The Peacekeepers

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’ it’s usually in response to a comment or forum thread breaking down the cost-to-benefits ratio of the travesty that’s become Marriage 2.0. To me, the real irony in these evaluative debates is how often they arise. They come up so often it’s as if these men, in their most rational and prescient minds, are seeking permission from more experienced men to enter into marriage in spite of all the overwhelming downsides to what the institution has become. Even when they’re staring down the gun barrel, guys still want to get married. They want it to work like it’s supposed to.

‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ Marriages

I’ve made prior posts about my own marriage and how I’ve developed it, but I’m always reluctant to hold myself up as some model for other men to follow because I’m painfully and personally aware of the marriage stories of other men. As good as it sounds, don’t use my marriage as your benchmark.

In fact I think the very idea of a “successful marriage” is a very abused, feel-good Oprah-esque term. ‘Successful’ and ‘Failed’ marriages are Matrix-speak. They’re goal oriented terms for a relational condition that’s constantly in flux. You have to stop thinking of a “successful marriage” in terms of years on the clock. There are people married for 50+ years who are absolutely miserable with each other, and there are couples married for 2 or 3 who have a better love and mutual respect for each other than their parents ever realized themselves after 40 years. Perpetuating a life-long state of misery because it became normalized is a much greater ‘failure’ than divorcing a woman who’s poisonous to your well-being, to say nothing of your family’s. Longevity does not equal ‘success’ in marriage.

Whenever I’m asked for examples of ‘successful marriages’, and particularly when asked by guys seeking to turn their Beta-framed marriage around, I always refer to this inspirational post from Dave in Hawaii. This is my go-to model for both the questioning unmarried man and the desperate beta-married man.


The underlying, root problem most men have with regard to women, intimacy, their relationships, etc. is fear. Fear of rejection, fear of isolation, fear of missing out on or fucking up what they’ve been taught should be their legitimate, socially approved desire. So pervasive is this fear that in trying to avoid the consequences of it, it trumps even the fear of death. I personally know Marines who’ve bravely faced real bullets shot at them, who’ll manically avoid any situation they think their wives or girlfriends would even remotely consider leaving them for. Bullets don’t scare them, but the chance of losing a girlfriend’s intimacy paralyzes them with fear. This is the “Yes Dear” fear.

In order to compensate for that fear men will devise all manner of rationales for their relations, but furthest from their mind would ever be ‘experimenting’ or engaging in risk taking situations with their LTR woman. So influential is that fear that they will never attempt changing their own positions no matter how beneficial it would be to both him and his partner. Guys embodying the peak of confidence in other aspects of their lives would still rather “keep the peace” in the face of a bad situation with their wives than risk that loss (of the ONE or otherwise), and be cast back into uncertain conditions where they may actually grow, but again be subject to real rejection.

Dave in Hawaii’s story I linked is an example of a guy who would’ve otherwise divorced his wife and was already in a “nothing left to lose” situation while married, so he overcame the fear and experimented. That led him to a new reframing of his relationship; one where his wife had a renewed respect for him. The possibility existed that she could have taken such offense to his behavior that she would’ve been prompted to leave him, but her leaving was already a foregone conclusion if he hadn’t initiated something new.

There comes a point in a Man’s life where the fear of experimenting with a potentially disastrous outcome is out weighed by the cost involved in not assuming that risk.

Whether it comes (preferably) before he’s committed to a situation (like marriage) or as a result of the conditions created by that commitment, at some point he realizes the truth that he will only get what he has gotten if keeps doing what he has done. This is the internal debate the ‘peacekeeper’ has to confront – is his peacekeeping so debilitating that he wont experiment with risking a new outcome? If you’re still having this internal dialog you haven’t reached that threshold yet.

In July I’ll have been married for 16 years. Mrs. Tomassi and I have always enjoyed a mature, adult, mutual respect and understanding of each other’s identities and how we relate to each other. I’ve been in LTRs where I was constantly walking on eggshells, nervous that any slight might mean the end of what was really a twisted, adolescent level BPD relationship. You cannot live like that forever; you will break it off, or you will commit suicide. For over 16 years I’ve fearlessly ‘checked out’ other women and ask my wife’s joking opinion about them. And yes, she playfully hits me back by saying some random guy is cute, but my confidence to roll with what we’re both aware is part of the Game only serves to amplify her continued attraction for me. That push-pull is an essential part of my wife’s respect for me. Experimentation and a sense of fearlessness is an intentional foundation of my marriage.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

37 comments on “The Peacekeepers

  1. Great to know the story behind of Hawaiian Libertarian.

    Im thinking that for a mainstream shift to happen, all we need to do is to make a show like Girls / SITC but with guys, and make such displays of dominance and comparisons once and again. It would get tingles and ratings and tons of indignation.

      1. I was actually thinking this exact same thing watching that show the other night, and about how my recent ex loved it so much. I realized it was because it gave her something to replicate and not feel bad about, in a way – with the main “average” (3 at best in my eyes) looking character, who’s the prototypical american slutty entitled girl that age.

        Few questions just throwing out there: What would an equivalent show for guys even be like? Is the Alpha male character she’s dating really what men should replicate or how every guy should “game” women – he seems to be the prime example of what alpha means or game-readers are taught esp. by people like heartiste or shark; or is that just the girl-vision view of what an alpha male is, basically a mysterious ape-man…and also, why is he as the alpha dating such an unattractive girl? Is that to make all the “average” girls like her feel like they can get those ‘alpha’ men they so desire?

        What is your take on that show anyway?

        1. If I did the show, it would be 100% manosphere approach. A couple of married guys, a beta, a loser, a bunch of alphas, a dark one, a pua, and a WHOLE LOT OF HOT GIRLS, plus some bolicks and some fatties. Fuck the girly point of view. Man show all the way.

          1. ^^ All that but it’s on HBO or SHOWTIME so we can see some boobies and VAGINA which brings be to another point.

            Have you guys noticed that on some movies “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” They show the guys dick but they NEVER show a girls pussy in a movie. What fucking biased.

            Also they don’t make tv shows like they used to allot of those black & white shows/movies had alllot of alpha characters in them compared to the reality beta junk they show now.

  2. Congratulations on your impending anniversary! I think I used the very term “successful” on this blog just last week. I meant it to indicate happy, or mutually beneficial.

    1. N.B.: The Anglo-Saxon kenning for woman was “peace-weaver.” Peacekeeping is a woman’s job; no wonder it doesn’t work when men do it 🙂

  3. “Fear of rejection, fear of isolation, fear of missing out on or fucking up what they’ve been taught should be their legitimate, socially approved desire.”

    This is true of starting relationships as well. I talked to my buddy just yesterday about a girl who said she needs “a long time to get to know a guy to see if theres chemistry.” He was actually contemplating doing it. I had to remind him that their first “date”, recommended by her, was to an Amway meeting.

    He didn’t quite understand why I didn’t think she was actually into him.

    “So pervasive is this fear that in trying to avoid the consequences of it, it trumps even the fear of death.”

    I spent 5 years in the Army. I had buddies with bronze/silver stars with valor devices from doing legitimately courageous/insane things who were the biggest wallflowers in the world. It blew my mind.

    1. “I spent 5 years in the Army. I had buddies with bronze/silver stars with valor devices from doing legitimately courageous/insane things who were the biggest wallflowers in the world. It blew my mind.”

      This is why PUAs stress going out to newbies. Because you can GET confidence thru other means, you can climb mount Everest and get your medical degree and earn medals in the Army…but at the end of the day going out and talking to girls is going to give you confidence specifically in the art of “going out and talking to girls” instead of in “climbing mountains” etc.

      Those guys are actually trapped in the superficial value system of society and don’t realize it (if they could step out of that system and actually logically understand their worth the way you understand their worth, they wouldn’t be wallflowered up because they’d be living by a real value system that bases value on achievements instead):

      The end bit of this video about feeling good all the time is why I can be in a bar with your Army buddies who I 100% agree are way more accomplished as men than I am and have all sorts of respect for their accomplishments…but I’d be feeling better about myself and my worth and be more outgoing than them because I’m not living under social conditioning that would tell me I don’t deserve to feel good because I haven’t got a Ferrari.

      1. I’m all about building net worth but that’s a good video. When you understand the mechanics of what your self esteem is based on you start working on improving things about yourself for the right reasons.

        1. ya there’s nothing wrong with having money and ferraris and shit at all. As long as you’re doing it for yourself and have your own reasons for it and not because you need those things to validate your worth as a man. Once you realize you’re IN the social conditioning matrix you can step out of it and really appreciate the stuff you obtain…but you have to realize that you’re in it to begin with, which can be hard for people to accept because society has been brainwashing us with it since we were babies.

          “I’d never fall for social conditioning like that, I’m too smart!! Now I’m going to wash these Doritos down with a Pepsi and pick out which pair of needlessly overpriced silk tie I’m going to buy next!”

  4. Peacekeeping in this sense is lazy, avoidant, pandering behavior borne of the fear of incurring the disapproval of “She Who Must Be Obeyed” (see Rumpole of the Bailey).

    It’s an unhealthy, sickening fear that leads to catastrophic results. But the whole process is also the result of an inclination to avoidantly follow the path of least resistance.

    If you live in a relationship walking on eggshells, you are losing your soul.

    The bright side is that anyone who has ever let themselves get pussy-whipped to the point of near psychic extinction (*ahem* *sigh* *cough*) has developed a deep and rational horror of letting a relationship degenerate in that fashion.

    This sacred horror is a powerful motivating force to do one’s damnedest to always nip that evil in the bud at all costs. It can turn a whimpering beta schlub into a fearless freedom fighter.

  5. Any endeavor in life can (and should) be judged on two matrices: was it beneficial to society (so society knows what to think about it) and did you get what you wanted out of it (so you know what to think about it). Pre-meditated murder, for example, is usually very negative on a social scale, so we make it illegal, but often positive on an individual scale (a guy who murders his wife’s lover probably feels good about it, even if it is illegal). Same with theft, rape, etc.

    Marriage is generally seen as a positive by society, which is why we have so many tax laws, etc. to promote it. Married people tend to be more productive and stable. On the other hand, in the modern world, men are often told to marry based purely on “love” and “emotion”. Don’t consider if she wants the same number of children, or whether she would be a good mother and wife, or talk about who will be the breadwinner, or if her values match with yours. Women, on the other hand, are told to carry a 453 point checklist before marriage, and are essentially encouraged to divorce whenever they want to trade up.

    Which, of course, leads to many failed marriages. Men don’t think about what they’re committing to (and if the women who they’re marrying will give them what they want), while women are given an easy opt out (indeed, often a profitable opt-out).

    Ideally, of course, marriage should be about children; we want to make them, and raise them well. Unfortunately, neither men nor women seem to be considering the quality of their children’s lives anymore (given the ever increasing divorce rate and single motherhood). Nor are men considering the quality of motherhood their children will get (or stability of it)

    An interesting note though; at least in the age of arranged marriages, there were clear goals from a marriage- either for children to inherit the wealth of both families, or to create a social and political connection via families. Maybe the people getting married weren’t entirely satisfied, but they at least knew why they were getting married and what to expect.

    I think America got it right from 1960-1980. A good, balanced mix of love, and social approval meant that people married with both rational and emotional goals. Friends and family would actually tell you the truth- like, I hate your fiancee, he/she comes from a bad family, he/she is spoiled and selfish, he/she doesn’t have the same values, etc.

    As always, if only we had frozen time right after 1st wave (60-80) feminism, things would have been better. Equal opportunity instead of forcing equal outcomes. And marriage/divorce laws that made some sense. And a realization that if you have children, marriage is about them, not about your own selfish desires.

  6. You would thin if people knew game like talking about it their would be more people married and gaming their wife’s like Dave and yourself, I guess allot of people still have not reached that level.

  7. To the contrary…when single guys learn about game, they actively avoid marriage when they figure out why buy the cow when there is so much milk to be had? The only reason to get married now days, is to have children.

    I came across game by accident on teh interwebz. Since I’m an introvert, I quickly connected the dots to all this game theory and my own behaviors and relationships. It’s one reason why I jumped on the matrix metaphor as a blogger before it became the Manosphere zeitgeist that it is now…I truly felt like I was Neo taking the red pill when I first figured out shit tests and maintaining frame instead of playing into hers.

    1. I think when many single guys learn about game, it’s initially a fascinating concept that they can control women instead of women always having control – and that leads them to start consciously (and sometimes cynically) ‘playing’ with their food, instead of learning to enjoy it for what it is. Post red pill burn there is almost certainly an element of cruelty in reversing the roles, as it were.

      I think eventually they learn to level out the cynicism of women with their own power over the same. At least I did, so maybe I’m just projecting.

      Like so many before me, my flame out with an LTR brought me around to the red pill and game, and my new found skills were definitely like a drug, eager for experimentation. But with age brings a bit of wisdom, and no matter what people on any of these sites claim, a forty-two year old (my age) cannot play the field forever. The height of pathos is that forty-two year old clubbing. If you’re at all realistic you know it’s true – after awhile you’re just that ‘old guy.’ Eventually you cash it in and get the best you can or you just fade out to porn and whores… not my style.

      Yes Rollo, I know that I’m at the height of my seduction powers vice financial status, social status, etc., and all that is indeed true (I’ve never had it so good as right now – I can and have pulled significantly younger women). But recognizing my impending shelf-live, I’ve always been inclined to follow yours and Athol Kay’s ultimate end-game path and select for a wife, if not a long-term committment – and not just a temp fling.

      Ergo, the application of game has brought me my current LTR (29 to my 42), who made the cut over several women that I’ve winnowed through, and who I am now realizing has met my checklist for – yes – marrying and having kids. She is possessed of my same midwest values, wants a passel o’ kids (she has fourteen brothers and sisters, no shit), and is quite feminine. I’m still evaluating, but using game as my frame for doing the appraisal of her, not the other way around. Ten years ago I would have thought that ‘I was lucky to meet this girl!’ she’s perfect – pedestal and all that crap – and probably would have lost her in months, if not years. But now I have game as a resource (your site and Athol’s have been the biggest help for potential long-termers like me) and the frame is definitely mine, not hers.

      Anyway, I guess how it ties in with your theme is that the fear of divorce does not stand in the way of my trying to beat the odds, because what I imagine myself losing (not the perfect girl – doesn’t exist – but a solid family like I had) is enough to take the educated leap.

  8. ehm – you are fearlessly checked out other women? Sorry, but this is what -some bragging form the pussy whipped looser? How could you even write something like this? You are ….ing the same women for 16 years, for god sake, you have devoted a quarter of century to her, you have abandoned your freedom for one woman and you tell that you could .. wait, fearlessly check another one and she did not mind. Now, mommy let you do it without punishment, little rollo.

    You western males are pussies. I am disgusted with this.

  9. Can speak to that those who walk on eggshells and get burned anyway before taking the red pill do not ever want to go there again. The trouble is going too far in the other direction, that is, nuking every girl who shows the slightest sign of a red flag even if it could have been short circuited with game. Now in my early 50’s, I like social dancing, but I’m tired of being the oldest guy in most dance clubs, that gets old, no pun intended; tired of pump and dump, that gets old too so I’m thinking about using my game frame to evaluate women for LTR’s as feral1404 does above. The bad news there: it’s been my observation that the best women tend to be in LTRs (including marriage) already so it’s going to be rare to find an available woman who’s a cut above the others. So there’s no substitute but to put in the work if I’m ever going to get that.

  10. You talk about marriage being a losing game basically doomed to failure but I don’t think that is true. The divorce rate in certain parts of the US for example is much lower than in other parts. It usually depends on the education level of the people getting married, the age, and a few other factors. Check out this article here for some stats

    Marriage can be a very great thing for people. There will be a point when you are 50-60 and you realize that picking up girls got old and all the best ones to be around long term have been found by other guys and you might just wish you got married. It can allow you to become comfortable with a person in a way you never could before through commitment. This article here kind of breaks down what commitment can do for a relationship

    1. Dear Mr. HUSsy, before I opine with a counterpoint to your recent and obvious, manosphere-wide effort to spam for the vajazzled hole that is postmasculine and HUS, allow me to draw your attention to the fact that I approve and publish each of your comments with full knowledge that you are a plugged-in mangina.

      You see, here at Rational Male I value and encourage an open public discourse – unlike the admittedly censored, and meticulously scrubbed echo chamber Aunt Giggles needs in order to build better Betas. I’m glad to see you’ve decided to remove the plastic bubble wrap and cellophane that “13 Minute Walsh” needs her readers dressed in to enjoy her catharsis blog. Welcome., now onto your issues,..

      I pulled up the report she was working from. She references the report as “The State of Our Unions, 2010:”, and cherry picks some positive sounding stats. What she conveniently left off after the colon was the rest of the title:When Marriage Disappears. I only made it about 30 pages in, and had to step away. It is absolutely brutal.

      In the future, it may serve your understanding better to actually read the ‘sources’ Aunt Giggles cites. As a rule of thumb, presume anything she’s quoting is sanitized to fit her pro-beta narrative – in fact that’s a pretty reasonable starting point when reading anything she posts or comments about. For chumps like you, it sounds good because you want to believe the fantasy that the feminine imperative sells you.

      There will be a point when you are 50-60 and you realize that picking up girls got old and all the best ones to be around long term have been found by other guys and you might just wish you got married.

      Myth of the Lonely Old Man – Been there, done that.

      You see, when you fall back on tired tropes like this it only highlights your mangina-ness; kind of like a turd in a punchbowl. What’s ironic is that you are oblivious to the fact that the argument you’re making is EXACTLY the same one used on women for centuries in order to get them to settle down with a man “before it’s too late.” So thoroughly are you conditioned to believe the fem-centric is the normative that it never occurs to you that your appeals to men presumes they’re subject to female conditions.

      That’s the totality of equalism. Everyone is ‘equal’, but only in a feminine context. If men are just like women then why wouldn’t they be subject to the same insecurities about long term provisioning and emotional support, right?

    2. Zac the Bitch-Titted Eunuch is the manosphere’s newest troll. Scarcity mentality and settling for the win. “I have to lock down any woman before they’re all taken and I wind up old and aloooooooone!!!! 🙁 Rah rah marriage!”

      1. You get married with that mindset, and she will have divorced by when you’re 50. Or, worse, she will still be with you but full of contempt.

        1. I hope Zac-no-sack keeps commenting. Such a perfect example of the scarcity mentality that leads men to sign over their life to one woman.

          If you marry a woman for the right reasons, I still object on principle, but I’ll concede that it can “work” because I’ve seen it work. But get married for the reasons Zac listed, and you’re nothing but a bitch who deserves what he gets.

  11. Biochemical research points to a natural four-year sexual cycle for the human female. This apparently allows enough time after childbirth for the average mother in a state of savagery to regain her ability to survive with­out male provisioning. A woman’s natural tendency is to “liberate” herself from her mate after that point. When her hormones prompt her to reproduce again, she simply takes a new mate.

Leave a Reply to Mac Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: