Case Study – Low Expectations

1393455895536

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:

 

Zreanes

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.

Why Women Can’t ‘Just Get It‘

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 The Desire Dynamic:

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.

5 3 votes
Article Rating

Published by Rollo Tomassi

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

Speak your mind

375 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Burninator
The Burninator
7 years ago

Jl12, Stop with link sperging and answer my questions put to you. How do you account for all of the famous examples I supplied? Are you stating that Rollo doesn’t,didn’t attract women by the boatload? Further by tirelessly going on about proper use of statistics and relying on supposed science, are you stating that chicks do not dig you? Serious question, you seem to have some kind of personal stake in this that I’m sensing. I guarantee you that my IQ is quite high, and I have women throwing themselves at me. Whether you believe that or not is inconsequential,… Read more »

jacklabear
jacklabear
7 years ago

Some nuance is missing from the discussion of ASD. Simon Barron-Cohen notes that the socialization deficit is due to difficulty in reading and internalizing others’ emotions and thoughts. IOW, an empathy deficit. In autism, there can be a high level of reasoning activity like Rain Man – hyper-rational. SBC noted that operating in the world of feelings is a typically feminine trait while rationality is a masculine trait. So he sees autism as a kind of hyper-masculine state. I took his online test. I scored a hair below average on empathizing, and well into the autistic range for rationality. So… Read more »

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

@Rollo Tomassi “It’s always interesting to me when someone criticizes the manosphere as some misogynistic cult (you’re not the first) yet they offer no real alternative to Game or anything more constructive than “you basement-dwelling creeps just need to get out more”.” Of course I’m not the first. Others have been telling you where you’re wrong, but like the narcissist that you are, and one selling snake oil to the gullible, you won’t hear any of it. Not to belabor the already obvious, to the extent Red Pill helps men become better people, it is useful. But when it turns… Read more »

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

re: Burninator and hopscotch. Tiger Woods slept with dozens of prostitutes who were paid specifically to party with him. Despite being known totally for athleticism and not intellect, he has zero game and is extremely unsuccessful with women when left to his own devices. Einstein did not date Monroe. His lifetime N is extremely well known to be exactly 3, including his two wives. He couldn’t get anything going with other women before his first wife, and she wasn’t slobbering all over him either. Byron was extremely handsome, foppish, effeminate, bisexual, and all of his successes were due entirely to… Read more »

M Simon
7 years ago

Mart July 30th, 2014 at 8:54 am What they do, of course, is nothing more than rehash the oldest misogynist tropes… I dunno. I LIKE women. I like being naked with them. The first GF taught me Game. Because she liked men with Game. Been with the first mate 40+ years now. All sweetness and light? Hell no. But I doubt if we would still be together if I didn’t have Game. Of course I have no way of knowing but my guess is that you are a Martha not a Martin. Red pill is not against women. It is… Read more »

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

@jf12 “What does the fact that MUCH less than 1 in 200 children are high-functioning and ANYWHERE on the autistic spectrum imply to you? I can wait until you decide to get real.” First off, those are old stats, from early 2000. Current numbers put autism rates at 1 in 68 U.S. children (per CDC): http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/27/health/cdc-autism/ But second, what is your point exactly? That ASD is rare enough? So? Male brains of the semi-autistic bend — i.e., uber-rational and unable to grasp nuances of emotional life — are far more prevalent than officially diagnosed ASD cases: this is the major… Read more »

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

@Mart, re: autism incidence.

From your link “The study found nearly half of children with an autism spectrum disorder have average or above-average intellectual ability — an IQ above 85.” Nearly half were above 85. Encroaching on genius territory, nearly.

re: “Furthermore, it is decidedly not true”

Luckily, you don’t get to decide.

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

re: Elliot Rodgers the genius who almost didn’t flunk a couple of classes before dropping?

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

A Modest Proposal. Howzabout we stop pedestalizing women’s pickers, and instead of insisting that what works in attracting women to clearly-stupid mean bad boys and brutes is some “different kind” of intelligence, and instead of insisting that what turns off women to clearly-intelligent nice guys and caring bookish nerds is some “different kind” of stupid, we call it like it really is?

jacklabear
jacklabear
7 years ago

“…uber-rational and unable to grasp nuances of emotional life…”

As I pointed out, it is not black and white, one or the other. It doesn’t follow that being highly rational requires inability to understand emotion.

But thank you for providing us an example of one who is the opposite of that.

M Simon
7 years ago

Mart July 30th, 2014 at 2:54 pm If a man is interested in women your advice is not total rubbish. But it is far too limited. And to that extent and per the topic around here you are at minimum useless and at worst counterproductive. You will note a few engineers in this thread. We are not discussing engineering (except in so far as what we are endeavoring is to engineer better M/F relationships). You don’t want to be dominated? Excellent. The universe has developed a herd of betas just for you. And I’m not against that. It is what… Read more »

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

@Rollo:

That black-and-white oversimplification again.

Not just be yourself, if being yourself is an aimless and confused schlock. 2 and 3 are the most important, and most difficult, tasks for most.

The Burninator
The Burninator
7 years ago

Oh please, Franklin was a renknowned lady’s man. Byron as well, it was his artsy fartsy spiel that gave him the edge. Or are you also one of those “looks are the primary thing that attracts women” individuals? Khan you did not in fact refute, and being a military genius is still being, well, a genius. Mozart did have Oneitis, true, yet managed to attract a high quality woman and pump out a brood of kids. He was, I hear, rather smart. How was that possible, I mean, he was really smart, that doesn’t compute. But, well, there it is.… Read more »

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

M Simon: “Not everybody is comfortable with men capable of murder. There are women who like that sort of thing. Quite a lot in fact. And if the rumors are true – most of them.” Rumors are not true, and this is where Red Pillers (or at least some of them) are off as well. Male strength and status need not be associated with violence to be attractive. Women who are attracted to violent men exhibit a multitude of psychological problems; one of them is diagnosed as hybristophilia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia They are not a majority, thankfully (for the non-murderous men). Again,… Read more »

M Simon
7 years ago

jf12 July 30th, 2014 at 3:47 pm Well that is in fact my point. Brains are no impediment to being a “bad boy”. But it is not a common combination. I ask the first mate from time to time about it. She says it is rare and I’m the only one she ever met. Given her attraction to brains (after all the other basic criteria are met) – lucky me. She was in fact just what I wanted. Some one who wanted me. Desperately. My game was designed to find her. And I had to sort through quite a few.… Read more »

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

re: “Clearly intellect is a neutral value, it neither adds nor detracts from a man’s bed worthiness.”

I agree. But since few of us are Übermenner, it doesn’t matter that there is no unitarity principle (zero-sum rule) apportioning talents. Hence an intellectual man is most likely not to be physically talented, and vice versa.

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

re: NAWALT is the feminine error of overgeneralizing from “a relatively small sample” of “well, me, for example.”

M Simon
7 years ago

Mart July 30th, 2014 at 4:08 pm Again, the common in the ‘sphere belief that women are attracted to thugs is a typical for Red Pilldom error of overgeneralizing from a relatively small sample of human population. But they are. At least in my experience. The first mate has told me more than once that she was looking for a protector and despite all my other failings (according to her) she still rates me as an outstanding protector. Now why would women be looking for thugs (or more generally a protector)? Children. Despite your belief or wish that desire on… Read more »

M Simon
7 years ago

jf12
July 30th, 2014 at 4:15 pm

AWALT – heh.

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

re: I’m listening (my voice is very much like Kelsey Grammer’s, fwiw). I’m especially waiting to hear how less than 1 in 136 of kids with IQs over 85 is making so many intelligent boys so repulsive.

M Simon
7 years ago

The Burninator
July 30th, 2014 at 4:06 pm

When I’m looking for a good programmer I ask about their musical interests. The two go together. You can look it up.

M Simon
7 years ago

jf12
July 30th, 2014 at 4:22 pm

Could you explain that? I don’t get the references. Or maybe I missed it up thread.

M Simon
7 years ago

jf12
July 30th, 2014 at 4:13 pm

Probably. But where women have choices that can be a deciding factor.

M Simon
7 years ago

Let me add that brains on the part of a woman was a deciding LTR factor for me. The first mate knew trig. And she wanted me badly. Lucky me.

She doesn’t always get what I’m up to off the bat. But I can explain it to her.

M Simon
7 years ago

Mart
July 30th, 2014 at 4:08 pm

Did you actually read your link? It refutes your thesis that such men are unattractive. As to your hypothetical “normal women”? Never met any. Most want an alpha/beta i.e. dominant and nurturing. And if they can’t get that they will separate the functions.

I never bring out my nurturing side unless the first mate has surrendered – totally. When she stops surrendering It is dominance only.

All I can say is that it works for me and fits most of what I read at “Red Pill” sites.

M Simon
7 years ago

“how evil women are and how best to game them.” You might as well call electrons evil. Or polar bears. They have characteristics and like transistors (high beta, low beta, high/ow leakage, high/low current, high/low ft etc.) they can be characterized And you tailor your circuit to the desired output. Women are more of an engineering problem than a mystery. But you have to understand how they work. It is not useful (mostly) to put a BJT where a MOSFET works better. Or vice versa. The point of this site is to give the general rules. You then tailor that… Read more »

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

@MSimon,
Let’s compare a couple of guys.

Richard Ramirez, who had multiple known mental problems including multiple physical brain damages, with low measured IQ, a truly brutal scumbag who terrorized women and children, who sounds literally retarded in interviews. With dozens of female groupies who think he’s a “different kind” of smart.

Bill Gates, with zero female groupies, who married Miss “Bob The Paper Clip” who treats him like a personal foot-rubber. And gives billions to women and children. And women, all women 100% guaranteed, think he’s a “different kind” of stupid.

Novaseeker
Novaseeker
7 years ago

An alternative to your convoluted and often hilariously irrational theories would be a much simpler advice for men to: 1. Relax. 2. Figure out what you want to do with your life. 3. Do it. 4. The rest, women/woman included, will follow. Nice if it were true, but alas, it is not. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt and the divorce settlement. Note that I don’t hate women — I have had the same GF now for 4 years and love her very much. But what you wrote there — that doesn’t work. Not in my experience at least.… Read more »

M Simon
7 years ago

jf12 July 30th, 2014 at 5:14 pm Please explain where I fit in your model. Assuming of course that I’m telling the truth. BTW I was very very loosely associated with Bill Gates long before he became a household word. I used to know what he was up to long before the general public found out. I was among the very early computer hackers. I designed the I/O board that went into the world’s first BBS. The first mate was printing “Support the Revolution. Buy a Computer” T shirts back then. Bill got his start in S-100 bus computers. You… Read more »

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

re: model. You mean what I think your SMV is/was? Alphaness vs betaness? Ok. Based on your laudation of snuggles game as your most/only effective move, and your long marriage where you concern yourself with your wife’s feelings, I have to rate you as purely beta w/o any alpha at all, even though it sounds like you found a unicorn submissive woman.

But I thought we discussed that earlier.

M Simon
7 years ago

jf12, No. What I’m asking is how I fit into your classification given my way above average n? Stellar? No. But beta land n? No way. As to giving in to my first mate. Too bad you don’t have a bird’s eye view. She might beg to differ. In fact she often begs. Heh. And how do you explain 20 somethings coming on to a 69 yo. man with no alpha game? Isn’t that rather odd? Do women generally come on to betas? Hasn’t been my experience. And this has been going on since my mid 20s. The snuggles game… Read more »

M Simon
7 years ago

Well lets try the last few paragraphs again: What I think you lack is nuance. But not in the way Martha up thread defines it. There is no ONE TRUE GAME™ . There are different kinds of game depending on what you want. Notchmen play one kind. Those looking for a LTR might play it differently. And BTW Do betas get two girls at once? At the same time? More than a few times? For six months with the same two girls in one case? I think your difficulty is that I don’t fit your classification system. IMO. But of… Read more »

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

re: two girls. You left that part out before. Alpha is defined by how women treat you; if women make themselves easy sexually, then you are alpha, full stop. If women make themselves difficult, you are beta, period. My mistake in your case was that your women-pleasing behavior was symptomatic of *having* to be women-pleasing, i.e. almost always because women are difficult. If you are voluntarily women-pleasing despite women making themselves easy, that’s … fine by me but.

I’m much more beta, and much more uncompetitively so, than you are.

M Simon
7 years ago
Reply to  jf12

jf12, If you are interested in getting women being competitive is a good thing. You know know how it is with monkeys. Some one is always waiting and sometimes working to take the place of the top monkey. Females love that. As to pleasing women – if you can maintain your dominance and do it that is a good thing. I like being able to introduce my new GF to the previous ones. It has advantages. For one thing it gives the new one incentive to try harder. “Don’t let this one go like she did.” Besides. I don’t think… Read more »

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

re: uncompetitive. It’s a joke, of sorts. “I’m much more uncompetitive than you!”

M Simon
7 years ago

jf12

Well that one went past me.

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

@M Simon: “Did you actually read your link? It refutes your thesis that such men are unattractive.” No, it shows that attraction to violent men is a kink, a form of pathology of sexual behavior, and not the norm. Being attracted to thugs is about as normal as eating dirt (look up pica). There are people who do it, but they are not normal. “As to your hypothetical “normal women”? Never met any. Most want an alpha/beta i.e. dominant and nurturing.” There is a difference between dominant and nurturing, and violent thugishness. Nurturing and violence are mutually exclusive. “And you… Read more »

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

@Novaseeker: “‘An alternative to your convoluted and often hilariously irrational theories would be a much simpler advice for men to: 1. Relax. 2. Figure out what you want to do with your life. 3. Do it. 4. The rest, women/woman included, will follow.’ Nice if it were true, but alas, it is not. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt and the divorce settlement. Note that I don’t hate women — I have had the same GF now for 4 years and love her very much. But what you wrote there — that doesn’t work. Not in my experience at… Read more »

Morpheus
7 years ago
Reply to  Rollo Tomassi

Just so we’re all on the same page in this thread, Mart is Barb / Shel the same troll Dalrock had to ban last week. Ha. I really thought she was a HUS commenter, maybe even Giggles herself as she is mimicking several of her memes “narcissists”, “sociopaths” or “aspies”. I’ll note she dodged or deflected ALL of my points/questions. She never gave a clear answer what her purpose in commenting here was. She completely declined offering up a definition of a “successful” relationship. One thing I’ve found.with basically ALL women who comment on intergender dynamics issues especially speaking to… Read more »

jf12
jf12
7 years ago

re: getting women to work properly.
1. The women are broken. On this we all agree.
2. Tweaking the SOP doesn’t produce much if any improvement. On this we all agree.
2 a. Bigger hammer.

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

jf12:

It must be the royal “we,” invoking the law of the hammer (of course).

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

So now that you’ve established my trolldom, Rollo, you can summarily reject my arguments as having no merit. Cool.

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

Good.

It means (or should) that arguments and opinions are evaluated on their merits and not on their source, PC-ness, or adherence to group-think. That’s to be appreciated.

Mart
Mart
7 years ago

@Morpheus: “I’ll note she dodged or deflected ALL of my points/questions.” I didn’t. You made no point other than present as an alternative to Red Pilldom a caricature of relationship (marriage) where a man is completely disempowered. I pointed out that this was an example of either/or, black-and-white thinking. “She never gave a clear answer what her purpose in commenting here was.” My purpose is the same as yours (presumably): to exchange opinions with others on the subject of male-female relationships, specifically as they apply to Red Pilldom (as is the subject of this site). “She completely declined offering up… Read more »

M Simon
7 years ago

jf12
July 31st, 2014 at 5:31 pm

1. The women are broken. On this we all agree.

I think more correctly is that they work differently that the “official” manual suggests. Broken would imply that the form does not fit the function. When in fact the form exactly fits the function.

===

#2 son and I discuss game. Last time was when I jokingly (it was no joke) suggested that he find a couple of girls and settle down. The first mate was there. I have been teaching her game. She giggled.

M Simon
7 years ago

Martha, The first mate and I do not have an open marriage. We had an open courtship. My theory was that I didn’t want her wondering – “could I have done better?” I still ask her that. She says with certainty, “No.” Now why did I keep adding to my string when I was going with her? Well I enjoyed it for one. And the other was that she couldn’t be complacent if she knew I had other options. Now if she did still want to “wander” it wouldn’t bother me. As long as I was kept informed. But once… Read more »

M Simon
7 years ago

So what do I think the cure for the current malaise is? Based on my experience women should be taught Game i.e. they must face their nature. Of course this will be resisted. Who wants to lose cultural advantage? In the long run – because most of them want happiness – they will accept it. Because it makes them happier.

trackback
7 years ago

[…] it, engenders genuine shock when a man deviates from that script. As we found with the story of the Spreadsheet Guy a couple weeks ago, the anger female commenters expressed over his logging his wife’s excuses […]

trackback

[…] wrote a post examining the phenomenon of “spreadsheet guy.” I’ve been meaning to respond in […]

rugby11ljh
rugby11ljh
6 years ago

Good damn read

Mi Ml
Mi Ml
4 years ago

“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.” This doesn’t disprove that they are really unable… Read more »

M Simon
4 years ago
Reply to  Mi Ml

I’m in a very LT relationship. (43 years so far). I find repeating logic eventually has a effect. But it takes a while. A very long while. But I can no remind her of the logical sequence of a situation and the arguments stop.

I wouldn’t depend on it if I was you.

M Simon
4 years ago

Typos cleaned:

I’m in a very LT relationship. (43 years so far). I find repeating logic eventually has an effect. But it takes a while. A very long while. But I can now remind her of the logical sequence of a situation and the arguments stop.

I wouldn’t depend on it if I was you.

JT McMahon
JT McMahon
3 years ago

Turbohamstering as here evidenced amusing.

A woman consistently overvalues her worth-while-ness to the man.
Scrape away the fluff, and the ONLY reason a man would have anything to do with the problems and complications a woman brings to his life is pussy.

No pussy?
No worth-while-ness.

Exposing this spools the feminist wonderfully.

375
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
%d bloggers like this: