Learning the Wisdom of Foolishness

Ten years ago, I painted a picture of farmers working in a rice field. Those farmers were very angry with me. They waved their knives and scolded me,

“We toil, sweat, and occasionally bleed, while working in the hot sun all day, and just to earn a meager living. You paint a picture of us, and make thousands!”

But I didn’t sell that painting. I donated it to a museum. Then yesterday, ten years later, the museum called me to tell me that they were using my painting to print a calendar. They wanted to send me a complimentary copy. I asked for one more, to give to my mother. They sent me four.

Ten years ago, I went out for dinner late at night, around 11:30 pm.

Afterwards, I went for a motorcycle ride.

Since my ex left me, I have gone back to my old habits of taking long regular motorcycle rides, especially late at night. I had lost my enthusiasm to take these rides since I got married, and I wondered why. But during these rides lately, I have come to see that these motorcycle rides are the behavior of a sexual predator, although I never realized this before. It is a kind of “prowling” that can entertain my masculinity and release my sexual tension.

I prayed while I was riding. I told God about how frustrated I have been with love, and with being a Christian, and how I’ve never been able to find any happiness in my life, even though my life is otherwise very good. I asked God to tell me exactly what my options were, and to make all the benefits and consequences of the choices very clear to me. I also asked God to tell me the situation in as simple words as could possibly be set forth, and to fill me in with the details later on, after I have been able to grasp what is going on with me.

Later, I sat on a beach in the South China Sea. I watched the moonlight shining across the waters, and smoked a Cuban cigar. Then, God started talking to me through my memories.

A cheating slut I used to date always put so much effort on using her social skills to wile and seduce men (mostly push-pull tactics), all to enhance the attraction and the experience of love, and I see now that it was so foolish of her, even though she always thought herself to be so smart.

My ex-wife used to ask me if I loved her (my ex, not the slut) on a regular basis. She foolishly pressed this issue until it erupted into an argument – every time – thus causing strain in our marriage. Since my ex made such an issue about this, I became confused about how important it was to “fall in love”, and the overall value of “being in love”. But now it is clear to me that I was right in thinking about love in Biblically described terms (1st Corinthians 13), as opposed to an emotional experience. But she thought she was so much smarter than that slut I dated before her. I thought they both had the same worldly concept of love, and according to that concept, the slut was actually wiser.

An ex-girlfriend (who is now married) once told me how foolish it was for my ex-wife to do that. I had to agree. It is foolishness to seek out a magical experience of love, and to question whether those close to us experience that love in the same manner towards us.

But as I sat there smoking my cigar and pondering these things, I began to see things in a totally new way, from this perspective of foolishness. Yes, falling in love is foolish. Chasing women is foolish. Smoking pipes and cigars is foolish. Abandoning my career in the Navy and coming to live in Asia was foolish. Youth is foolish. Painting pictures is foolish. Riding my motorcycle for hours after dark, with no particular place to go, is foolish. Eating large meals late at night is foolish. Admiring women with long hair and big breasts is foolish. In fact, most everything beautiful and joyful about life is indeed very foolish, although I had never really considered this until that day.

Then, I began to see myself very clearly. When I was very young, I had read King Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes about the value of wisdom in living a Godly life. Growing up in a Southern Baptist Church, I saw a lot of criticism of foolish behavior, so I learned to think of Christian wisdom as a meaningful goal in life. From that time on, I had always made a basic assumption that foolishness is wrong, and foolishness is folly, and foolishness could not possibly lead me to anything good in life. Therefore, I had made it a principle in my life to live wisely.

But what I see now is that my devotion to living wisely had put me in a cage, rather than bringing me any freedom in the Lord. Clinging to wisdom had essentially cut me off from all things joyful and exciting in life, and I had never been able to identify this link until now. Over the past couple years, it seemed to me that it was God and Christianity, which was destroying my opportunities to find joy in life, which really didn’t make much sense to me. But now, I can see more clearly that it is my firm adherence to Christian wisdom that induces this horrible effect.

More specifically, I think it is actually my pride that makes me refuse to be foolish. Many Christians are too proud to do things that they know are foolish, especially if they think it is also wrong. It is strange for them to recognize their own pride, because they are so accustomed to focusing on the deeper issues of faith. Likewise, I am astonished to see my egocentric pride, because I have never come face to face with it in the past. I always thought I was so humble, and not a proud person at all. I thought I was too alone to be proud. I thought about how I am so willing to ask others for help, and how I am not afraid to be honest about my weaknesses, so how could I be proud? I guess I am just very different from most people. In fact, most everything about love and enjoying life is quite foolish and silly. I never thought that it would be foolish to avoid being foolish. But that is precisely the hole that I have fallen into.

Just like Oswald Chambers said,

“Beware of allowing yourself to think that the shallow aspects of life are not ordained by God; they are ordained by Him equally as much as the profound. We sometimes refuse to be shallow, not out of our deep devotion to God but because we wish to impress other people with the fact that we are not shallow. This is a sure sign of spiritual pride. We must be careful, for this is how contempt for others is produced in our lives. And it causes us to be a walking rebuke to other people because they are more shallow than we are. Beware of posing as a profound person — God became a baby.

To be shallow is not a sign of being sinful, nor is shallowness an indication that there is no depth to your life at all— the ocean has a shore. Even the shallow things of life, such as eating and drinking, walking and talking, are ordained by God. These are all things our Lord did. He did them as the Son of God, and He said, “A disciple is not above his teacher…” (Matthew 10:24).

We are safeguarded by the shallow things of life. We have to live the surface, commonsense life in a commonsense way. Then when God gives us the deeper things, they are obviously separated from the shallow concerns. Never show the depth of your life to anyone but God. We are so nauseatingly serious, so desperately interested in our own character and reputation, we refuse to behave like Christians in the shallow concerns of life.

Make a determination to take no one seriously except God. You may find that the first person you must be the most critical with, as being the greatest fraud you have ever known, is yourself.”

I think that was my problem. I took love and life too seriously, and so it was never enjoyable to me. I tried too hard to be a wise Christian, thinking that if I discovered something profound, it would bring me peace, joy and love. It’s true that it did take my mind off of my misery, and motivated me to do something more with myself. But pride was still lurking in my subconscious, unbeknownst to me.

I should have taken a clue from my friends who told me I was too serious most of time.

My married friends, Jeffrey and Shauna (who both hold Ph.D.’s), call each other “stupid” very often, just to have fun. Their life is full of jokes and laughter. But when my ex called me stupid, it was not funny at all. It was a disrespectful insult to be taken seriously, and she meant it to be that way. Why could I not find joy and acceptance, and have fun with my marriage, like my friends do?

After this, God told me the solution to being miserable:

Do something foolish!

I thought, “How can I do something foolish?” God told me that,

To be wise, you need a very good teacher, and you have had some of the best teachers that there are, for everything you have ever studied.  But to be foolish, you don’t need a teacher.  No one needs to teach you how to be foolish.  All you have to do is follow your heart and do what you feel.

I thought about this for a few moments, and then God added,

Now go be foolish, and use your wisdom to get the most joy out of your foolishness without being foolish!

“Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31)

After this, I felt that a great burden was being lifted off of me, at last. I felt that I finally understood something that I had been missing, and that I was free to enjoy my life now.

I had always believed that foolishness is folly, against the will of God, and could never bring anything good to my life. But actually, love is foolish, chasing women was foolish, smoking my pipe is foolish, living abroad was foolish… most everything that has been enjoyable about my life is indeed foolish. I never thought about this, but actually, it is a truth I could never face before. I had the impression that foolishness was shameful.

The answer to my question was in understanding that biblical wisdom is not a goal, it is a balance between extremes – balance is the most important aspect. The key point is to enjoy each moment and each person you love around you, and glorify God by doing so.

I rode home that night in a state of peaceful ecstasy. In essence, I had learned the freedom of foolishness.

“Stay hungry, Stay foolish” – Steve Jobs

Later, upon rereading Ecclesiastes, I saw that the wisdom of foolishness, along with the vanity and grief of wisdom, was right there in the Scriptures all along, yet, I could not comprehend it until now.

Posted in Attitude, Discerning Lies and Deception, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Models of Failure, Personal Presentation | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Psychological Impact on Children (from Frozen)

The hot topic on the ‘sphere lately has concerned the psychological impact of Disney’s “Frozen”, on children. It all began when Vox Popoli found a confused grievance written by Trevin Wax, entitled, “Are We Missing the Point of Frozen’s ‘Let It Go’?” (February 17, 2014), and responded with his nihilistic post, “The devil that is Disney” (October 26, 2017).

Then, Dalrock offered not one, but four scathing criticisms in the following posts, in which he either derided or mocked the ignorance shown by Wax and other traditional conservative Christians.

Donal Graeme responded to the last post with, “How Hard Is It To Miss The Point?” (November 16, 2017), in which he illucidated the nefarious machinations of Disney. Boxer weighed in too, with a post, “YHBT by Jake LaMotta” (November 17, 2017), in which he made a comment directly back to Wax’s original post (which is yet to be approved, and I believe, it never will be).

The main points of contention raised in these posts, include…

  1. The culpability of Disney.
  2. Most adults don’t really care what cartoons their children watch, and so fail to intervene with any poor conditioning that may be present. Or if they do take the time to watch Frozen, they only see that it contains a very positive message, viz. selfish, irresponsible rebellion carries vast, negative consequences which force many others to go to great efforts and sacrifices in order to redeem not only the transgressor (Elsa), but also the larger enterprise (the Kingdom).
  3. Some adults (e.g. Trevin Wax, Pastor Ross Chandler) might even interpret the larger moral of the story to be a Christian one.
  4. However (and this is the main point), children only seem to be picking up, and remembering, the emotionally-based, self-centered attitudes of the rebellious character (Elsa), as unequivocally expressed in the main theme song, “Let It Go!”. Furthermore, children learn that Elsa’s disposition is “loved” by the other characters (and likewise children spectators) who consider her to be “worthy” of redemption, and finally, that “everything turns out well in the end”.

It could well be argued that the concepts of rebellion, sacrifice and redemption are indeed Christian themes, and that these themes do appear in the movie. However, only those with a mature understanding of the Christian experience could arrive at such an assessment, certainly not children who are constantly pushing the limits to see how much they can get away with. The general point which Dalrock pertinently expressed in his posts, was that Christians are either in blissful ignorance, feigning denial, or are doing mental gymnastics (AKA psychological dissociation, colloquially known as “hamstering”) to justify the value of the movie as sterling, but are failing to accurately assess the impact that the movie has on their own children.

As Vox suggested, can we really rely on Disney to inspire our children with accurate principles of Christian doctrine and life in general? Scott (from American Dad) points out the insidious spin that most media conglomerates place on the stories they tell.

“…even in movies where the “right” thing does happen, it is portrayed as a tragedy.”

Thus, it is far more relevant to the psychological and spiritual development of the children, for parents to discuss the movie with their children and determine what message children are getting from the movie. Are they really getting the positive, “Christian” message? Or else, are they learning that it is an acceptable practice to “throw themselves down from the temple roof” with the expectation that the Lord will not allow them to “dash their foot against a stone”? (cf. Matthew 4:5-7; Luke 4:9-12) If the latter is the case, then in essence, we are telling them that tempting God is a necessary step towards knowing God – a very dangerous and heretical doctrine!

The agitation that Dalrock expresses for those who are more discerning is, how could parents not pick up on the fact that children are unable to grasp the larger moral of the story? How could parents not be aware of the other message that children are hearing?

Donal Graeme answered this question as follows,

“You see, I think the key is understanding levels of communication. As an adult, Mr. Wax is picking up the (apparent) deeper message of the story. Namely that “letting go” is a disaster of an idea. This deeper message is not surface level- it requires analysis. Maybe not a lot, but analysis nonetheless. And it also requires a certain level of critical viewing skill as well. Guess what kids don’t have? Yeah, that.”

“The problem is that the toxic message is surface level. This is what children are picking up- especially through the music. The song celebrates rebellion, and all its accompanying sins. That is what the children listen to, that is what they sing, and that is what they memorize. They don’t do any of that for the deeper messages of the story (which I assume are present).”

Graeme is alluding to Piaget’s theory of cognitive development (1936), which explains how a child constructs a mental model of the world during their formative years. Piaget’s theory regards cognitive development as a natural result of biological maturation during the child’s interaction with the environment. Piaget identified Four Stages of Cognitive Development, according to unique patterns of psychological processes in children, these being Sensorimotor (ages 0-2), Pre-Operational (ages 2-7), Concrete Operational (ages 7-11), and Formal Operational (ages 11-15). Children who have found the most pleasure and inspiration from Frozen are likely to be in the Pre-Operational Stage, or the Concrete Operational Stage. These are briefly reviewed as follows.

The Pre-Operational Stage (ages 2-7)

Piaget coined the term Precausal Thinking to describe the way in which Pre-Operational children use their own existing ideas or views to understand cause-and-effect relationships. Piaget also noted that Pre-Operational children exercise Transductive Reasoning, which is how a child fails to understand the true relationships between cause and effect, and instead draws a magical relationship between two separate events that are otherwise unrelated. Also, in the Pre-Operative stage, children are Egocentric, which means they can only interpret events through their own viewpoint, and are unable to adequately consider the views of others. They may not even be aware that other viewpoints exist. As a corollary, introducing a new viewpoint can be powerfully influential to the mind of a Pre-Operational child.

From this view, the storyline of Frozen may introduce to young minds some cause-and-effect relationships that are quite sociopathic and/or misguiding. I’ll offer a few possibilities here.

  • Rebelling is a way to attract the ego-affirming love and sacrifice of others.
  • Holding out or giving up is a good way to get others to do the hard work.
  • Pursuing my own pleasures is a fun, easy way to control events.
  • No matter what I do, everything will turn out fine in the end.

Concrete Operational Stage (ages 7-11)

Egocentrism is slowly eroded during this stage, through the development of Imaginary Audience which involves attention-getting behavior, and Personal Fable, which creates a sense of personal uniqueness and invincibility. Abstract, hypothetical thinking is not yet developed in children of this stage, so they can only solve problems that apply to concrete events or objects. Children in this stage come to be able to use Inductive Reasoning, which involves drawing inferences from observations in order to make a generalization. However, these children struggle with Deductive Reasoning, which involves using a generalized principle in order to try to predict the outcome of an event. In sum, Concrete Operational children are likely to use the inferences from Frozen to instigate attention-drawing behavior, and feel inculpable for the repercussions. They may not even be aware of any such repercussions. Christian concepts such as grace and redemption appear as abstractions, which are not fully apprehended, neither in value nor application.

Some inductive thought processes which could arise from ingesting Frozen might include these.

  • My feelings are more important than my responsibilities.
  • People will still love me, and maybe even love me more, if I do bad things.
  • It is meaningless to care too much about the details of life.
  • There is nothing to fear in life. I can live as I please.

The Other Message

Since it is obvious that children could be picking up any number of messages from a particular sensory input, we now come to the real point, exactly what other message are they hearing?

Vox illustrated an ugly truth which is hard to swallow.

“Disney is run by literal satanists preaching Alistair Crowley’s “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” to children.”

In his second post listed above, Dalrock adds to this by writing,

“Children, including Christian children, understand this best of all. They know what their parents worship, what their parents see as righteous (even if their parents fall short of living the ideal). They know that Frozen and Let It Go is a morality tale that teaches them about our most sacred beliefs.”

And what, pray tell, is that great, glorious moral tale about our most sacred beliefs? Dalrock explains Crowley’s modern religion in his first post (emphasis his),

“Not surprisingly, the message of the song is our standard message to women and girls. The only way women can sin is to deny themselves what they desire*. The song teaches girls and women to stop trying to be the good girl, and embrace a philosophy of No right, no wrong, no rules for me.”

“*Or alternately, to not have high enough self-esteem, which in turn causes them to sin by denying themselves what they desire.”

[Eds. note: Dalrock’s sarcastic reference to “sin” is made relative to the articulated philosophy.]

People will naturally identify with what resonates with their experience, and this is much truer for children. Consider a typical child’s experience these days: The larger feminist-inspired culture, including Churchianity** and liberalized education, television series and the news media. Then also the family structure, which may include a general lack of love and respect, destructive conflict structures, single-parent families, affairs and divorce…

A young child who is being bombarded with erroneous ideologies and spiritually misleading impressions will struggle to find their place, where they fit in, what they should believe, and how they should behave. Above all else, a child desires a sense of belonging within a family, and being loved and cherished in that environment. If a child is finding a disproportionate amount of confusion and hard rules compared to the amount of love and satisfaction they are experiencing, then the message of “Let it go!” can appear very attractive indeed! It is unreasonable to assume that children will look inward, pray to God, and question what is of true lasting value and significance.


Piaget noted that a child’s reality is a dynamic system of continuous change involving states and transformations. Thus, parents should do what they can to ensure that the states a child experiences are consonant, and that those transformations imbued by media and education duly lead to newly well-formed states. In other words, do your best to ensure that your children mature in the correct way, each step of the way.

Proverbs 22:6 (NKJV)

6 Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.”

This can work both ways – diligent cultivation produces high quality individuals, whereas, neglect leads to… whatever!

Towards instilling a superlative training and thereby establishing a blessed predestined child, parents should be aware that children do not have the psychological capability to interpret the world in the same way as they do. Thus, parents should be conscientiously circumspect concerning any book, song or movie that entices and excites their child. It would be advantageous for parents to sit with their children while entertaining such media, and talk them through each part of the stories being conveyed. Check their understanding of other’s viewpoints, Review their cognitions about cause and effect events. If you feel that a particular source is unsuitable for your child’s development, then explain to them why you feel it is so. They may not understand your reasoning, but they will know that it is important to you, and that you care enough to be involved with their life.

Teachers and friends also bear a significant influence on a child’s development, and should also be reviewed and vetted.

** Churchianity: Refers to a perverted, corrupted form of Christianity which is no longer consistent with basic Christian teaching and doctrine. Does not refer to sectarian splits, or arguments between faith traditions (i.e. Catholic vs. Orthodox vs. Protestant). Churchianity is heavily infected by modernism/liberalism, and would be unrecognizable to early Christians as representing the Christian faith. In many respects, Churchianity is what happens when people attempt to reconcile their worldly views with Christianity. Rather than conforming to God, they conform to the world, and “adjust” their religious beliefs so that their faith is compatible with their worldly beliefs.



Posted in Child Development, Discerning Lies and Deception, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Conflict Structure and Marital Satisfaction

This post examines the structure of marital conflict, the motivations of men and women in addressing conflict, and some scientific correlations with longitudinal marital satisfaction. Alternative motivations with more positive outcomes are suggested.

The contents are organized as follows.

  1. The Stereotypical ‘Demand/Withdraw’ Conflict Structure
  2. Wife is Authoritative or Demanding, Husband is Submissive or Withdraws
  3. Husband is Authoritative or Demanding, Wife is Submissive or Withdraws
  4. Reasons Men are Authoritative or Demanding
  5. Reasons Men Submit or Withdraw
  6. Reasons Women are Authoritative or Demanding
  7. Reasons Women Submit or Withdraw
  8. Correlations with Marital Satisfaction
  9. The Wife’s Behavior is Critical in Determining the Overall Health of the Relationship
  10. More Positive and Respectful Conflict Now Leads to More Peace and Satisfaction Later
  11. More Tentative Peace Now Leads to More Strife Later
  12. Conclusions

[Eds. note: The bulk of this study is cited from the following paper. Emphases mine. I have added additional sources and insights, which are cited accordingly.]

L. Heavey, C. Layne, and A. Christensen, “Gender and Conflict Structure in Marital Interaction: A Replication and Extension”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1993 Vol. 61, No. 1, 16-27.

1. The Stereotypical ‘Demand/Withdraw’ Conflict Structure

A pattern of marital interaction in which one spouse attempts to engage in a problem-solving discussion, often resorting to pressure and demands, while the other spouse attempts to avoid or withdraw from the discussion, has been identified as a particularly destructive style of marital interaction.”

“Additionally, researchers have noted the tendency of spouses who engage in this pattern to grow more polarized over time, leading to the increasing deterioration, and often dissolution, of marital relationships.”

The relative difference between one partner’s desire for closeness versus the other partner’s desire for independence is of the utmost importance in accounting for the demand/withdraw interaction. The partner who wants more closeness tends to assume the demanding role, whereas the partner who wants more independence tends to assume the withdrawing role. Wives generally want more closeness, whereas husbands usually want more independence (Christensen 1987; Christensen 1988; Christensen and Shenk, 1991). The greater the disparity between the partners’ desire for closeness versus independence, the greater the extent of demand/withdraw interaction in their relationship. Also, the degree of disparity between partners’ desires for closeness versus independence was greater for counseled and divorcing couples than for nondistressed couples.

“Christensen and his associates focused on this pattern of interaction as one of the central, and most intractable, destructive patterns of marital interaction. They labeled this the demand/withdraw pattern of marital interaction and undertook a program of research to study its causes and consequences. Their research demonstrated that (a) couples can agree on the presence of this pattern in their relationship; (b) the reported frequency of demand/withdraw interaction is highly associated with marital dissatisfaction; and (c) women tend to assume the demanding role, whereas men tend to assume the withdrawing role during conflictual interactions.”

“Across both observer ratings and self-reports of demand/withdraw behavior, there was no systematic difference in the roles taken by men and women when discussing the problem identified by the man. In contrast, when discussing the issue identified by the woman, women were much more likely to be demanding and men were much more likely to be withdrawing than the reverse.”


  1. In assessing the conflict structure, it is important to know “who has identified the issue being addressed and the extent to which each partner is invested in achieving change on that issue.”
  2. The roles assumed by men and women during conflict are largely determined by the structure of the conflict. That is to say, the person wanting change (e.g. more closeness, or more independence), will typically assume the demanding role, while the person who is content with the status quo will be left to assume the withdrawing role.
  3. People who are totally content with their lives are not likely to find that a relationship will make them more content, because being content puts them in the defensive position in a relationship.
  4. A large disparity between one partners desire for closeness, and the other partners desire for independence, is the most common source of conflict.
  5. A large disparity between one partners demandingness, and the other partners withdrawal, is the most destructive type of conflict structure.
  6. In general, because of their more pronounced need for closeness, which thereby makes them prone to conflict, and succumbing to temptations and unfavorable negotiations, women are thus considered to be the “weaker” sex, specifically in the areas of having faith towards achieving specific outcomes, and in maintaining emotional contentment. (1st Peter 3:7)

By extrapolation, the following types of women are considered “weaker” than others.

  1. Women who have been abused, or who are more emotionally needy, i.e. who have an intense craving for closeness.
  2. Women who are rude, ungrateful, disrespectful, domineering, and therefore cannot maintain a satisfying relationship with a man who desires to be close to them.
  3. Women who have been rejected by men, who consequently have a greater desire for closeness.
  4. Women with a low SMV/MMV, whom men do not want to be close to.
  5. Women who have had intimate, sexual relationships with a number of men, and thus have gained certain emotional needs/expectations which cannot be satisfied through closeness to any one man.
  6. Women who lack the skills and abilities required to meet other’s needs, which reduces the power they have in maintaining closeness.

2. Wife is Authoritative or Demanding, Husband is Submissive or Withdraws

“(Research shows that the stereotypical) wife-demand/husband-withdraw is significantly more likely than husband-demand/wife-withdraw during discussion of the wife’s issue than during discussion of the husband’s issue.”

“The (statistical analysis) of demandingness revealed a main effect for gender, in which women were more demanding than men.”

“…studies have shown men to be less inclined to initiate problem-solving discussions than women.”

“The finding that women are more demanding and men are more withdrawing, established across a number of naturalistic studies of marital interaction (e.g., Baucom, Notarius, Burnett, & Haefner, 1990; Christensen, 1987, 1988; Gottman & Krokoff, 1989), appears truly to be the result of the additive effects of gender differences and the nature of larger social structures in which these marriages exist.”

“This finding is particularly striking given the consistency with which this pattern appears across both self-reports and observer ratings and the almost invariably large magnitude of the differences in demand/withdraw roles during the discussion of the issue identified by the wives.”


  1. Simply by bringing up issues of discontent, wives are inadvertently introducing a conflict structure which leads to a downward spiral in relationship satisfaction.
  2. Men are adverse to the problems (e.g. complaints, conflict, drama) that women bring into their lives.
  3. The wife’s “weakness” (i.e. intense need for closeness and affiliation) also proves to be the weak link in the chain of marital satisfaction and happiness.

3. Husband is Authoritative or Demanding, Wife is Submissive or Withdraws

“(Research) revealed that husband-demand/wife-withdraw is more likely during discussion of the husband’s issue than during discussion of the wife’s issue. (However, there is) a lack of significant differences in roles (wife-demand/husband-withdraw vs. husband-demand/wife-withdraw) during the discussion of the husband’s issue.

Couples whose interactions are the reverse of these stereotyped roles experience increasing levels of satisfaction over time, presumably because they are able to avoid a vicious cycle of polarization and instead engage in more flexible and constructive problem resolution.”

Wives have been found to generally react positively to their husbands’ willingness to discuss their relationship (Acitelli, 1992). Thus, a husband’s demandingness reflects their engagement rather than withdrawal from interaction, which is perceived by wives as a sign of the man’s emotional involvement and commitment to the relationship.

“It may also be that women are more willing to change their behavior than men. Thus men’s demands might result in actual changes in the wife’s behavior, whereas women’s demands may yield increasing passive resistance, thereby beginning a vicious cycle of increasing demand/withdraw interaction. In other words, it may be not only that wives are more willing than husbands to engage the discussion, but also that they may be more willing to follow through on any agreements reached.”


  1. Men typically play it cool during a confrontation with a woman, however, his small contribution has a big impact on the woman.
  2. Women have a high profile set of emotional needs, and are therefore more pliable, more easily molded, and more willing to compromise (i.e. clinical evidence for “weakness”). [Eds. note: This is also why husbands need to honor their wives, as opposed to manipulating them for base purposes. (1st Peter 3:7)]
  3. Women presumably have more to gain by cooperating with the husband’s demands, rather than assuming a dominant role.

4. Reasons Men are Authoritative or Demanding

  1. Personality
  2. Natural inclination due to upbringing.
  3. Socio-sexual ranking
  4. Male Identity: They believe they have the position and responsibility to do so, by virtue of being male (1st Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:23).
  5. Self-Image: They find it weak, cowardly, faithless, or dishonorable to either submit or withdraw (Hebrews 10:39).
  6. Authority/Faith: They have the faith to believe that they can enact a positive change in their marriage, and in the world around them (Matthew 8:5-13; Hebrews 10:39).

5. Reasons Men Submit or Withdraw

  1. Personality
  2. Natural inclination due to upbringing.
  3. Socio-sexual ranking
  4. Male Nature: Men are socialized to place a primary emphasis on maintaining independence, building status, and being achievement-oriented (Gilligan, 1982; Rubin, 1983). Thus, men avoid energy-sucking, conflict-ridden discussions in favor of pursuing these ideals.
  5. Motivations: If men have higher status and greater power typically accorded to them in a relationship, then they may have no interest in change because there is nothing to gain.
  6. Power: Men are seen to be the high-power group in society, and as such, they have already structured the relationship to their liking and subsequently have little or no interest in engaging in a discussion about changing the status quo (Christensen, 1988; Jacobson, 1989).
  7. Satisfaction: Men who are content with the status quo may benefit from avoiding any discussion of problems with their partner.
  8. Dissatisfaction: Men who experience a great deal of nagging and complaining, in conjunction with a poor, disrespectful attitude from their wives, often seek to distance themselves in order to obtain peace and psychological balance.
  9. Physiology: “Men experience more physiological arousal during conflict than do women.” (Gottman and Levenson, 1986) Men’s higher level of physiological reactivity leads them to try to minimize or to avoid the conflict in order to escape the noxious arousal.
  10. Emotional Effect: “…both husbands and wives reported experiencing more anxiety when discussing the issue identified by the husband.” (Heavey et al. 1993) Husbands would thus favor not instigating an argument in order to avoid any additional stress.
  11. Self-Esteem: Men typically consider it to be more dignified, honorable and respectful to abandon a conflict with a close friend, or with a woman, rather than to escalate a fight (Eggerich, 2004).

6. Reasons Women are Authoritative or Demanding

  1. Personality
  2. Natural inclination due to upbringing.
  3. Female Nature: Women’s general nature as being “socioemotional specialists” leads them to being more inclined to engage in conflicts than men, and thereby assume a demanding role. (Kelley et al. 1978)
  4. Motivations: Women are socialized to place greater emphasis on relationships and community, which presumably lead women to engage in problem-solving discussions in their search for closeness and intimacy (Gilligan, 1982; Rubin, 1983)
  5. Power: The larger social structure presumes that women have lesser power. Women may be more dissatisfied with the status quo, and are thus prompted to engage in discussions about change. They may perceive confrontation and conflict engagement as their only means to obtain what they want, to protect or to enhance their own positions, or to restructure the relationship according to their desires. Thus, women “have more investment in change than men”. (Christensen, 1988; Jacobson, 1989) This effect can be exacerbated through peer pressure from other, unhappy, clucking hen wives who prod them to take action, perhaps for their own vicarious ego satisfaction.
  6. Satisfaction: The areas in which wives wanted change centered around having more physical closeness, greater emotional intimacy, and having the husband be more involved in day-to-day chores. This finding is substantiated by data indicating that women perform more household and child-rearing tasks than the husband (Robinson 1977; Robinson, et al. 1977), even when both spouses have equal-status careers (Biernat & Wortman 1991). Men, on the other hand, being independent and dignified as they are, have no desire to drag their wives to the office and ask them to do their “fare share” of earning the income.
  7. Dissatisfaction: Wives desired more changes in their relationships than did husbands (Margolin, Talovic, and Weinstein 1983). Women accrue fewer benefits from marriage than men, resulting in women’s desire for more change than their husbands (Jacobson, 1990).
  8. Physiology: Women are less physiologically reactive to stress, compared to men, and are not compelled to circumvent conflict. (Gottman and Levenson, 1986)
  9. Emotional Effect: Women gain a peculiar emotional satisfaction from talking, arguing and creating drama.
  10. Self-Esteem: Women’s desire for maintaining a sense of community and connection might lead to their becoming coercive when their husbands withdraw and to a vicious cycle of increasing polarization (Gray-Little and Burks 1983). Women display a higher level of need for affiliation than men, and women with a high need for affiliation, combined with high stress and low inhibition, were the most physically and verbally abusive toward their partner (Mason and Blankenship (1987). It was speculated that much of this abuse was done in an attempt to coerce their partners towards meeting their need for affiliation.

7. Reasons Women Submit or Withdraw

  1. Personality
  2. Natural inclination due to upbringing.
  3. Female Identity: They believe they have the position and responsibility to do so, by virtue of being female (1st Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22-24).
  4. Self-Image: They find it unattractive, unbecoming, dishonorable, and disrespectful to be wayward, authoritative and demanding (1st Peter 3:3-6).
  5. Trusting Authority: They trust their husband’s leadership, take comfort in his loving shelter, and enjoy being relieved of certain responsibilities.
  6. Faith: They trust in God’s provision, protection, and promises (1st Peter 3:1-2) for those who are obedient to the authorities placed over them.

8. Correlations with Marital Satisfaction

In general, satisfaction correlates inversely with the disparity between the demand and withdraw behaviors of each spouse. That is, the more one demands, and the more the other withdraws, then the less chance there is towards obtaining satisfaction from the interaction.

“Couples whose interactions are highly characterized by these gender-stereotyped roles appear to be particularly at risk for experiencing longitudinal deterioration in relationship satisfaction. Couples with stereotyped gender roles have also been shown to be less responsive to marital therapy (Jacobson et al, 1986). We speculate that gender-stereotyped couples are particularly at risk for deterioration in satisfaction because their conflict behavior becomes more polarized and rigid over time, making it increasingly difficult for them to effectively resolve their conflicts.”

A spouses’ satisfaction is significantly greater when he/she is the one who brings up the issue (being authoritative, making the demand). Satisfaction depends largely on how well their partner responds, that is, how willing and open they are during the discussion, and the extent to which they were (not) withdrawing.

“Spouses also reported being dissatisfied with the discussion when they raised the issue being discussed, and they were demanding and their partners were withdrawing. Separate analyses of demanding and withdrawing behaviors revealed that spouses’ demandingness was primarily responsible for this relationship.”

The overall pattern of demanding and withdrawing behaviors are primarily attributable to the behavior of the person making the demands, and how that behavior impacts their partner. In other words, one’s behavior during the conflict significantly predicts the amount of satisfaction with the outcome of the discussion.

“The positiveness of the individual’s behavior was generally the best predictor of both, their own, and their partner’s satisfaction with the outcome of the discussion. Negative behavior, on the other hand, could not be used to predict satisfaction with the discussion. Heavey (1993) speculated that this was due to two important negative behaviors—blaming and pressuring for change.”

[Eds. note: Somehow, that is not surprising news.]

“Observer ratings of negative behavior were generally not significantly associated with satisfaction with the outcome of the discussions.”

[Eds. note: This is not surprising either. Yet this type of behavior – blaming and pressuring for change – is immediately recognizable as the typical woman’s default conflict approach.]

“As expected, husbands’ and wives’ global relationship satisfaction was also significantly related to their satisfaction with the outcome of the discussions. This supports the commonly held view that satisfied couples have more satisfying problem-solving interactions than distressed couples.”

Conclusions: The things that contribute towards marital satisfaction include…

  1. Having an equal desire for closeness/independence.
  2. Resisting the extreme situation of being overly demanding or withdrawing.
  3. Developing a habit of being open and receptive when dealing with an issue raised by the other.
  4. Staying positive during conflict, which encourages your partner to stay open and receptive.
  5. Avoiding negativity, i.e. resisting the temptation to place blame, or pressure the other for changes.

9. The Wife’s Behavior is Critical in Determining the Overall Health of the Relationship

“…we examined the relation between conflict behavior and global satisfaction measured concurrently and longitudinal change in satisfaction over approximately 12 months. These analyses revealed a striking pattern of results that support the speculation of Gottman and Krokoff (1989) and Gray-Little and Burks (1983) that wife demandingness coupled with husband withdrawal is particularly destructive to long-term relationship well-being. Wife-demand/husband-withdraw interaction showed associations with both concurrent dissatisfaction and longitudinal decreases in wives’ satisfaction. In contrast, husband-demand/wife-withdraw interaction was inversely associated with concurrent satisfaction, but it was predictive of longitudinal increases in satisfaction. Similarly, the extent to which each partner was rated as demanding was negatively associated with his or her concurrent satisfaction. However, husbands’ demandingness was predictive of longitudinal increase in wives’ marital satisfaction, whereas wives’ demandingness was predictive of longitudinal decline in wives’ marital satisfaction. The pattern for negative behavior was very similar.”

“Thus, when couples fall into the gender-stereotyped roles of wives demanding and husbands withdrawing, the wives experience a significant decline in relationship satisfaction. Conversely, the extent to which couples reverse typical roles is predictive of the wives’ and husbands’ reports of improvement in relationship quality. We speculate that this pattern results from those couples who displayed stereotyped gender behavior becoming locked into their roles in an escalating vicious cycle, whereas couples that take nonstereotyped roles are able to avoid this increasing polarization and rigidity.”

“…husbands’ satisfaction is not as predictable as that of their wives. Studies have found men to be generally less affected by the nature of problem-solving interactions (e.g., Gaelick, Bodenhausen, & Wyer, 1985), as well as men’s relationship satisfaction being generally more difficult to predict (e.g., Bentler & Newcomb, 1978). It may be that husbands are less sensitive to changes in relationship quality.”

“Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to assume that an increase or decrease in wives’ satisfaction with the quality of their relationship would eventually affect the husbands’ level of satisfaction.”


  1. Wives would do well to kick back and take a chill pill!
  2. Wives would do well to hone their honeycraft skills (e.g. smile, speak warmly, show deference, respect, gratefulness), in order to set the stage for a positive interaction. By being open and receptive, rather than harsh and demanding, she can elicit a more positive response from the typical man who is easily stressed out by conflict.
  3. The main benefit of successful conflict management to husbands is to have a contentious, pesky, nagging wife become less harridan in nature.
  4. A secondary benefit of successful conflict management to husbands is that their wives might grow in faith and maturity, thereby becoming better wives and partners. (Ephesians 5:25-29; 1st Peter 3:7)
  5. Husbands would do well to push some buttons and spank some ass now and then!

10. More Positive and Respectful Conflict Now Leads to More Peace and Satisfaction Later

“The correlations with change in satisfaction between Time 1 and Time 2 showed a pattern of results in which men’s demandingness and negativity predicted a positive change in the wives’ satisfaction over time, whereas wives’ demandingness and negativity predicted longitudinal deterioration in wives’ relationship satisfaction. Husbands’ positive behavior, which was unrelated to Time-1 satisfaction, was positively related to a longitudinal increase in their wives’ satisfaction. In contrast, wives’ positive behavior, which was related to Time-1 satisfaction, was unrelated to longitudinal change in satisfaction.”

“Interestingly, none of the observer ratings predicted change in husbands’ satisfaction… For both husbands and wives, wife-demand/husband-withdraw interaction had no significant positive associations and some significant negative associations with current satisfaction and predicted decline (or no change) in satisfaction longitudinally. Similarly, husband-demand/wife-withdraw interaction had no positive and some significant negative associations with current satisfaction. However, in contrast, husband-demand/wife-withdraw interaction predicted longitudinal improvement in satisfaction; all four correlations were positive and three were statistically significant.”

“Gottman and Krokoff (1989) found that observer ratings of spouses’ negative conflict engagement, which are similar to our ratings of demandingness, correlated negatively with concurrent satisfaction but positively with change in satisfaction over 3 years. Furthermore, husbands’ withdrawal was not correlated with concurrent satisfaction but was predictive of longitudinal decline in relationship satisfaction. Gottman and Krokoff (1989) concluded that “couples who engage in conflict may pay a price in concurrent dissatisfaction and negative affect at home, but the strife may pay off in the long run, provided that the conflict does not invoke stubbornness, defensiveness, or withdrawal from interaction” (p. 51). Roberts and Krokoff (1990), using time-series analyses to examine the relationship of withdrawal and hostility during conflicts, found no mean differences in the amount of withdrawal exhibited by men and women or by satisfied and dissatisfied couples. Additionally, wives’ withdrawal did not predict husbands’ hostility, nor did the hostility of either spouse predict their partner’s withdrawal.”


  1. Men need to be more positive, more negative, and more demanding (viz. more “dramatic”) in order to increase their wives satisfaction.
  2. Wives absolutely need to drop the negativity (i.e. judgment, blame, being critical, demanding change), in order to stop driving their husbands to withdraw, and to eventually improve their marital satisfaction. Specifically, this means that wives who seek change should be careful not to express a negative affect in the process of elaborating their dissatisfaction. (Ephesians 4:29) In other words, it’s not what you say that matters, it’s how you say it.
  3. Both partners should avoid stubbornness, defensiveness, and withdrawal from conflict.
  4. Wives who are emotionally mature (e.g. cool, calm and collected), and who are emotionally content (i.e. have a less dire need for closeness), are wives who stand a better chance at obtaining marital satisfaction.
  5. Wives carry more of the responsibility towards building overall marital satisfaction, but they also reap greater subjective improvements in marital satisfaction.

11. More Tentative Peace Now Leads to More Strife Later

“Among dissatisfied couples, husbands’ withdrawal was predictive of their wives becoming hostile; no such relationship was found among satisfied couples. These two studies highlight the potential destructiveness of husbands’ withdrawal from conflict and the wives’ negative, demanding reactions.”

As mentioned earlier in Section 5, men usually withdraw in order to avoid conflict, preserve peace, reduce tension, and maintain the status quo. Thus, in the stereotypical conflict structure, women are tempted to become masculine, and men are tempted to wimp out. If couples lazily succumb to their feelings and base instincts by handling conflict in this manner, then marital discord is planted, and will gradually grow over time and with continued neglect. Men should be especially conscious of this dynamic.


  1. Men need to be more engaging, more demanding, and should resist the temptation to withdraw.
  2. Wives need to be less demanding, less negative, less verbally, psychologically and physically abusive, and more considerate of the man’s emotional needs for deference and respect. By doing so, wives are less likely to drive their husbands away in withdrawal.
  3. Both partners should be aware of the dynamic: If husband withdraws, then wife is negative and demanding. If wife is negative and demanding, then husband withdraws.” Both partners need to work to stop this cycle from spinning. The husband has the responsibility to be preemptively proactive, however, the wife has the upper hand in determining the acceleration of the upward or downward spiral (Eggerich 2004).

12. Conclusions

Here we notice there is a fundamental difference in the conflict structures that lead to marital satisfaction. The structure in which the husband is authoritative and demanding, and the wife submits or withdraws shows a greater propensity for satisfaction, whereas, the structure in which the husband submits or withdraws, and the wife is authoritative and demanding, shows a trend toward dissatisfaction, dissolution and divorce.

Upon a closer examination, it can be seen that the reasons why men submit or withdraw (Section 5), and the reasons why women are authoritative or demanding (Section 6), are largely due to motivations based on the natural (feral) inclinations, and/or the demands of living in this fallen world. On the other hand, the reasons why men are authoritative or demanding (Section 4), and the reasons why women submit or withdraw (Section 7), arise largely from a deeper faith in God’s provision and truth. In other words, the latter type of structure aligns more closely to the Archetypical Image of God, and thus qualifies the couple to be recipients of God’s promises and good favor. So here we see that science supports God’s Archetypical marriage structure, as outlined in the Bible (Ephesians 5:25-33).

During a conflict, men may or may not lead, and women may or may not follow. It is most advantageous to the longitudinal health and happiness of the relationship when men lead, and women follow. The next best outcome results when a man fails to lead, but the woman nevertheless still follows (through her faith in God). Poor outcomes leading to marital discord, dissolution and divorce are the inevitable result when the woman fails to follow, regardless of the man’s intervention, or lack thereof.

Posted in Attitude, Collective Strength, Conflict Management, Female Power, Male Power, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Purpose, Relationships, Stewardship | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Purple Haze

The Red Pill Transformation Experience Relative to SSMV

Every man has a different experience with the red pill transformation, so we naturally expect every man to have a unique opinion about it. But recently, some generalized behavioral patterns have been flushed out. I think Rollo was the first to fully report a polarity of attitudes among newly awoken men. Along with some polity issues, he discussed how some men grow bitter and resentful after swallowing the Red Pill, while other men gratefully and enthusiastically receive it as the Gospel.

Alpha Game Plan followed with the discussion of Purple versus Red. A comment from Aeoli Pera under this post contained a succinct generalized description of the different attitudes and Red Pill experiences that various men have. I added a few characteristics to complete the lists by male socio-sexual rank.

Attitude Toward Women By Socio-Sexual Rank:

  • Alpha: Satisfied Contempt
  • Beta: Benevolence
  • Delta: Idealism; Anger when illusions are shattered
  • Gamma: Fear
  • Omega: Hate
  • Sigma: Guarded Control
  • Lambda: Disinterest

Red Pill Experience By Sociosexual Rank:

  • Red-pilled Alpha: Feels nothing
  • Red-pilled Beta: Feels relieved
  • Red-pilled Delta: Feels disappointed, let down
  • Red-pilled Gamma: Feels confusion or rage
  • Red-pilled Omega: Feels resolution, finality (could be good or bad)
  • Red-pilled Sigma: Feels pensive
  • Red-pilled Lambda: Feels amused

[SF: I am a Sigma, by the way, and yes, I feel pensive, and also somewhat amused!]

Color Saturation Hue

From this ranking, we can see more clearly why some men can quickly and easily transition to the Red Pill mentality, whereas, other men lounge in bitterness and contempt for years. I believe much of the difference lies in how close to the heart the arrows of the enemy came, and how much damage is done in removing the arrow.

So now the question comes to this. How much of the Red Pill transformation experience is determined by a man’s SSMV ranking, and how much of it is dependent on his experiences and his station in life?

Maybe Religion has an effect?

Maybe upbringing?

A strong father-figure, or lack thereof?

I hold a strong suspicion that having a feministic mother, or a mother who was very disrespectful to his father, would increase the likelihood for a man to experience a lot of frustrations and disappointments in the mating game.

The remainder of this blog explores several of my thoughts and beliefs concerning these questions.

Growing Pains

A common protest I hear against the Red Pill is that it causes men to hate women. Apparently, it’s common for men to feel this way after getting red pilled.

I can understand. After I started giving serious attention to the Manosphere online, it took a couple months of casual reading before I started to reframe. And I remember the moment when I first “got it”. At that time, I did have what I believed to be feelings of hate towards women in general. But that emotion lasted no longer than a week for me, at most. With continued reading, and a lot of reflection on my own experiences in life, I became accustomed to the Red Pill mode of thought. Then I realized it wasn’t hate. I was just angry because I had it all wrong and I felt betrayed or lied to in general, and those feelings were somehow psychologically pinned on women as being the cause or source of the frustration and disappointment. I think that’s what the Manosphere calls the loss of “ego investment”.

Judging by the comments I’ve read under other blogs, it seems I am one of the few men who has been able to transition from blue to red with relative ease. I believe it takes some self awareness, humility, deep introspection, and a bit of intelligence, to move past the first impression of “hating women”, and see those feelings as the “growing pains” that are evidence of an existential paradigm shift.

I know every man has had his share of bad experiences with women, including myself, and I am sure these impressions do much to form the psychological association.

I think it might be analogous to a man who was kicked by a horse, or hit by a car, and then comes to be fearful and resentful towards all horses/cars. What would be the proper response to such an experience? Is it to swear off horses and cars altogether, as MGTOW appears to be doing?

I want to believe that a man of courage and indomitable character would recover from his wounds and return to break that horse in, or build his own hot rod. Then, ride that horse through the outback, or drive that rod to a cruise show, or a drag race, in royal Kingly array.

The idea here is that man determines his own mindset about life, and should not let his bad experience keep him down in the gutter of self pity, nursing a defeated mindset.

No One Is To Blame

In reality, there is no one particular person to blame for the present condition of western society, but rather, the culmination of a 50 year, society-cuckolding affair between Feminism and the Sexual De-Evolution. A life-sabotaged man is not going to find any constructive outlet outside the Manosphere, so any displaced feelings of hate or anger onto individual members of the female sex are only going to have the following negative impacts.

  • He’s not going to find any immediate closure.
  • Ruminating in angst and hopeless despair is only going to drag him down and make him depressed.
  • He feels less motivation to build a career and succeed, and therefore has a greater tendency to low-ball his potential SMV.
  • He makes it that much harder to maintain frame, to get laid, get married, etc.
  • His hatred shows, affects his relationships, and possibly contributes towards a misogynistic reputation.

Personally, I don’t hate women for being women, but on the other hand, thanks to the Manosphere, I no longer take them very seriously either. Since then, I have learned to just accept them for who they are, adjust myself accordingly by revising my frame of mind, and try my best to offer the unconditional love of Christ, which is what, I believe, characterizes a real man, and not notch count. Whatever pagan feminists think be d*mned.

God Game

More recently, when I found that Chateau Heartiste endorses this same fundamental attitude of Game, I was humbled to the core. An exerpt from said post, “God Game”, follows.

“The beta mangina’s credo is “there shall be no other god above me than the goddess whose pussy pedestal I swear to polish unto my last day”, and we can see how arousing that is for women. (Not very.) But the jerkboy who knows the value of God Game has placed a higher power above pussy power.”

The following comment, an eisegesis based on 1st Corinthians 1:26-31, must be the quote of the century.

“God has chosen the PUA’s of this world to bring truth to men in these adulterous times, in which His Church and faithful followers have failed to deliver the truth, and have been led astray.”


Gamma brother Wesley Jansen made a statement that got me thinking about how much of a purple-piller I might be, and why.

“You see men as the problem, but I see women as the problem. A lot of my writing has been based on how I’ve had my heart torn out by women. Nothing feels worse than heart-break. Your story reminds me of my own.”

I was a little confused about why he thought my posts portray men as the culprits, and so my initial purpose for this post was to clarify my own viewpoints. [Editor’s note: It’s very important for a man to know what he believes, and how to express those beliefs in words.] After some reflection, I realized I did hold some paradoxical ideas about the moral agency of men in the mess. (The moral agency of women is still up for grabs. It is introduced here and explored here.) So this study then became an exploration of thoughts, beliefs and attitudes about the red pill experience.

To be honest, I do see some men as the problem, and I don’t mean to say that they are male centrists, misogynists, or what not. [SF: That would be a feminist’s viewpoint of the “problem”.] I interpret “problem” to mean something or someone that poses a hindrance to Red Pill progress. I’ll list these types of men here.

  • Those Blue Pill men who remain silent and uninvolved, passively giving their power away to feminist women, and thereby empowering them.
  • White Knights who are old-school dreamers. While it’s true that they play the part of a useful fool for both feminists and Red Pill men alike, I cannot see how they contribute to the advancement of Red Pill awareness in society. They are either like a tool to be used, or like a dead weight useful only for entertainment.
  • PUA’s? [Eds. note: That’s complicated! We’ll save that one for another post.]

From an emotional standpoint, I can identify with such men, and I pity them more than I blame them. Considering not more than 15 years ago, practically all men were still on a default Blue Pill mindset that had been programmed into them – myself included. Even today, Blue Pill rhetoric is shamefully prevalent among men.

[Eds. note: Female drama warning.]

The Manosphere is well aware of the problems from the females’ side, ultimately summed up as the female’s propensity to indulge their Tingles in consecutive whirlwind romances, followed by their emotional bondage to doting on the pangs of unrequited love. [SF: Speaking cynically from that perspective, all women are the problem!]

I also think women are not going to change their fundamental nature, at least not within this millennium. If western culture is ever going to become less feminized and more patriarchal, then it will be because men did something about it.


At this point, I am sure many angry, suffering men are dismissing me as an ass, but I will tell it straight. I just want to inspire you to maintain a positive attitude in the face of suffering. The competition is brutal, and the chance of coming out on top is slim, but you know, attitude is everything – maintaining a sense of dignity and self respect, and refusing to go down. It’s just better for us in the long run.

Maybe that is the pat answer to the question about the differences in Red Pill experiences among men – their ATTITUDE!

[Eds. note: To what extent could a man change his SSMV ranking, merely by changing his attitude?]

Posted in Attitude, Identity, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A Noodle Asian Inspiration

Breaking world news from Taiwan….

Pretty female vendor wears flouncy skirt at noodle stand!

What about all that other real news that’s happening in Taiwan, the Asia-Pacific region, and around the world?

F*ck that… THIS GIRL IS WEARING A LITTLE DRESS AT A NOODLE STAND! The TRAFFIC stops here! VIEWS! Life doesn’t get any better than this, Men!


And why do we give a sh*t about this?

Precisely because it’s a break from all the politically correct, ugly feminist crap and fake news we see every day. It’s a brief respite from the usual drudgery, and personally, I can’t think of any other respites from modern feminist drudgery that are any less trite and mildly offensive to SJW’s sensibilities.

The headline emphasizes “short skirt”, but that is not a skirt. It is a summer dress. But we’ll gladly forgive the correspondent for misreporting the facts. Actually this is a typical dress worn by thousands of NORMAL (i.e. NOT feminist) girls in Taiwan every day, whenever they go out.

It can get pretty hot in the tropics! Maybe she likes short, thin dresses because she works outside with no air conditioning, and it is more comfortable? In Taiwan, she can wear light clothing to stay cool in hot weather when she is cooking outside, and do it without fear of being raped or ever harassed.


The best thing about this is that she is not whoring for attention. She is dressed so sexy but it’s not perverted. Her appearance isn’t cheap or shameful at all. It’s perfectly wholesome. And look at that smile!

Actually, this dress is muuuuccch longer than some of the cellulite-showing, cutoff jeans shorts I see what-passes-for-women wearing in rural Murica. She’s wearing more clothing than the betel nut stand girls in Taoyuan, who are basically wearing see-through negligees with g-strings and a lacy bra. By contrast, this woman is scandalously virtuous!

For those complaining that we’re sexually discriminating, I’ll also include this story about a hunky male Buddhist monk. That should prove that we’re treating all attractive and inspiring people equally!

Men, be reminded… a woman wearing a short skirt or dress is not an invitation to stare or an invitation for anything else. Maybe she is only wearing that dress to promote her business. She just wants to look pretty for her customers and doesn’t give a sh*t about feminism, objectification of her body, nor people taking pictures of her behind her back. I’d guess her business is doing great, and she’s making tons of money – despite the fact her noodles might taste horrible. She’s laughing all the way to the bank every evening.


But aren’t we afraid to take photos without her permission, as though she may subject us to “the right of privacy” legal issues?

She’s in a public space. It’s her choice.

But we’re publishing the woman’s photographs, and humiliating females. Don’t you find that shameful?

If you look at the photos, she smiles and laughs into the camera, I don’t think she finds the attention humiliating at all. She recognizes the marketing value of dressing sexy and getting attention for it.

She’s a “strong woman” for being able to withstand so much sexist and misogynous “toxic” male attention from sun up to sun down, and still serve those men food with humility and a graceful smile!


Now just in case someone tries to condemn us for sexually objectifying women, you just tell them it is not our intention to humiliate her, or “rape” her by asking for her phone number. We are just simply SO INSPIRED by her feminine beauty!

Consider the facts of the matter. In this industrialized, heavily polluted, east Asian city, you can get the most disgusting part of a pig, the part sh*t travels through, served to you at a street stand by a pretty lady wearing a dress and high heels.

Now, if we a ask a group of foreign tourists if they would like to try some extremely exotic food made of organs deemed unacceptable for eating by Western cultural norms?

“Intestine vermicelli… Yum!”

“I used to think 1000-year-old egg was an abomination. Now, a gift from the gods!”

“I like a lot of the “exotic” foods here. I should expand my cultural references.”

“I am feeling so inspired right now! I think I’ll just sit here behind this lady for a few hours and try them all! I’ll have the thousand year old egg fried with stinky tofu in Hakka spices, anything involving tentacles, pickled pigs ear, marinated beef tripe, galangal ginger pork liver, tofu skin, cold oil chicken testicles, sun dried shrimp roe…”


Still not good enough of a reason to go to Chiayi? Then your male credentials to be on the Manosphere are hereby revoked! Just as Murican women say, “Man up or shut up!”

The next time your woman complains about how much trouble it is to wear a skirt, care for long hair, and wear heels… Show her these photos of a woman wearing heels while standing on a cobblestone sidewalk and selling hot noodle soup to customers in 35°C (95°F) weather – AND SHE’S NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT!

This is the New Feminine Power Model! Aging feminists, exit stage left!

Let’s hear all those feminists rev up their moxies now!

“You Rock On, grrrl!!!”

Posted in Female Power, Models of Success, Satire, Taiwan | Tagged | 1 Comment

Male and Female Power Deconstructed

[Eds. note: This post explores how men and women have different spheres of authority and influence within society and the family, and how the respective sexes can exercise the most power by working within the confines of their natural spheres of influences.]

Right after I finished my last post, “The New Women’s Power Model”, I browsed some of the other blogs in the Manosphere, and I was surprised to see that Power is a hot topic right now. Zippy Catholic has a post titled, “With great power comes great incontinence”, which discusses relevant abuses of power, and then Donal Graeme’s post, “Power and Control” which focuses on regulation practices.

[Eds. note: After I started writing this post, Cane Caldo also addressed this same topic, and since then, Zippy has offered a rebuttal.]

The posts above contained the following axioms.

“The most primal power of men is violence.”

“The most primal power of women is sex.”

Looking through the comments, I saw that most everyone readily agreed to these statements without much doubt or criticism. However, I believe these definitions of power, although true, are rather simplistic and biased. I suggest they should be changed to read,

Women perceive that the most primal power of men is violence.”

Men perceive that the most primal power of women is sex.”

By composing this addendum, I am not merely playing with semantics, but rather, reframing the context. Let me briefly explain.

Women, who generally crave security, are fearful of the abuse of men’s power through violence.

Men, who explicitly crave sexual expression, are fearful of the abuse of women’s power through rejection.

As such, the original quote defines power as the ability to withhold that which the other needs, thereby allowing the provider to gain dominance in the transaction, and to generate a corresponding fear of scarcity in the beneficiary.

Withholding the material goods, emotional capital and spiritual needs of others in monopolistic style is truly an expression of power, but a more expansive and complete understanding of power must recognize that the locus of power does not lie within the objective assets themselves, i.e. security or sex, as implied in the quote, nor even in the dynamics of the exchange, as emphasized by PUA and feminists alike. Instead, power lies in the fact that each party has the ability to either grant the needs of the other, or else deprive them of the same.

Almost all characteristics that contribute towards one’s SMV and MMV could be described as indicators of an individual’s ability to deliver a physical, social, emotional or psychological resource, or to perform a desired service. To be straightforward, the benefits resulting from having these needs provided for, is a primary motivation for individuals to enter into a relationship in the first place, be it romantic, or even just strictly business. These needs are not limited to security and sex, but also include a myriad of other life-giving aspects of our respective natures, such as honor, loyalty, love and respect.

I postulate that true power is in the giving and enhancing of life, and less so in the disruption or destruction of it. Thus, when such benefits are not received, and the experience of life is not amplified, it is due to a failure, inability or irresponsibility on behalf of the provider, or else done as an act of operant conditioning, negative punishment in this case, to the receiver.

I’m not talking about Greene’s 48 Laws of Power, and I’m not digressing on the Dark Triad style of power, as is sublimely illustrated by Illimitable Men. Although these power modes can, and certainly do, play into the scheme of things, I’m simply describing a basic social exchange.


I don’t need to say that currently, there is a mass breakdown in the social exchange in western society, due to the sexual revolution, the advent and growth of third wave feminism, and the confluence of the protestant church with feministic ideologies and social movements (AKA “Churchianity”). Moreover, in the modern exchange, women are demanding more, and dispensing punishment, both positive and negative, when their demands are not met.

It would be beneficial for men to also demand more, and likewise administer operant conditioning as appropriate. However, the main trouble that men seem to face now, is that they lack the knowledge (e.g. the red pill), the tools (e.g. social acceptance and affirmation, legal recourse), the skills (e.g. Game), and the necessary level of organization (e.g. a common vision) to execute the much needed rebalancing of society (e.g. preserving the nuclear family).

Our recognition of what men offer to society, and to women, and also identifying exactly what men need from them, is the key to understanding our own power. It may be too hard for feminists and misandrogists to swallow enough of their pride to recognize the value that men possess. However, I would hope that borderline feminist sympathizers might be satisfied with the stability obtainable through a social exchange characterized by a spiritually healthy expression, which is beneficial to both men and women, families, children, and to society at large. Over time, we may see the restoration of the biblical institution of marriage and the transformation of our society back into a powerful Christian nation.

Posted in Female Power, Male Power | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The New Women’s Power Model

[Eds. note: This post explores a powerful sphere of authority and influence that 50 years of feminism has allowed women to neglect, and over time, forget. Warning: Language and Sexual Content]

Modern women are neglecting their most fundamental avenues of power by pursuing feminism. Women would fare better by,

  1. Realizing their most fundamental value to society and to men.
  2. Abandon efforts to usurp power within men’s sphere of influence, which they are poorly suited for.
  3. Optimizing the match between their feminine skills and natural abilities, and their overt goals in society.

Immature, Self-Centered Women are Ugly

I’ve been with a few girls that I felt very attracted to, because they were young, sweet and attractive on the outside. But once I got them down in bed, I found that they were so ugly on the inside. By ugly, I mean they were devoid of passion, immature, self-centered and bitchy. They whined about how uncomfortable their position was. They didn’t want to touch my rod, turning up their nose at it, like it was a smelly turd. Their facial expression was so dull and bored while I was thrusting them. Their mind was somewhere else. They talked about topics completely unrelated to our interaction. They gave me less attention than their dog, or their smartphone. Afterwards, they complained about the mess. In short, these women were such a shameful, embarrassing turn-off that I never wanted to see them again, after that first time.

So I had an unintentional ONS… So disappointing…

[Eds. note (November 25, 2017): Dalrock points out two fundamental elements of ugly women: (1) they prefer to be ingrateful, and (2) they don’t want to serve the needs of others. Dead on!]

Understanding How Women Affect and Influence Men to Change

On the other side of the coin, as men, we know there is something about a woman who “treats us right”, that can melt our hearts. I know that from experience.

Believe it or not, earlier in my life, up until I was well into my 30’s, I made a whole-hearted, conscientious effort to resist the temptation to fornicate with every woman who offered me the opportunity.

[Eds. note: I’ll give you a moment to let that sink in. Yes, it’s true.]

During these periodic exercises in self-control, I noticed that just because a woman was a 9 or 10, it didn’t mean that I would lose the battle and automatically yield to temptation. I still had power over my will to resist those hotties.

I also noticed that there were a few other women I’ve known who somehow surpassed my threshold of temptation, and who could lure me into bed no matter how much I objected to it in my mind. Some of them had even passed the wall, and others even had a SMV that was 3 to 5 points below my own. Even though I did not find them to be aesthetically beautiful or attractive, there was still something about them that got my heart totally addicted to them, and then the sex just happened so freely and naturally. My willpower was overruled, and I mindlessly performed the stud service. These were women who knew how to treat a man right!

I’m talking about having one of those saving grace, “Oh my God!” experiences!

Other times I would meet a woman that I thought was right for me, even someone I thought I could marry, but there was no such chemistry. She met my checklist, but she was a dud.

Funny thing is, I never regretted those formerly described experiences as much as I thought I would. I am not one who believes in “fate”, but it kind of felt that way. I want to say that I did not conscientiously “choose” to lay with those women, but somehow, I know I did. I don’t understand how it happened though, because my mind switched off when she started working her magic.

I felt it was like a PUA Game shakedown with the sexes reversed! Instead of me gaming and bedding women, certain women were gaming and bedding me!

I know that if I said, “it just happened”, it would sound so naïve and bird-brained. Guys know that is what women always say after they cheat on their boyfriends and husbands. But that’s part of my point. How did it happen that these particular women could bypass my prefrontal cortex and tap into my feral nature, thereby changing my attitude and even my will?

The Secret to Women’s Power

After I had several experiences with women doing this to me, I began to realize their secret – the power that enabled them to break through my willpower. I began to understand my nature more clearly.

I was always well aware that I had a strong sex drive. No surprises there. But what I did not know about myself, was that, as a man, I had a basic male need for respect and admiration that was lying dormant, deep inside me, like a hibernating bear. Those women simply fed that innate need for respect in me, and I awoke!

Yes! They gave me an impeccable level of respect, and this caused me to transform into a different being, a more confident and purpose-driven man. My purpose was, of course, to ride their horse until the break of dawn, and gaze upon the golden sun rising on the horizon – as many times as possible. In assuming this purpose, I lost all my will-power to resist the goal of their advances.

It felt like we became ONE.

I know that sounds laughable, maybe it reminds you of “oneitis”, but that’s not what I mean. I mean, there was “peace in the valley”. The experience was beautiful.

That is real feminine power!

So, since I have been the unwitting target of female PUA’s, I can totally understand the power that male PUA’s have over their female targets. When a woman experiences “love” from a man, in the form of Game, it can totally trump a man’s apparent SMV, and break down any mental resistances, and make any remaining faithless hesitancy vanish completely.

Likewise, I learned from these experiences, that getting respect from a woman can trump my physical attraction to her (her apparent SMV). (I know I am using the term SMV loosely here. These relational skills also contribute to one’s SMV, and that is part of my point.)

So now, my point is to assert that just as men have an illimitable power over women in the form of Game, women also have a comparable power over men in the form of vivacious respect, for lack of a better word.

What shall we call the feminine form of Game, in which they exercise their female powers in giving honor, purpose, life and joy to a man? (My personal favorites in bold font.)

Tilt?   Sport?   Emulation?   Wile?   Coax?   Bait?   Trap?   Draw?   Lure?   Wheedle?   Lead?   Hook?   Inveigle?   Allure?   Bamboozle?   Kittyclamp?   Seduce?   Homestroke?   Roping?   Diversion?   Honeycraft?   Pursuit?   The Moves?   Bash?   Blast?   Clambake?   Dally?   Flirt?   Coquet?   Entice?   Captivate?   The Cum-On?   Charm?   Mousetrap?   Magnetism?   Intrigue?   Siren?   Venus?   Vamp?   Pump?   Wowzer?

I like Honeycraft. I’ll use this word. It’s like the opposite of witchcraft, which is a fairly accurate simile/antonym.

Maybe you’re still wondering what I’m talking about. Let me give you an example.

When I lived overseas, there was a game of romance that the young people played. They called it, “psychoanalytical Love”, or “the Love psyche”, depending on the translation. In this Love Game, the goal was to make the other person “fall in love” with you, before you did with them. The person who fell in love first, then became the loser of the game. “Falling in love” was naturally characterized by such behaviors as, losing frame of mind, lacking decision making power, going to extravagant efforts to save or improve the relationship, becoming desperate for attention and sex… all basically what the manosphere would collectively call “beta behaviors”.

As silly as this game might sound to the promiscuous west’s ears, I came to regard this game to be infinitely more authentic and satisfying than any type of intersexual interaction I found in the west. It was good because it forces the other person to look at you as an individual person, learn what you desire, what you need to be happy, and then try to figure out how to deliver that, such that they eventually work up to the mastery level of controlling your desire.

Think about that… when was the last time you had a date with someone who recognized you as a unique and special individual, and who earnestly sought to understand and unlock the deepest desires of your heart?

That just seems too good to be true, for many people. But try to imagine the benefits.

Many players of this game discovered that it was advantageous to “rush to the finish line”, which meant, to have as much sex as possible, with as many partners as who are willing, because they quickly found that people are deeply and inexplicably attracted to, and fall in love with, others who are getting well laid on a regular basis. Of course, it also became evident that those who became the superstar winners of this game, were those who were not afraid to take extensive risks involved with having a sexually open lifestyle.

On the down side, a lot of great young adults got burned in the game. They just couldn’t take the risks and carry the resulting emotional weight. I can’t say that the Love Psyche game led to very many happy marriages. It did, however, lead to a lot of broken hearts, pregnancies and abortions.

Now, I am not encouraging teenagers to play the Love Psyche game, as I just described. I only gave that example to help westerners see how inefficacious and totally broken their SMP is, with serial dating, “hookup culture” and such. It’s broken, because the average person knows relatively little, or absolutely nothing about Game or Honeycraft, and as such, they are totally ignorant about how to meet the needs of another person’s heart. Instead, they are overwhelmingly star struck by all those lofty, but false, feministic concepts, which shipwreck their potential to achieve a joyfully satisfying love relationship, early in life.

Men, Families, and Society Urgently Needs Feminine Power

I have come to believe that the knowledge of Female Game is just as esoteric as Male Game has become in recent decades. At least this is definitely true in the west.

I also believe that the way to reverse feminism is not just for the manosphere to “man up” and learn game, but for women to get their own game together as well.

If women have the power to attract and keep the men they want to marry, by learning to respect men properly, then I believe they will spend less time riding the carousel, and getting their hearts and vags thrashed and trashed before they find a poor beta that will accept their selfish and disrespectful ways.

In other words, it’s going to level the playing field in the right way – and not by making men and women “equal”, which we know is absurd. But instead, by encouraging the mutual fulfillment of the deeper emotional needs that men and women respectively possess.


Buckminster Fuller once said,

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

So here I am, basically proposing a relatively new model for male-female mating interactions, which is actually a very old model. This new model teaches women to tone down the power of their pussy (i.e. feminist values, moxie, hypergamy, carousel riding), and tone up the power of their honey (low BMI, low WHR, long hair, respect, submission, possibly even faithfulness).

Men can usher in the new model by vetting women according to how well honed their Honeycraft is. To do so men, you should simply try to resist having sex with a woman, until you just can’t control yourself any longer. Let the woman try her best effort to break your will and win your heart. When you finally lose control, you will become the wildest beast she ever fantasized about (even better than that “50 Shades of Grey” fluff). For the rest of her life, she will silently reminisce on all those moments when you hammered her glazed doughnut with reckless abandon. She’ll never love another as much as she loves you, and the reason is very simple. It’s because…

You made her work for it!

Since this has happened to me many times, I must say, it’s quite satisfying. I think you’re missing out on a real experience in life by not attempting this.

[Eds. addition (November 5, 2017): Recently, Chateau Heartiste has endorsed this same approach in his recent post, “The Girl Notch”. As he so eloquently put it…]

“This is the skeleton key to opening pussy: You’re the prize, and she has to win you over.”

“A girl knows a beta male is a sure thing, and that sucks all the tension and excitement out of her interest in him. But the alpha male leaves her wondering if he’s really that into her or if she’s up to his standards, and this will compel her to work harder to please him and earn his affection.”

“To wrest the real notch from a girl, you have to deny her the Girl Notch. And that means taunting her ego with the idea that uncertainty is the rule and validation is the exception.”

[Eds. note: By the way, withholding sex is not recommended for married couples. Withholding sex will ruin your marriage. This advice is only for single people.]

Most importantly of all, never f*ck a feminist, no matter how hot she might be. A real man of strength will let that d*mn feminist have a truly humbling experience of loneliness and rejection, which she needs in order to goad her towards a repentance (if possible). Do not be unequally yoked. Those pagan women are not worthy of your seed. A real man of honor will hold his precious c*ckjuice for a better woman’s more appreciative womb.

Give it some thought. Thanks for reading.

Posted in Female Power | 3 Comments