive, and thus propagate this trait through their children.
July 26th, 2014 at 2:47 am
I found this site interesting: http://www.reuniting.info/content/oxytocin-fidelity-and-sex
how could “the love hormone” make men subconsciously keep their distance from attractive, novel mates? The answer is fascinating. Before we consider how men who want to stay happily mated might keep their oxytocin at optimum levels, let’s briefly consider the evolutionary roots and biological underpinnings of pair bonding itself. They bear upon the answer.
==============
I have seen this in myself. When the first mate properly bonds (not often) I lose all interest in other women. Given how I have lived my life I find this state interesting.
What is also interesting is that “feminism” teaches none of this.
July 26th, 2014 at 2:55 am
Human Pair Bonding As A Service To The Female:
http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/issue/view/13
from:
http://www.newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms
July 26th, 2014 at 8:12 am
@Anon2
I think you’ll be more successful if you text sooner after leaving her. Even that night. Not, “it was nice meeting you”, but something that continues the interaction/conversation you were having. Consider it a venue change.
July 26th, 2014 at 8:34 am
@Rollo
This is gold. Advice that should be given to all marrying men. Some of the better mainstream relationship advice comes near this (“you should remain your husband’s/wife’s boyfriend/girlfriend”). Unfortunately most feminized men will take the mainstream advice as “I should keep buying flowers for her” or some other Bruno Mars self-defeating behavior.
Your description of a good marriage implies real difficulty for the Christian husband who follows Dalrock’s strictures of not being able to cheat or even to threaten cheating. For stability’s sake he’s going to have to marry a girl considerably under his SMV.
July 26th, 2014 at 9:48 am
@Dr J, I maintain that you are very dissimulating. Doing nice things is obviously what “people” tend to like, and it makes the most sense that their own husbands KNOW that their wives do respond to niceness, when they respond to anything. The problem in these cases is 99.44% of the time that the wife isn’t responding properly to *anything*, so withholding attention or niceties is working and isn’t going to work. And you have to know it.
“A dark triad bad boy uses extinction and intermittent reward/reinforcement”
No. A dark triad man uses fear. Danger. Badness. Evil. Death, disease, disfigurement. That is what works best with most women, unfortunately. And you too are scared to admit it, and you direct attention away from the power of negative reinforcement just like all other counselors/psychologists, because of the fear of that power being unleashed. So you feel forced to deny that truly Bad is an option.
July 26th, 2014 at 9:49 am
correction “withholding attention or niceties isn’t working”
July 26th, 2014 at 9:55 am
Compare these two scenarios:
The loving husband stops bringing flowers home every day, only bringing them after she has sex. This is the OPPOSITE of bad boy.
The woman brings a food offering timidly to the bad boy hoping he’ll enjoy it. “Good girl”, he says, “you’ve almost earned the right to have your table bouquet centerpiece again. I’ll bring it back tomorrow from where I’m holding it hostage, but first …”
July 26th, 2014 at 10:22 am
Typical advice that doesn’t work: “Keep the Big Stick in the closet. Actually, forget that you have a Big Stick. It won’t work, plus, you might get arrested. So, just talk a little louder instead.”
Advice that does work: “For a while, wave the Big Stick at her every single time she thinks about stepping out of line.”
July 26th, 2014 at 10:45 am
Nice to see I was wrong about Georgy’s anti-social and transgressive tendencies, lol. This thread has devolved into something uninteresting. I’ll be back when it’s not. Thankfully, I spend most of my time in the real world. Just have to make one minor point. The person who seemed to find my description of the 21 yr old PR dime I ended up fucking as a “light skinned Sade” redundant, wow, I just have to wonder about some idiots online. In fact, Ino (her full name was Innocenzia) was LIGHTER skinned than Sade, who is a light skinned, half-black woman to begin with. Ino was as close to “white” as a hispanic person can get without being white. I meant exactly what I said. She was a hard 10 and had this incredibly exotic look, like Sade’s in quality. Just lighter skinned.
So many dicks on the web. It’s summer, guys, get outdoors and run around. Turn off you computers. Shut off the smart phones. Be men.
July 26th, 2014 at 10:53 am
re: wrong love. Although usually couched by counselors in terms of love, this take on talking a man down from his high horse focuses on happiness.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/some-assembly-required/201407/would-you-rather-be-right-or-would-you-rather-be-happy
There is of course the definite cart-before-horse fallacy “If you would be willing to be wrong, then you would be happy.” But the real cognitive problem is that these professionals, trained first and foremost in abuse recognition, are *advocating* for wrong love / wrong happiness, but only when it is the man who is being abused/neglected/etc. Even when the only power the man has is that he can tell himself he’s right, counselors even want to take that little power away. Feminine imperative to the max.
July 26th, 2014 at 11:07 am
re: right vs happy article. BTW as difficult as it ought to be to believe that a pastor, of all people, would advocate for being happy instead of being right (i.e. hedonism), I’m sad to say it’s not unbelievable in today’s climate.
July 26th, 2014 at 11:28 am
Being right makes me happy. I’m an engineer by trade.
July 26th, 2014 at 11:35 am
“Essentially, she will have been constructing a narrative where he’s the one who is being selfish and unreasonable. …”
“He knows this is all bullshit, but always seems to come out looking stupid when they argue about it. Possibly, he’s even started to wonder if his perception is inaccurate.”
“The spreadsheet lets him know that he’s not going insane. …”
This.
Women, with their solipsism and basic nature will try to deflect responsibility for the problem onto the man. They will use emotional outbursts and try to distort the facts to make themselves look they are in the right. Men, particularly those still Blue Pill, are particularly vulnerable to this because:
1) They don’t understand the nature of the beast they are dealing with
2) They can’t be objective in analyzing the situation because they are trying to calm those woman’s emotional outbursts. Women’s tears are like kryptonite when you don’t understand it’s a manipulation.
When I was much younger, my second girlfriend also pulled this shit on me, claiming we do not spend much time together when in fact I was blowing off friends to be with her 6-7 days a week. Any rational analysis of the situation would have come back with “bullshit!”, but I was too naive (and eager to keep the sex going) to argue it. It eventually led to the breakup.
The spreadsheet allows the guy to:
1) Check his math. Is he being unreasonable/inaccurate as accused? Guys are analytical. This is how he went about checking the numbers.
2) Present the woman with the cold hard facts for which emotions are NOT an effective defense.
The reason the wife went onto the internet with this was she KNEW she was busted cold. COLD, folks.
She could not argue with the facts, so she changes the nature of the debate AND tries to rally her sisters and manginas to her cause.
The debate changes from, “Am I a frigid, selfish woman who does not care about my husbands needs?” to “Isn’t my husband a mean, ogreish bore who makes unreasonable demands in vulgar ways?”
Seems like some people here would like to help her change that focus…
Anyway, I do agree that in the larger, Red Pill aware ‘theology’, this is NOT the best way to handle the situation. There are more subtle and effective ways to go about it. But the guy sounds he is taking he his steps from being Blue Pill into Red with this, making clear his dissatisfaction.
July 26th, 2014 at 1:11 pm
A female equivalent of the spreadsheet dude:
http://guyism.com/humor/wife-sex-diary-better-than-sex-spreadsheet.html
jf12, you sound like Ted Bundy (or wannabe). So how many bodies do you have in your basement already?
July 26th, 2014 at 1:50 pm
@Mart, I don’t even have a basement. At the time we bought it, my wife liked ranch houses on slabs.
re: Spreadsheet Gals. Regarding women’s me-too-ism with regard to sex and/or sex complaints, I have to say I’m well past being amused by I-got-one-too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/sinead-oconnor-sexuality_n_5610545.html
What you got is vestigial, at best.
July 26th, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Where do you bury them then?
July 26th, 2014 at 4:16 pm
Well guys, I finally broke it off with her last night.
Told her to come to my house “just to chill” and I ended up banging her twice (I also videotaped it btw, just in case). When she was on her way out, I simply told her, “We shouldn’t see each other any more. So don’t reach out to me no more.” She flipped completely. She started crying and saying things like, “But I never did anything nothing wrong!! This is ridiculous! WHY ARE YOU LIKE THIS!?!?” On the inside I laughed because I knew she was conning me and she wasn’t being genuine. A moment later, when she knew I wasn’t going to back down and accept her back, she finally slipped out the truth.
“Well…I have been feeling like we didn’t get along anymore soo…forget it. I still can’t believe you.” Based off her tonality, I instantly knew she was banging other guys on the side. Even though the bitch was seeing others I still feel relieved in the fact that not only did I dodge a bullet, but I also gained proper insight into a woman’s sexual strategy first hand. Reading Rollo’s blog and witnessing this stuff is something that makes me realize just how many men have been fooled all throughout history. It’s insane.
It also made me realize that it’s most men who bond with women and not the other way around (I know there’s exceptions). A girl can bang multiple guys on the side but she can only love (for the moment) one. I use to think women can get more attached via sex but that’s probably manipulation on her part. She wants you to believe this is possible but it’s more likely just a con to satisfy your ego and keep you content, meanwhile she dabbles into the SMP with impunity. There’s a saying that goes along the lines of, “Women are content with the first, looking for the second, and thinking about the third.”
It’s fucked but it is what it is.
July 26th, 2014 at 4:43 pm
Women can get bonded by sex. But it has to be steady. About every 3 days or oftener. Most women will not keep up that pace for long. They want to keep their options open.
July 26th, 2014 at 9:57 pm
@ Mart,
Warms my heart to know how well I had you pegged.
July 27th, 2014 at 12:43 am
@M Simon re: pair-bonding article.
Good find! It makes perfect sense that beta males are the only members of the species who typically feel extreme romantic love. We’ve been bred for it.
July 27th, 2014 at 4:41 am
jf12,
It is not just betas. I like the feeling myself. My game generally was designed to find women who were at least in some measure capable of reciprocating. For as long as they could do it.
What I have found is that the limit is generally in the best case about six months. My guess is that women don’t like it for too long because it limits their options.
As I said up thread it requires surrender on the part of both parties. The closest common cultural reference for those who may remember is Nell in the Dudley Do Right cartoons (Rockey the Flying Squirrel). The female takes the attitude “my hero”. And the male MUST be the hero – and more eptly than Dudley.
And if you want to keep a woman longer than six months (say there are children involved)? You have to game them continuously. My Dad did that to my Mom. They were together 50 years. I’m at 40+ years (including the dating period) with the first mate.
We have another common cultural reference to this. It is called “the honeymoon period”. The bond will occasionally return to that feeling, but not for too long. Then she will try (again!) to assert dominance. And of course if you still want her you must not allow it. Once you go beta it is permanently over. You will never return to “hero” status no matter how heroic (in fact) you have been in the past.
Short version –> the woman is trying to make you her slave. You MUST make her yours. All the rest is in the details and the make up of any particular woman. And of course what you want.
In all my adventures I met one woman who was like the ones you prefer. She was given to me by a woman who didn’t want to fuck me but liked me. The woman who was given to me spanked me to indicate what she wanted (extreme physical dominance). Well I didn’t care for it. But I did get control of the situation and fucked her. But I never went back. I prefer to dominate in other ways. It was interesting.
What has been lost is that it is no longer culturally OK for the woman to surrender permanently (settle in woman’s terms). It is the children who suffer. And the current generation of men have gone on strike in response to all that. The incentives are broken.
To the Christian guy (up thread) who feels that even threatening “straying” is not allowed. I have no idea what can work for you. What my Dad liked to do was tell Mom about the women coming on to him. Some times she would even be a witness. And he was always, “Did you see the tits on that girl?” I saw that at age five. It wasn’t until much, much, much, later that I figured out what it was all about.
July 27th, 2014 at 9:37 am
@M Simon
To be clear, that’s not my advice … it’s Dalrock’s … see http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/slow-your-roll/
Your dad sounds like a cool guy to hang out with … growing up in a single mother household in the 80s/90s guys like that were, let’s say, frowned upon. I was literally scared of “chauvinist” men like your dad.
July 27th, 2014 at 9:54 am
titanic
July 27th, 2014 at 9:37 am
My Dad was fun to hang out with. But it took me about 20 years after I left home to resolve some issues I had with him. When he finally got it he apologized profusely. A mensch.
When he would visit I’d often ask (when my Mom was not near by) if he was still getting any. He would grin and say, “Yes.” Up until he died. My Mom is still alive at 94. I’m very lucky. I’m old enough to be able to talk sex and relationship a little with Mom. She gives me the woman’s view. She doesn’t get “modern” women. I have told her of a few of my adventures. She knows I game the first mate. “What ever makes it work” is her attitude.
July 27th, 2014 at 10:16 am
titanic
July 27th, 2014 at 9:37 am
Read the dalrock. Not my cuppa. I don’t believe in sin. I believe in error. Which can be corrected. What dalrock describes can only be made to work if the female in question wants to be bonded and will work EXTRA HARD to maintain the bond. That is very, very, rare. Never came across it. At least not long term.
Christianity could be made to work – with several wives. But that is no longer allowed.
What women HAVE to understand for what dalrock describes is their nature . And that is not in their interest. I suppose if she decided consciously to be your slave. i.e. defer to you in everything you consider important (with the caveat that she can present her input) it could work. But modern women do not accept that. Even when it makes them happy (it does).
IMO the Pagans have a better view of things. I particularly like Aleister Crowley. But he has a very sour view of Christianity. So despite his getting game it is probably not something you would like. His family was “devout” Christian and severely abused him. His whole life was an attempt to recover from the induced PTSD.
July 27th, 2014 at 11:16 am
Also where I differ from a lot of the dalrock commentary is the laying down of rules. Women can be ruled. But not by laying down rules. You rule them by making them WANT to follow your lead.
The whole situation changes once women have options The Christian culture described there can only work where women for the most part are sequestered and have limited options. When they have many options they need to be convinced you are the best option. Not the best available. The BEST. Everything I do with the first mate is designed towards that end.
Even in the West we used to have a culture suitable for Christianity up to two hundred years ago (roughly). That culture no longer exists in the West and to make what we have now work, new rules (and new religions) are required. It is not that I think there is no truth there. It is that the rules promulgated no longer approach ALL TRUTH the way they once did.
Just for example: we no longer have to sequester women to prove paternity. We have DNA (the laws are behind on that one).
It usually takes 50 to 100 years to sort these things out. We are still well in the middle of the transition and the result is muddle. Islam’s answer is to try to make things go backwards. It will fail. Probably.
What else will happen? Evolution (only or mostly alphas making babies) will alter the mix. In addition only women who really WANT children are having them. That will tend to predispose the daughters.
It is interesting.
July 27th, 2014 at 11:21 am
Congrats, Magent.
Then again, it is easy to spot a non-sociopath in the sea of sociopathy, which this forum is, so maybe it is a smaller feat than you imagine.
Either way, be proud of yourself all the same.
July 27th, 2014 at 3:52 pm
an interesting take on the legalistic, rule centric problem of our one-sided modern society: http://youtu.be/ncq4x_6E-ZY
July 27th, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Look, you guys feel as if you are victims because women charge extra expensive for what you guys want. You don’t feel like women have too much power. Its that you are paying alimony, child-support, dating, gifts and what not to women to get access to women who aren’t even remarkable-looking.
Men don’t like women. Not at all. If it wasn’t for the sex most men wouldn’t bother talking to women, so if you want to make this society fair..
1)invent a pill capable of providing the pleasure of sex.
No more dates, no more relationships, no more beta-orbiting or going to the nightclubs 7 times a week to see if you can snatch some low quality trap-hole.
2)You guys want children? Save up some money and have a surrogate child.
Rent a woman’s services, her ovaries, and keep the kid and your future earnings. Or work on the artificial womb and eggs to come faster.
There, problem solved. Men can go about their business, women can go about theirs.
July 27th, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Mart,
“Then again, it is easy to spot a non-sociopath in the sea of sociopathy…”
As easy as it is to spot a pseudo-intellectual poser who conflates snide with wise. You think anyone really cares about the opinion of someone who cannot even defend his own statements?
Keep typing away your snark little comments , buddy. Sound and fury and all that old chap.
Cheers.
July 27th, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Hi Rollo,
Just wanted to say that you are changing the culture. Fathom the difference you are making.
It brought me and many others out of depression. And showed us a real way to improve our lives.
Thank You
I was reading Marie-Louise von Franz (I know you do not like Jung, bear with me), from her book, The Cat A Tale of Feminine Redemption –
“Generally, when one is in a terrific emotional upheaval, then one has sudden insights. They do together. How is the cat, the dark feminine, connected with that? What must women do to help men develop (or become more Alpha)?
There is a favorite story of the Hopi, who once lived under the earth and there was an overpopulation problem. The Hopi men did nothing about it but then the women became so intolerable (became so feminist) that the Hopis made up their mind to climb a level higher. Then they settled again and everything went right, and then again there was overpopulation, and the men did nothing (last 60 years since WWII). They would have gone on like that forever if the women hadn’t become so impossible, making scenes from morning till night. Then the men got going (Roosh, Heartsie, Rollo, Dalrock, etc.) That is still true. And that is why the doctrine of a lady, who should never raise her voice and always be like the Virgin Mary, really causes her husband to remain asleep about his anima problem. If she doesn’t make a thunderstorm from time to time, he generally doesn’t wake up, he just doesn’t see.”
von Franz, Marie Louise. The Cat A Tale of Feminine Redemption (1999). page 75
July 27th, 2014 at 10:15 pm
Nathan
July 27th, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Liked your bit on the Hopi. It fits with something I wrote:
Behavioral Sink Behavior And Thermodynamics
July 27th, 2014 at 11:50 pm
The joke went over Glenn’s head.