marriage counselors

Divorce Incorporated

What I’m going to get into today is going to be kind of dark. I’m doing this not to exacerbate any guy’s negative feelings, but to shed some light on the reality of how divorce operates in the United States as well as many other western societies. A lot of guys tend to focus on the logistics, the laws, the process of how a divorce proceeds. Much of what I see coming from Men’s Rights advocates about divorce centers on the need for legal and institutional reform of the process in their misguided hopes of creating a more ‘equal’ state between men and women. From what I understand, MRA’s primary hope (for most every issue they address) is that this reform can come from a top-down approach – changing the system to be more fair – rather than confronting the fact that these laws, divorce and others, are manifestations of an endemic social dynamic that is based on a fundamentally unfair, unequal interrelation between the sexes.

What I’m going to focus on here is dissecting this process, but doing so from a Red Pill aware perspective. While it may be the purview of the MRM that this process is fundamentally corrupt and in need of reform (I agree), what they willingly ignore is the root level inequalities that are part of men and women’s evolved differences that are the source of this process. This isn’t meant to be some take-down of the MRM; I find their causes worthy enough, but I believe their approach to solving them to be fundamentally flawed due to a refusal to accept the core, evolved differences in men and women and a stubborn refusal to reject the ideals of egalitarian equalism that the feminism they claim to hate is ostensibly founded on.

This system is designed to create conflict, but that conflict is rooted in the presumption that men are always at fault in it. This is why there can never be an equalist solution to correcting the endemic problems of modern divorce procedures.

At present I have a personal friend I’m counseling who is in the opening phases of this process. He and his soon to be Ex are also in ‘marriage therapy’. First thing I ask, “is it a man or woman therapist?” He says woman. I say, you’re fucked; start planning your exit now.

He agrees, but still has that Blue Pill hope he’s not wasting his money (she’s a SAHM) and they’ll be able to negotiate some mutually amicable feigning of her desire for him. When we invest ourselves in something we’ve accepted is supposed to be effective we’ll hold on to hope that it will because there’s a part of us (especially in idealistic men) that doesn’t like to think we are able to be conned. This is a very well studied psych phenomenon. We convince ourselves that we ‘got something out of’ an experience regardless of it being a provably bad investment. We like to believe that in all labor there is profit, but reality shows us, quite often, that this simply isn’t true.

I gave him a list of things to keep in his head as he was going to these counseling sessions, but I also told him the truth that marriage counseling is almost always ‘last stop before toll’ and that he needs to be careful now because his wife will eagerly use this therapist’s testimony to destroy his character at a later date. That’s the profit model for therapists in divorce proceedings. They’re getting paid when you’re coming and going.

I told him she will turn into someone he never thought she could become and most of it will be at the prodding of their therapist and her attorney (who he’ll also be paying). It’s in all of their best interests that they create a monster of him. The male anger bias I write about here will be the primary basis for his character assassination.

Anything even remotely, positively masculine or Alpha is still a ‘man being a man’ and this can always be reinterpreted as potentially aggressive or violent. In a feminine-primary social order where feminized men and women are taught that men are inherently evil and prone to anger and violence (the “culture” of masculinity) there’s an army of women and White Knight sympathizing men who want nothing more than to stick it to the ‘man’ symbolically. And when they draw a paycheck from doing so they’re all the more eager. Add to this that they feel a sense of moral justification in “making the world a better place” by burning him in an effigy of all men and you get to where we are now. We presently live in a social order that presumes any masculinity is “toxic” or “hyper” masculinity. So disassociated from anything positive has society become with regard to conventional masculinity that just the term is now masculinity is a negative connotation.

Needless to say this will be the starting point from which a soon-to-be-divorced man will have his undoing begin. So prevalent is the presumption of abuse on a man’s part that even the most saintly father can be remade into a secret monster. It’s just ‘how guys are’ and this presumption also serves as a point of justification for women, and Blue Pill male sympathizers, to feel okay about pillorying him.

Yes, I understand that there is at least a reportedly higher incidence of men being the abuser in domestic cases, but we also have to understand that the definition of “abuse” has been rendered so ambiguous that most men don’t realize virtually anything they do in a domestic confrontation can fit the definition of “abuse”. Just raising one’s voice is enough to qualify as psychological abuse. Denying a woman access to money also fits a new definition of abuse. I once counseled a guy who had been taken to jail for snatching the car keys away from his drunk wife so as to prevent her from driving drunk. She called the police and, as you likely know, the man is always the party removed from the home by police. Snatching the keys was enough to qualify his removal. 5 months later he’s living with his parents (at 43) and paying rent on a home and car payments on a car only his now ex is allowed to occupy and drive.

I know how my friend’s story is going to end. I’m doing what I can to give him fair warning – it’d be better for him to completely pull up stakes and remove himself from the situation than stick around and ‘try to make it work’ because the longer he lingers the more ammunition she and the therapist potentially get. I think this is also the profit model; keep the Blue Pill chump husband around the house for as long as it takes to build him up as a stereotypical ‘man’ and then escalate the most marginal conflict as a ‘typical’ domestic violence incident and he’s gone. If you watch the above documentary on the divorce industry you’ll see how many lucrative profit opportunities there are at every stage of divorce; and there is no incentive to dissuade divorce profiteers from doing anything different. And, as I stated earlier, there are many ready-made social and moral conventions available to help them justify their profits.

Old Books and New Books

‘No one cares how mean your ex was, how unfair she was to you and so on … at the end of the day, the system can’t right wrongs, they only process your case’

The above and following  quote was from an article in the National Post, Family court advice for men, from one who’s made it through;

I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of notes; on a gender breakdown, probably 80 percent are from men, 20 percent from women.

I’ve heard from family court lawyers, some of whom are angry at my suggestions that fathers get the tough end of the stick in child custody cases (though the actual evidence is reasonably clear that they do), some of whom say “the whole system is B.S … one of the first things out of my mouth when I see someone is, ‘What’s your budget and how much does he/she dislike you?’” I’ve heard from judges and former judges and psychologists and counsellors.

Without exception, they agree that the system is beyond broken.

What we have, fundamentally, in the state of modern divorce is a conflict between old books social contracts serving as the ethical basis of a new books resource transfer from men to women (Thomas Ball even described it as such). Really this conflict is at the root of much of what Red Pill awareness (from the social perspective of intersexual dynamics) describes, but in this instance there’s an entire social complex that influences policy and profit. Judges, attorneys, psychologists and counselors all make a very good living from this fundamental conflict; and if you watch the Divorce Incorporated documentary I linked you’ll see that there’s no incentive to ever change that profitable conflict at any stage.

However, all of the people involved in even a typical western divorce are all subject to the belief sets that the Feminine Imperative has predisposed them to about men and women. We presume a default state of victimhood is to be applied to a woman and the benefit of that victimhood doubt runs deep. We see it evolve into the kangaroo court systems that govern what we’re told to believe is an endemic ‘rape culture’ on college campuses – up to and beyond denying a man his civil rights.

We’re taught that any slight appearance of abuse towards a woman is an opportunity to teach any man doing so a lesson, but should a man be the victim of the same abuse? Well, he probably had it coming. The Feminine Imperative has (and still is in some senses) prepared women and Blue Pill men to believe that women are untouchable; always to be believed, by default, in their victim status no matter the circumstance.

Now we can expand this presumption to every party involved in a divorce proceeding. We get female therapists whose livelihoods depend on following the victimhood of women and demonization of men (and masculinity) script the Feminine Imperative has laid out for them for most of their lives. We get Blue Pill Alphas eager to prove their authority by punishing any man who might remind them of their asshole fathers or who fits their idea of what the imperative has taught him is a “misogynist”. The imperative plays to the natural ‘protector’ impulse of these men. We get well-conditioned attorneys, counsellors and judges ready to follow that same script by legally enacting the retribution and restitution upon which feminism has always been based.

But underneath all of this we have the fundamental inequalities in ideology between what the old books social contract expects of men while the divorce industry enforces, almost unilaterally male, punishment based on a new books social paradigm to better empower women – presumably to right the past wrongs they believe were endemic in that old books paradigm. What we have today are new books divorce and marital laws based on those old books presumptions of men’s evils, indiscretions and addressing the toll it allegedly took on women. The result is a system that is designed to psychologically, financially and personally ruin any man whose idealism led him to believe that men and women share some mutually recognized concept of love; enough to compel him to a lifetime commitment in modern marriage. It is a system calculated to destroy the same Blue Pill conditioned men who will eagerly stand up to defend their ego-investments in it.

The common refrain to this is always “just don’t get married”, and it is precisely this system’s goal to disincentivize long term commitment between the sexes so that this response is the only logical one. Thus, we get women spending small fortunes to freeze their eggs in the hopes that one day some man will be foolishly idealistic enough to look past all the inherent life-threatening risks marriage and divorce uniquely disposes men to. Thus, we get old books moralists berating men for wanting to prolong their adolescence (never mind women doing so is considered empowerment) by avoiding the dangers of marriage that they’ve been smart enough to understand, or have been a party to in one way or another.

In my next essay I’ll be addressing the misguided opinion of some ‘stand up’ Purple Pill moralists that the Red Pill is “just for guys who are obsessed with sex and make getting laid their life’s mission”. I’ll elaborate on why this is simply a distraction from the much larger meta-scope of Red Pill awareness and intersexual dynamics. However, understanding how the divorce industry is based on the same dynamics the Red Pill has described for a decade and a half is a good illustration of why the Red Pill isn’t just about men basing their lives on getting laid. This system is fundamentally unegalitarian and unequal, and the designed imbalances are entirely founded in Red Pill intersexual principles. This is why the MRM will never be successful in their hopes of a top down institution of social change. The laws and the social imperatives that crush men are symptoms of a deeper problem that requires a bottom up changing of men’s minds about women and themselves.

Wives & Lovers

Wives

(h/t Zelscorpion for the screen cap)

In Women Behaving Badly I made mention of Dalrock’s standing assertions that the context of romantic love has superseded the condition of a committed monogamy – traditionally marriage – as an idealized goal-state. Essentially this represents a reversal of a previous intersexual dynamic that served as a check and balance of women’s innate Hypergamy:

What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage.  Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage.  This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.

Lifetime marriage, with separate defined roles for husband and wife and true commitment is what makes sex and romantic love moral in the biblical view.  In our new view, romantic love makes sex moral, and the purpose of marriage is to publicly declare that you are experiencing the highest form of romantic love.  Thus people now commonly refer to a wedding as “making our love official”.

The gradations we now apply to romantic love are symptomatic of the problem.  We take great care to distinguish between “pure love” or “true love” and mere “infatuation” or “puppy love”.

[…] Because it is love and not marriage which now confers morality upon sex, sex outside of marriage is now considered moral so long as you are in love.  Thus we have the modern harlot’s defense/anthem “but we were in love!”

I think what Dal was getting at with this (and I hope he’ll comment) has a much broader reach than just in Christian (“Churchian”) culture. I think this raising of romantic love to the highest order is more punctuated in a religious context because, doctrinally, it should be the reverse. In an objective secular context this reversal is all but taken for granted.

In an age of feminine social primacy women’s feelings of romance are at a premium. We matter of factly presume that it’s a man’s responsibility to not only invest himself in, and provide resources for, his wife and children’s wellbeing, but it’s also (almost exclusively) his burden of performance to stimulate and maintain his wife’s romantic interests.

I’ve argued the position that women (of today) don’t find the ‘good guy‘ – a man attempting to embody the best aspects of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks – a believable role. My assertion is that women expect and desire those aspects in different men at different times as needed, however, the social narrative still places that “best of both aspects” burden on a man who does commit to a woman in the long term.

With the exception of only the most adept, affluent and exceptional of men, this expectation is a sisyphean recipe for failure. No matter which aspect he excels in the other aspect potentially becomes his personal flaw. Although his personal strengths may compensate, feminine-primary social expectations place him in a no-win position.

Wives Hate Sex

Badpainter and Sun Wukong had an interesting exchange in this week’s comment thread:

Badpainter:

Newgal states clearly women must be sluts for men to get laid. This also means women must be sluts for women to get laid. Why must that be true? Because Newgal alludes to a dirty little truth so ingrained in the social consciousness it’s a cliché: wives hate sex. Therefore women, sluts and otherwise, get married so they can stop having sex except as necessary to get pregnant.

Think about it.

The girlfriend provides sex good enough to motivate a desire in the man to commit. After the wedding is a period of at least adequate sex followed by a decline to little or nothing if she can get away with this. When the wife becomes suitably frustrated/disenchanted with the marriage she changes title to divorcée and is again free to become a sexual creature.

The source of the problem is that women have very little sense of self that is internally derived therefore they play roles defined externally. These roles are proxies for their identities which barely exist. In 2015 wives are not defined as sexually giving, or sexual at all except for the honeymoon period. If the sexual wife exists in this culture it as the adulteress giving herself to men other than her husband.

Sun Wukong

Oh absolutely. The wife that hates sex is such a “thing” now I really think it’s what makes even Blue Pill guys at least pause on their way to the altar. “Do I really want to put a libido draining fat license on her finger?” I think that premise is largely built out of feminine cynicism about settling for [Beta Bucks]. They all know the script so well that they assume they’re going to marry a guy they don’t want to fuck. Imagine that: assuming you’re going to hate sex for the rest of your life.

What a horrendously awful view of a man you haven’t even met yet. And he’s not even met you but assumes he’ll be happily making love to you for the rest of his life and you’ll do the same. What a disconnect. Oh well, at least the kids will be happy right? Anybody?

What Badpainter and Sun have illustrated here is the direct result of placing a romantic condition for love as the prime requisite for a committed relationship. It’s important to grasp that any relationship founded on genuine desire will necessitate genuine passion and not a small amount of feral lust, however, it is exactly this pre-commitment (Alpha Fucks) sexual chemistry that will later become the exclusive responsibility of a man in that commitment.

The character that is a wife is now socially and popularly expected to move into a sexless, passionless and unexciting condition by being married today. All Epiphany Phase rationalizations aside, marriage is viewed as the end of the party. Being a wife is boring by comparison.

I explored this in detail in Beta Fucks and As Good As It Gets, but what I find ironic in light of Dalrock’s assertions about romance-primary intergender dynamics is that the very pretense of that romantic “true love” context that supposedly legitimizes sex is killed within the confines of marriage. In fact, women expect and anticipate that the sexual desire they find so important in that romantic context will necessarily die once they become a ‘wife’.

The pretext of being a ‘wife’ is a socially excusable expectation of progressively losing sexual affinity for the man she’s agrees to marry, so what woman wants to be a wife? Women become wives due to the necessities an ever-decreasing capacity to maintain being a lover requires of them.

I expect that most women will disagree with me on a personal level; it’s not in women’s best interest to acknowledge that wives hate sex – perpetuating the belief that sex gets better after marriage is a necessity men need to internalize in order to commit. Whether or not this is true for a woman on a personal basis isn’t my point. The point is that the societal message is one that marriage will necessarily kill a couples’ passionate sexual connection in comparison to their single, romance-based sexual connection.

Why ruin a perfectly good relationship with marriage?

The Myth of Mismatched Libidos

Once married, there are myriad social conventions already emplaced for a wife to rely upon as she moves from exciting singleness into mundane, but necessary, long-term commitment. Most of these she’s already been conditioned to expect she can rely on. ‘Mismatched Libidos’ is a common refrain for women (and marriage counselors) who come to a point where they can no longer palate the “duty sex” they felt responsible for in the beginnings of their marriage.

Her husband isn’t expected to provide the ‘tingles, but he’s still responsible for the failure to create them. As I said, only the most exceptional of men can effortlessly inspire the admiration necessary to maintain a woman’s Hypergamous interest. If you have a read of the screen cap Zel provided us with for this post you’ll get an idea of how those pre-made social conventions work in tandem with men’s default responsibility of satisfying a woman’s endless discontent.

The deference is always to the feminine, thus any problem (particularly sexual ones) he has with her become his personal issues and flaws. Any deviation, any dissatisfaction, with the ready-made social conventions set in place to excuse the female sexual strategy are solely his responsibility and his character flaws.

The ship is going down, and I’ve only got three life jackets. Who am I going to give them to? John, you learned to swim a long time ago, right?

In last week’s post comments I quoted the following confessional from Love Shack:

My wife called me today and was all excited about some beachfront apartment she saw. She wants us to buy it for vacations and such.

Now here I am .. I just turned 50. My youngest is going to college this year and I guess I just realized that I’m no longer bound to her.

The last 20 years has been a long series of quickies and 3 minutes handjobs every 3-4 weeks. In between, I spent my prime sexual years mostly masturbating to get off. Now that I’m 50, my drive is still good, but it’s not what it was.

I had tried everything I could think of over those 20 years to get things on track. I was exemplary with chores around the house, I was attentive to her emotional needs as far as I could anticipate them, and even if I do say so myself – I’ve kept myself in outstanding shape (although that was more for me).

On the other hand, I look back and I can hardly remember a time that she spontaneously gave me a neck rub, or cooked something just for me as opposed to all of us, and certainly not even attempting to do something special for me sexually (yeah, I have a minor kink or two).

But when she asked me to buy a beachfront place today – my immediate reaction was annoyance. I realized then that I feel resentful. I have decided to leave her. There is absolutely nothing she can do now to change anything because the past cannot be changed.

This man’s situation represents the ending phase of a chronic lack of admiration on his wife’s part. It would be easy to point out his role is one of being the dutiful unconsidered provider in his wife’s Frame, however, consideration is never a motivator of genuine desire for a woman. Only admiration and an ambient imagination of losing the focus of it inspires genuine desire.

Girl With A Dragonfly Tattoo had a post recently outlining the expectations of women interested in “seducing” a man. On GWADT’s blog what’s implied is that this man is in fact her husband to begin with. What makes her points so difficult for married women to digest is that they should ever need to make an effort to do so. The reason this is so alien a thought to married women is because the men they wanted to seduce were the men they knew before they became ‘wives’. Wives have no use for seduction, and particularly so with the Beta men they settled for around their Epiphany Phase. Seduction, compassion, appreciation (such as can be expected of a woman) only become a necessity when women are subjected to a real preoccupation with losing a valuable man – a man they admire.

Even in Frank Sinatra’s time wives had to be told to be lovers too.