Take a deep breath and check your heart-rate before you hit play gentlemen (and ladies), you’re in for a ride. In general I don’t necessarily promote nor disparage the MRA movement, but after watching this video I can better understand the contempt behind the groundswell. However, my point in posting this wasn’t to trigger any MRA outrage (The Spearhead and A Voice for Men has that covered), rather it was prompted by Rational Reader Dan’s comment in my 16 Years On post:
Rollo, you mention that men make a sacrifice of their desire for sexual variety and their sex life in general, when he marries.
But you are forgetting that for many men, marriage *is* the only or most feasible way to have a regular sex life. one-night-stands, flings, FWB’s, casual relationships – these are not for every guy. Most men dont get the opportunity to be promiscuous. Most men are simply not built for the going out in the jungle and hunting…physically or mentally.
I dont want marriage. I dont even want a committed relationship at this stage But I feel compelled to consider commitment and marriage because of my sexual / intimate needs. I am sure many mediocre young men are in the same boat as me. But you havent considered them here. You’re talking from the perspective of a man who is atleast relatively attractive and can sexually attract women with reasonable ease.
Forgive me Dan, I’m not trying to run you up the flagpole here. My assumption is that Dan hasn’t read Appreciation or Women In Love in their entirety. There’s much more to men’s sacrifices than just a trade off between a regular piece of ass and the potential for more varied sexual experiences. The predictable, feminized reflexive response is to presume that men would fixate on how their sacrifices would impact their sexual strategies, but sexual opportunism is only a single sacrifice among many. The feminine imperative would like nothing better than to have both men and women presume that men’s only concern is about the legs that might have been spread for them had they not opted for marriage, but there’s a lot more to men’s sacrifices.
As illustrated in this video, career, relationships, family, education, and the overarching threat of losing all of his investments in a no-fault divorce are all very real risks men tend not to consider and women would rather they not. A lot of men lament losing half (or more) of their financial assets, but what gets lost in that is the personal investments necessary to establish those assets. Those investments required a sacrifice of time, effort, emotion, determination, etc. and all whilst maintaining an intimate relationship with a woman who cannot appreciate in-full the totality of those sacrifices – because she never experienced them from a male perspective. Men’s sacrifices are only appreciated through the filter of women’s expectations and perceived benefit.
At 46 years old, I have no doubt that Charles Bruce had well over half a lifetime of personal investment into himself, his wife, their family and extended families. For most Men, and manosphere readers in particular, the initial response to Mr. Bruce’s dilemma is one of (understandable) blind rage at the feminized system. As hard as it is, I’m going to ask that readers look past this anger and see the conditions, investments and sacrifices Bruce made that makes his story so tragic.
BRIFFAULT’S LAW
The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.
In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. It’s one set of conditions to consider this in terms of how your girlfriend might’ve cheated on you in spite of all your best efforts to invest in your relationship and play by the “rules”, but it’s entirely another when you consider fallacy of Relational Equity in terms of a life long, expected, entitled, commitment. Charles Bruce is on the sharp end of women’s inability to appreciate men’s sacrifices.
If you’ve ever wonder why no male hormonal contraceptive has ever been developed or marketed since the sexual revolution, look no further than Briffault’s Law. For all the bleating about equalism and gender equality of the past 60 years, women have effectively organized and fought like cornered animals to keep the power of controlling the family unit out of the hands of men.
I’ve read studies documenting men’s most productive, creative, endeavors being attempted and/or achieved in the years before they married; innovations, academic degrees, scientific discoveries, great masterpieces of art. etc. Then, a precipitous drop off in what we are meant to assume is ambition and motivation occurs after marriage. Roissy has more than a few links to these articles, but my impression of these studies is less about the neutering effects of marriage (i.e. the responsibilities of settling down) and more about the lack of opportunity inherent in maintaining a committed monogamy and addressing the sacrifices a man must make to advance his interests. Missing opportunities to get laid with new and varied women pales in life-importance when you consider the sacrifices a man makes in having to turn down opportunities that would advance his (and possibly society’s) better interest. Women are the Dream Killers because they cannot appreciate men’s sacrifices.
This is an interesting quote from a man citing Briffaults Law:
“Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any.
Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most.
Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.
When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you.
Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers.
Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.” She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh.
The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married.
To be a married man entais a sacrifice of such utter powerlessness, on so many levels, that no woman will ever comprehend, much less appreciate.