Probabilities

How much marital bliss can a married couple reasonably expect of themselves after being married for 8 years?

Readership: This insight is specifically for younger men challenged with the task of choosing a suitable spouse.  It may also be of interest to married couples or those interested in marriage or LTR’s.

Author Information: This article was written by Scott Klajic, a professional psychologist and happily married father.  In ye olde days of the Manosphere, he went by the name “American Dad”.

Scott’s professional website: Treasure State Psychological Services
His personal blog: Ljubomir Farms

*       *       *       *       *

I came across two related pieces of data this week by way of Rich Cooper and Rollo Tomassi.

The first one is in the APA Journal Review of General Psychology.  It is an article pointing to a very low probability of satisfaction in marriages beyond the eight year mark.  You can take a look at the article and make any critique you like about their methods and taxonomies.  But for the purposes of this blog post, I am going to say I am OK with how they measured this.  The article discusses “obsession,” which Rich Cooper then in turn re-labels “bliss” and then I will further refer to as “infatuation”.  I have my reasons for this, but whatever you call it, only about two percent of the respondents said they are still at that high level of being really, super into their spouses after eight years.  Only about thirteen percent said they were still “in love”.

The second link is to another bit of research about couples who post a lot of cutsie dyadic selfies on their social media pages.  I am aware that most men who hang around this part of the internet really hate social media and I understand why.  However, FB, instagram and twitter are here to stay, so it is my position that these things need to be infiltrated and understood if any progress toward rationality in this civilization is going to be achieved.  So, Mychael and I have a “joint” FB page.  You can look it up if you want.  “Scott N Mychael Klajic” is what we call it.

This particular article jumped out me because we post quite a bit of material on that FB page about each other, how much we love being married, how devoted we are to each other and so on.  Just yesterday, Mychael put this up: 

These posts, and others like them are the most popular ones we share.  31 people “liked” it since last night, which for us is a pretty popular post.  Our profile pic is one of us kissing.

The article draws some conclusions about the type of people who do a lot of this on social media.  First, they score high on anxious attachment style.  If you are not familiar with the three styles of attachment drawn from the attachment literature, they are anxious, avoidant and secure.  And, you might guess that they are pretty intuitively named.  Those with anxious attachment styles tend to be anxious about losing the object of their affection to some outside threat.  Be it infidelity or such things like death or separations outside of their control.  The same people who share a high volume of these posts tend to be very happy in their relationship and the posts, believe it or not are a relatively accurate reflection of the couples life together.  People who only know us from our FB page tend to be surprised when they meet us in person and find that yes, we are really like that.  We are like puppy-love struck teenagers at 48 and 46 years old, 4 kids and 13 years in.  We are the ones people roll their eyes at and say “you two should get a room”.  It’s not an act or social media lifestyle marketing.

They also score high on levels of jealousy.  This kind of makes sense too, right?  If you are fiercely protective of your spouse, time with him/her, and you do not take too kindly to things that interfere with that, you are likely to take preemptive measures to “mark” their territory (their social media page) with pictures like this.  Of course, ours is a joint page, so it confounds this phenomenon a little.

Finally, the article points out that this kind of social media preening over each other provides a real, tangible protection against the very things the subconscious is trying to prevent.  Namely, infidelity.  That is, when a potential threat (a person who wants to move in on your spouse) sees this, they think “he/she is clearly taken. I’m not even going to try”.  Also, people who post a lot of this type of material tend to give off a very loud “taken” vibe in public.

Moving backwards to the first article I shared–thirteen percent of married people are truly happy after eight years?  Really?  I have no reason to doubt this data, and it is truly depressing.  I think the most common way to approach this kind of abysmal marriage outlook data is through the lens of expectations.  This is what most people would do with this information and they probably aren’t wrong.  I work with a lot of men who are in these marriages and, if I am to believe their side of the story their wives are being unreasonable.  These men show up every day for the “fight”.  They do chores, they work hard at their jobs, they try to come home and be sweet and work on “communication”.  They aren’t violent.  They don’t drink a lot.  They are invested in what is going on at home, yet they cannot seem to make their wives happy.  Both people are miserable.  I sometimes ask “if you could wave a magic wand over your marriage and fix it, what would it look like?”  In most cases, they don’t really know.

If I spend a little time prodding, what they want is for it to be something like “the way it was when we were younger”, which includes a less serious, more playful stance towards each other.  More sex.  More just hanging out and enjoying each other’s company.  All of that sounds totally reasonable to me, so we get to work on it.  But usually, and I am just being honest here, the marriage has degraded to a point of no return and no amount of “game” or whatever is going to pull it out.  I try though.  I try to get them to improve on themselves.  Try to get them to reduce “beta” and “comfort” behaviors and try to increase more alpha, carefree, activities and behaviors that signal independence and strength.  The stuff she was attracted to in the first place.

And this leads me to a conclusion that I keep coming around to in my own “red-pill” awareness.  There are a couple of different types of relationship fails that present themselves in this sphere (on the coaching sites, blogs, etc.).  I think the red pill is most effective at helping really only one of them.  This is the marriage (or whatever LTR) where there was an initially very strong, visceral attraction from the woman to the man from the beginning.  In a case like that, understanding Rollo’s (and others) writings and comments about intersexual dynamics are a great way to get the spark back, because you are rekindling something that is smoldering, but not dead.  Any other relationship configuration is not likely to be helped from this standpoint.

Here is my axiom:

A woman will almost never become strongly attracted to a man if she was not already very attracted to him from the beginning.

Got that?  I can say, in 48 years I have never seen it happen.  Not once.  This is a painful piece of information to receive because it means that if you chose a wife who was not crazy, head over heels for you in the beginning, you are probably not going to get her to that point at some later stage in the relationship.  And I’ll be a little graphic here.  I am talking about the passion at the beginning of a relationship that Rollo calls, “hell yeah!”  At the start of a relationship like that, you are constantly having sex.  Every room in the house, any time of day, at parties sneaking off to the bathroom, all night, all day.  She takes days off from work or shirks other responsibilities to be with you.  Leaving social events early so you can go home and get naked.  Both of you clawing at each other for it as if you cannot scratch the itch.  Was yours like that at the beginning?  If not, I am sorry.  It’s going to be an uphill battle to whatever your ideal relationship looks like in your mind.  I don’t think a woman can “fake” that kind of intensity for more than a few days or maybe weeks on the long end. *

So here’s my personal experience with it.  When I look at my behaviors — even right now — I sometimes behave in very cringe-worthy, blue-pill conditioned, “beta” ways around my wife, and yet, she still acts like a teenager with a new boyfriend around me.  I talk to her about stuff I am not supposed to (according to red pill lore).  I show vulnerability to her.  You name it, if its “beta” and a signal of “low value”, I do it.  Not all the time, but sometimes.  What explains this?  My guess is she fell so hard for me at the start that it really doesn’t matter what I do now.  We are the couple who would fall into the 2 percent “still infatuated” category.

We both have some anxious attachment qualities.  We are fiercely stubborn about protecting our little romance bubble from any outside threat.  And in the end, I don’t care if I look goofy or weak in my “beta” stuff to anyone.  Mychael can’t keep her hands of me, and vice versa.  In fact, I think that’s the part she likes the most–that I couldn’t care less what others think of us.

* Note: as this is a Christian oriented site–I should make the disclaimer that the situation I am describing is clearly for after the wedding day.  However, even before the sex starts, you can tell if she is “that into you” unless you are truly clueless.

Related

This entry was posted in Attraction, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discernment, Wisdom, Love, Male Power, Models of Success, Psychology, Relationships, Science, The Power of God, Vetting Women and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to Probabilities

  1. Sharkly says:


    Gunfighter Doc’ played fast and loose with his life, and wanted to die “with his boots on”, not from tuberculosis in a sanitorium.

    Anyhow, hearing about your happy marriage, all I can think to say, is like Doc’, who could no longer have what Wyatt could, “Live for me!”

    Like

  2. ramman3000 says:

    @Scott

    I enjoy reading your work. I’m glad you are posting on this site. I hope you continue to do so. If SF becomes host to numerous authors, it will be better for it. There are not enough married couples writing articles from their personal experiences. I hope one day to write a few of them myself here.

    “…very low probability of satisfaction in marriages beyond the eight year mark [..] Moving backwards to the first article I shared–thirteen percent of married people are truly happy after eight years? Really? I have no reason to doubt this data, and it is truly depressing.”

    I object to the way you’ve interpreted these statistics.

    First, average marital life satisfaction starts high and then declines. It hits the low point right around the 15-20 year mark, rough corresponding to the years when a couple’s kids are teenagers. However, after this mark it turns around and in another decade it is back to (or higher than) when they were first married.

    Second, average non-marital life satisfaction starts high and then declines. Overall, married people have higher life satisfaction than non-married people. Life satisfaction does not correlate with divorce risk. For the best marriages, life’s difficulties are made better by having a partner helping them out, rather than being alone.

    Third, on average sexual frequency declines with age. This is all perfectly normal. While some people’s libido stays strong (as apparently yours has), this is the exception rather than the rule. Constant, intense romantic love/sexual attraction is not the primary mark of multi-decade marriages. A long-term marriage must adapt.

    Fourth, the more sex a couple has at the start of their relationship, the sharper the decline tends to be after the first two years. Those couples that start out more moderated tend to have more consistent sex over the long-term. (See the research here)

    “A woman will almost never become strongly attracted to a man if she was not already very attracted to him from the beginning. [..] I can say, in 48 years I have never seen it happen. Not once.”

    Fifth, relationships based on high initial sexual frequency are much more likely to end up on the couch when that frequency declines. Unsurprisingly, you wouldn’t see those relationships that don’t have problems (i.e. selection bias). The ability to delay gratification and the ability to focus on non-sexual relationship aspects are both positive indicators.

    Six, the 8 year mark is where divorce rates are the highest. From the literature, it is unsurprising that many primarily sex-focused marriages suffer at this point and cannot be saved.

    Seven, the average married couple has sex once per week. With ~55% of first-time marriages (not correcting for factors like religiosity) going the distance. The average first-time married couple is paired for life, has sex once per week, and has two kids.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Derek, this is a nice summary of the statistics. You didn’t say exactly why you disagree with Scott’s assessment of the 13% figure, but I’m guessing that your point is that a decrease in both marital satisfaction and sexual frequency is typical. Although these numbers don’t lie, this is somewhat unrelated to Scott’s point.
      Scott’s article doesn’t focus on the average, but instead, highlights those 13% who are still on a high after 8 years, and points out that the woman’s ecstasy is the common denominator. Of course not all wives remain ecstatic, but the ones who do are those who had it all along. Another way to say this is that things won’t get any better than they were in the beginning, which is a conclusion supported by the statistics you mentioned. This has huge implications for mate selection.
      We could call this an apex fallacy if you like, but the value of Scott’s testimony is that at least we know which apex we should be aiming for. It’s not Alpha confidence or Beta provisioning, or low notch count, or Game proficiency, or a lot of other things that have been presumed to correlate with success or satisfaction. It’s something else that I’m not able to put into words just yet.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “Although these numbers don’t lie, this is somewhat unrelated to Scott’s point. [..] Another way to say this is that things won’t get any better than they were in the beginning, which is a conclusion supported by the statistics you mentioned. This has huge implications for mate selection.”

        Unrelated? Perhaps not. The problem is the equivocation on ‘better‘:

        “You didn’t say exactly why you disagree with Scott’s assessment of the 13% figure, but I’m guessing that your point is that a decrease in both marital satisfaction and sexual frequency is typical.”

        I don’t disagree with the statistic (it’s just data!), but I disagree with the interpretation. The 13% romantic satisfaction figure doesn’t directly correlate with marital satisfaction and divorce risk. I tentatively hypothesize that those 13% at the 8 year mark are at increased risk of divorce by the 20th year of marriage compared to the group just below them (although I’d first like to see those numbers when corrected for number of children).

        Scott’s focus—in citing that research—is on sexual passion and frequency, which is fine as far as that goes, but that only tells one part of the story. Given statistical averages and standard deviations, some marriages decrease more than the average and some marriages increase. Knowing the average, the very existence of rapidly declining, terrible marriages implies the existence of rapidly improving, excellent marriages. As such, I disagree that marriages do not or can not get better over time, including the sex.

        I remember that newly married feeling and passion. I remember how quickly it faded for some of my peers. For us it lasted for years: we joked with each other that we were newlyweds. Years later our lives changed when we decided to have kids and they changed even more when we decided to adopt. I remember those days fondly, but I don’t long to go back to them. Our lives have changed and we’ve changed with them.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Scott says:

    Ramman3000

    Truth is, I agree with you on most of your points. I have been on record about this for most of my time writing. I think one reason Rich Cooper shared this study (about happiness in marriage) is because there is a unrealistic standard most people have about what marriage is going to be like several years in. I don’t know, I have not asked him

    I know the whole story leading up to my current marriage (her backstory and mine) and it might make for a useful addition to add flavor to what is going here. Maybe another time.

    But the shortcut — the “how did I get here” minus the years of water under the bridge part is I am simply not willing to be the paunchy, middle aged guy who sits around in my workshop whittling. The guy who dresses in frumpy unflattering clothes. He owns every tool known to man and knows how to use every one of them. You pull his finger and he farts to make all the kids around laugh. I know a bunch of husbands like that– they are about my age. And although its clear (I guess) that they love their wives, it looks like they haven’t really F$%&ed each other in decades. Maybe they are having their once a week sex, but they don’t look each other in the eye at parties and get togethers. No thanks, not interested.

    I’m just not ready to get on the glideslope to that kind of relationship. I know its normal. I know what stable, long term marriages look like. Its just not for me. I still have chapters 11-25 of my life to write and having a passionate reason to come at night is a huge part of that for me.

    My deeply religious friends say I am a libertine and that I have not mastered my passions. OK. But not one of them has ever set their sights on something that appears insurmountable and accomplished it. I have always had a keen awareness of time passing and I am not going to sit one second of it out getting “comfortable” in any part of my life–my marriage included. Maybe that level of intensity will be the death of me. Maybe I will stroke out at the gym one day, or pounding T-posts in to the frozen ground at my ranch. But I will be doing something I want to do when it happens.

    I often digress into this tangent though, so here I will try to circle back. You are right–most lifelong, satisfying marriages don’t look like a passionate love affair decades in. It’s why I don’t really try to put mine up as something normal. The road to this was paved with ugliness and pain. Both people have to be a little clingy and a little intense in order for it to be like this for this long.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      “My deeply religious friends say I am a libertine and that I have not mastered my passions”

      From my experience, most church goers have frigid and bitter marriages that I would not want to replicate.

      I wonder how many of them use spirituality as a way to mask their bitterness.

      Liked by 2 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      @Scott

      Please call me Derek. This site doesn’t let me post under my real name.

      “although its clear (I guess) that they love their wives,it looks like they haven’t really F$%&ed each other in decades. Maybe they are having their once a week sex, but they don’t look each other in the eye at parties and get togethers.”

      You should avoid making presumptions. You can’t know.

      My wife and I make eye contact at church, parties, etc., but we don’t need to. We don’t broadcast our intimacy for the world to see. It is nobody’s business but our own. After two decades my wife and I can communicate at a glance. I can have whole conversations with her when she isn’t even there. When I replay them back to her when we meet up, she doesn’t have anything more to add than what she ‘already’ said. We send each other signals over our private language.

      I don’t need to assure anyone else that we love each other. I don’t even need her assurance. Our trust in each other is absolute.

      “But not one of them has ever set their sights on something that appears insurmountable and accomplished it.”

      I have.

      “You are right–most lifelong, satisfying marriages don’t look like a passionate love affair decades in. It’s why I don’t really try to put mine up as something normal. The road to this was paved with ugliness and pain. Both people have to be a little clingy and a little intense in order for it to be like this for this long.”

      I agree. God places us into a time and place to do his will. Marriages are different because they need to accomplish different things. You know that way you feel when you are touching your wife and she is touching you? I feel that way when we are united as one in purpose, merely in her presence. Those times when our bond is strongest go beyond any physical bonding.

      When my wife and I had to split our family for 5 months (medical reasons), it was extremely difficult. I had never been without my wife for more than a few days previously. Having the ‘secure’ style of attachment made things bearable. We are not clingy or jealous. We never once questioned each other’s fidelity.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Scott says:

    Jack-

    We could call this an apex fallacy if you like, but the value of Scott’s testimony is that at least we know which apex we should be aiming for. It’s not Alpha confidence or Beta provisioning, or low notch count, or Game proficiency, or a lot of other things that have been presumed to correlate with success or satisfaction. It’s something else that I’m not able to put into words just yet.

    we are in the exact same conundrum here. As of right now, I can only chalk it up to “luck” but I really don’t want that to be true. It drives me crazy.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Scott says:

    Lexet-

    Yes. When I hear arguments about how marriages “evolve” to some kind of deeper more meaningful spiritual level, all I hear is:

    “We have no more passion in our marriage, so this sounds nice.”

    It is also a bizarre non sequitur in the form of a false dichotomy. As if super sexy time romance and “depth” are mutually exclusive.

    “Its great that you have such a passionate marriage BUT we have this spiritual connection based on something better.”

    Why can’t you have both?

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “Why can’t you have both?”

      Of course you can, but the point is that you don’t have to: you have a choice. Let me illustrate this with a two examples.

      (1) Say you have sex once per day. Why don’t you have sex twice per day? Or three times per day? Or four times per day? Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw the line? Wouldn’t the ideal marriage consist of as much sex as you can cram into every spare moment? On the flip side, what is objectively wrong with only having sex once per week?

      (2) Say you have a steak dinner once a week, every Sunday night, with your wife. You take the time to perfectly grill those rib-eyes and eat them to candlelight. Wouldn’t it be even better if you could do that every day?

      The above examples have illustrated two points.

      First, time is a limited quantity. There is an opportunity cost even to sex and especially to romance. Sex is great, but unless it is procreative, it isn’t doing any work (well, a little exercise perhaps). Like entertainment, it is primarily for pleasure. Life is, quite frankly, not just about pleasure. Indeed, hedonism has no place in a Christian’s life. Time spent romancing is time not spent doing other things. If couples want to engage in other activities and are satisfied in that, more power to them. They shouldn’t be criticized for it.

      Second, what brings many people true satisfaction is novelty. As enjoyable as sex and romance are, if you do it too often it becomes commonplace, perhaps even boring. It may take increasing levels of novelty to keep the fire going. People have different thresholds for novelty, so how much is too much depends on person-to-person. The same goes for steak.

      I’ll conclude by noting that people show and receive love differently. Not everyone shows love primarily through physical means. Not everyone prefers to receive love primarily through physical means.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        Derek asked,

        “…what is objectively wrong with only having sex once per week?”

        There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as both partners are satisfied with that arrangement. But If one person needs sex more than once a week, and their partner is putting them on a once-per-week sex ration, then once a week is wrong.

        “Do not deprive one another sexually–except when you agree for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again; otherwise, Satan may tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”~ 1 Corinthians 7:5 (HCSB)

        This is not just a platitudinous rule to be followed when convenient. There is a reason for this admonishment. If your partner is walking through life constantly horny because you’re holding out, then you are subjecting your partner to unnecessary temptation, and gambling your marriage on your partner’s will-power to exercise self-control under chance meetings with others. It foolishly jeopardizes the marriage. This is just selfish and stupid.
        Now let’s connect this idea to the article above. In general, men are always up for sex, while women’s interest is usually subjective to the feelz. But if the woman has a high level of enthusiasm for having sex with her husband, then this contributes to the stability of the marriage. Scott posits that her enthusiasm has to be present from the onset, and if it is not, it is highly unlikely to suddenly materialize eight years down the road. So it stands to reason that the woman’s sexual enthusiasm is a predictor of both marital satisfaction and stability.
        I don’t understand how anyone can undercut the importance of sex in marriage. If a person really doesn’t struggle with sexual temptation, then it might be better for that person not to marry in the first place.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      Hey, Scott. The readership says “married couples” so I assume I can leave a brief comment. To this:

      Yes. When I hear arguments about how marriages “evolve” to some kind of deeper more meaningful spiritual level,

      Saying this doesn’t necessarily imply the death of a marriage’s physical relationship. Despite still having a passionate relationship 25+ years in, I would certainly characterize our marriage exactly that way. It has evolved. We were pretty immature when we got married. We’re not now, but we are still very much into each other.

      Marriage should be able to accomplish both; a spiritual oneness and evolution and maintaining physical passion over time. It’s not either-or, or at least it shouldn’t be.

      Thanks for your indulgence.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Saying this doesn’t necessarily imply the death of a marriage’s physical relationship

        Elspeth, you know I agree with you on this point.

        What I resent is the smarmy way in which what I am writing is portrayed as somehow gutteral, low-brow, primal and beneath the kind of love he and his wife supposedly have. It drips with it.

        Mychael and I just mere mortals giving in to our carnal desires who don’t really love each other like we should. If we did, then we wouldn’t need/enjoy sex so much.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        By the way Scott, I have a working theory about the 5 Love Languages, which I happen to like a lot, when it is used appropriately.

        First and foremost, you have to approach it with the object of your affection in mind. Whether it’s your spouse, kids, parents, whomever. If you start from the premise of diagnosing and validating your own love language so as to brow beat your husband into submission with it, you may as well forget about it. Love is by definition, focused on its object.

        I “figured out” that my husband’s love language is physical touch. Yes, that includes ex but not just sex. It also includes his unfettered physical access to me even when I’m standing over the stove or helping the kids with their lesson. And no, that doesn’t mean lascivious activities in front of the kids. It just means take a second to give him a kiss or not jump with irritation wraps his arms around me from behind or if he kisses me on the back of the neck while I’m cooking. Which is actually helpful to me as well.

        That wasn’t surprising or shocking but the acts of service part was an opportunity for me to get out of my own ways of receiving love and focus more on his.

        This is rambly, but my point is that the 5LL are not without merit, if you approach it unselfishly.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Scott says:

    I’ll conclude by noting that people show and receive love differently. Not everyone shows love primarily through physical means. Not everyone prefers to receive love primarily through physical means.

    Oh no. Please tell me you aren’t a “love languages” guy. Hint– all men’s “primary love language” is sex. At least the ones with normal testosterone levels. That’s true until you are dead. It doesn’t you shallow or unsophisticated. It makes you male.

    Sex that is not procreative is not just for pleasure. Have you ever heard of oxytocin? Every time you engage in sex with your committed partner, you re-establish the bond between you.

    Also I cannot imagine a situation where sex would be boring, like having steak every day. Can’t even get my mind around the analogy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Having steak every day would be awesome. There are tons of ways to make a steak.

      Liked by 2 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      @Scott

      “Sex that is not procreative is not just for pleasure. Have you ever heard of oxytocin?”

      Well, ironically, increased levels of oxytocin increase pleasure. So does dopamine, which is part of the reason men get easily addicted to sex and don’t know when to stop (see below).

      Oxytocin is not just released during sex, it is released in many bonding activities, including hugging and time spent with children. It is also plays a much more significant role in women than men.

      “Every time you engage in sex with your committed partner…”

      A ‘committed partner’? Not ‘spouse’? If you are trying to make the argument that having sex bonds people even when they are unmarried, then I’ll wholeheartedly agree. But I’ll never agree that this is a good thing. Hormones, like oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin, and testosterone, are amoral. Like sex, having more isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing. It can be either or neither.

      …you re-establish the bond between you.”

      You re-establish the bond? That’s an interesting choice of words. Why should it be necessary to ‘re-establish’ a bond that is firmly established? Do you think the marital bond is temporary?

      Oxytocin manipulates your emotions. No man is required to be governed by hormones and emotions. I would be concerned with any man whose bonding with his wife was dependent on the emotional manipulation of daily sex. That is not what I would consider healthy.

      “Hint– all men’s “primary love language” is sex. At least the ones with normal testosterone levels. That’s true until you are dead.”

      Men with low testosterone are still men. Certainly you are aware that low testosterone levels are common among older men? It is a normal part of biology.

      Like

  7. Lexet Blog says:

    1 cor. 7:4. “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

    This passage is about sex.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Ed Hurst says:

    I gave up trying to read the back and forth between you guys in the comments above. Lots of people experience a passion for living in different ways. I’m not going to cite my marriage as a test case for anything other than what is possible, because I’ve enjoyed it immensely since 1978. The thing that Scott’s article brings to mind for me is that very few men in our society are trained to think in terms of having a mission in life that would outlive you. More to the point, they have no idea what it looks like in a woman, so they can’t identify a prospective wife who will be supportive of that mission far, far down the road. How I learned it as a young man, I’m not sure I can explain, but it was a major criteria when I decided to marry.

    Liked by 2 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      @Ed

      “I gave up trying to read the back and forth”

      This is perhaps ideal. In one paragraph, you more-or-less nailed what my wandering thoughts were trying to say.

      ‘very few men in our society are trained to think in terms of having a mission in life that would outlive you. More to the point, they have no idea what it looks like in a woman, so they can’t identify a prospective wife who will be supportive of that mission far, far down the road. How I learned it as a young man, I’m not sure I can explain, but it was a major criteria when I decided to marry.”

      ^^^^^^^^^
      This exactly.

      My wife and I married young and we had plans. We had two biological children, but that was not enough to fulfill God’s mission for our life. We knew that adopting children would probably mean less time for sex, but we adopted anyway. We adopted three times before we reached our limit.

      Like

  9. Scott says:

    But I’ll never agree that this is a good thing.

    I’m Christian, so my presupposition is that they are married. But committed partner means, in this context, someone who you are in a monogamous relationship with. Every time you have sex with that person, oxytocin further imprints the physiological/psychological bond between you, whether or not you are married. You literally associate those good feelings with object you are looking at while you climax. (Hopefully, that object is your wife).

    If I walk into a room where my wife was an hour earlier, I can tell because her pheromones are present, lingering in the room. And I get turned on by it subconsciously. I love that, and she has the same reaction. Certain songs, smells, whatever reminders cause that in both of us. We strengthen it and celebrate it every time we come together.

    And on that note, why in the world would you not want to re-establish, reaffirm and reconnect through the physical act of love making with your partner (for Christians, wife) over and over again? Ever had make up sex? It actually works. Its like a salve over wounds inflicted during a fight. By your logic, you should have sex exactly the amount of times it takes to have however many children you want and never again, because the bond has been established in some esoteric spiritual sense. I’d rather blow my brains out than be in a marriage like that. (Which is why so many married men come to the manosphere in the first place.)

    And yes, low testosterone men exist, but they have a medical condition that is disabling to their natural male instincts. They can go to a doctor for treatment.

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “Ever had make up sex? “

      No. It is not necessary. My wife and I only have serious disagreements a few times a year and we work it out by communicating. Some of our disagreements don’t even need that much to get resolved.

      If we had sex to cover over disagreements, it would encourage a false sense of serenity. That’s not ideal. If all we needed was to have sex to behave properly to each other or to forgive each other, that’s not ideal either, nor is it biblical.

      “And on that note, why in the world would you not want to re-establish, reaffirm and reconnect through the physical act of love making with your partner (for Christians, wife) over and over again?”

      We are not really talking about affirmation and connection, are we? We’re discussing frequency of sex. So, how much sex is enough? How much is too much? What is objectively wrong with the affirmation and connection of weekly sex?

      Like

  10. Scott says:

    Ok, so at this point I’m having trouble distinguishing your position on sex within marriage from the message I can get from a garden variety churchian pastor or gay catholic priest.

    In fact, if there was an encyclopedia of red pill concepts and issues I would just cut and paste your last comment next to the heading “the main reason men don’t go to church anymore.”

    It sounds like your wife has placed a tremendous amount of boundaries and guidelines and rules around the marriage bed, and you have agreed to them. What part of “the marriage bed is undefined” is so troubling to modern Christians? It’s so weird.

    There is nothing “objectively” wrong about once a week sex. I never said that so please stop arguing like a woman.

    If once a week works for you, you go grrrrl!

    Most married men would absolutely never sign up for that if they knew it was the deal beforehand.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ramman3000 says:

      “cut and paste your last comment next to the heading “the main reason men don’t go to church anymore.”

      That’s a large claim. Can you back it up? If not, it is worthless.

      The duties of a husband and wife towards each other (e.g. 1 Cor. 7; Eph. 5) are not conditional. A husband has an irrevocable and unconditional duty to behave properly towards his wife, and she to him. Failures require repentance. It is unacceptable to hold grudges or fail to repent even if the spouse fails to repent.

      Make-up sex can’t replace repentance or forgiveness. It makes one feel good, that’s it. It’s emotional and psychological manipulation. If one needs sex in order to behave properly—or worse uses sex to justify behaving improperly—then they’ve turned sex from something beautiful into an idol.

      No man has ever left any church I have ever attended because my wife and I can rationally resolve our differences without resorting to manipulating our emotions with sex and hormones.

      “If once a week works for you”

      You are mistaken. I am speaking generically—not personally—in arguing that there is nothing essentially wrong with the frequency of sex in average marriage. Sexual frequency is, on its own, amoral. To wit:

      “There is nothing “objectively” wrong about once a week sex. I never said that so please stop arguing like a woman.”

      You’ve lost the plot here and it is leading to ridiculous and unnecessary accusations. In response to “Why can’t you have both?”, I asked you (twice) if there was was something wrong with once-a-week sex and you have now answered that there is not. Your answer to my question answers your original question.

      Lastly, I wanted to go back to this point that I missed:

      “And on that note, why in the world would you not want to re-establish, reaffirm and reconnect through the physical act of love making with your partner (for Christians, wife) over and over again?”

      Again with the use reestablish and reaffirm and reconnect. You obviously think that the marital bond is temporary and requires constant rebuilding through frequent sex. This is not a biblical stance and I strongly disagree. The bond between a husband and wife is permanent. It is not conditional on any act of man.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        Derek wrote,

        “Again with the use reestablish and reaffirm and reconnect. You obviously think that the marital bond is temporary and requires constant rebuilding through frequent sex. This is not a biblical stance and I strongly disagree.”

        It is a Biblical stance. Covenants require regular maintenance. Sex is the primary way that the marriage covenant is maintained. Make-up sex included. If anyone doubts this, then try refusing sex to your spouse for 6 months, and see for yourself whether your marital covenant has improved or deteriorated.

        “The bond between a husband and wife is permanent. It is not conditional on any act of man.”

        It is meant to be permanent, but we know there are many things that can ruin a marriage, and some of these are caused by acts of men (e.g. desertion; the wife has an affair, etc.).
        Derek, it may be hard for you to imagine these things for yourself, but it happens way too frequently to other men.

        Like

  11. lastmod says:

    Coming from a man (and many like him) who had plenty of sex since he was sixteen, women just gave him the “ioi'” and only went a few weeks from one girlfriend to another, got married…then frivorced and now can lecture us all on the “marriage bed”

    His post

    Says there is nothing “objectively” wrong about once a week sex, doesn’t want Derek….of all people….arguing like a woman, but then says “if once a week works for you, you go girl”

    His diclaimer at the end is what embodies why “the main reason men don’t go to church”

    It was okay for him to have all this sex, have his natural male needs met, and women were doing this to him (giving him the ioi) so, he just could not help himself…and it boosted his self-esteem, needed it at that point in his life……yes, we know Scott performs well in the bedroom, and he just doesn’t know why. Gift from god. Great, and of course he would not be the person he is today without his past, and then says “its clearly for the wedding day”

    It’s okay for me, but not you attitude. There’s probably your biggest reason why “the main reason men don’t go to church” today.

    It’s another competition that most will be shut out of, and let’s say a man does get married in the christian red-pilled-way……like Derek here……and now him not having sex or as much or whatever still isn’t good enough, or doesn’t match Scott’s amazing presence.

    Come on men…..Scott, your video yesterday was excellent. I was expecting a real debate, and “here’s a crazy idea” and interesting takes on this. I was actually excited about your “meet cute” video. I am glad you and Derek have a good sex, filled marriage loving marriage.

    really, you both are looking as bad as me….and I have an excuse. I am total dumbass compared to the both of you.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. caterpillar345 says:

    Scott,
    As a young man, I’m glad to hear someone say that this kind of marriage is possible. It sounds way better than the alternatives to me! Like you said:

    “although its clear (I guess) that they love their wives,it looks like they haven’t really F$%&ed each other in decades. Maybe they are having their once a week sex, but they don’t look each other in the eye at parties and get togethers.”

    As I look around my church, I’ve said the same thing. At the most pessimistic times I figure, well, they’ve got X number of (adult) children so I guess they’ve had sex at least X number of times but it doesn’t look like much since then… I even listened to a pastor at a weekend for young adults, where the theme of the weekend was relationships, tell the group of 18-35 year-olds something to the effect of “yeah, sex is great, but you shouldn’t worry about it too much because it won’t last and there are other good things about marriage.”

    I do have a question that relates to this discussion. You touched on it with your footnote:

    ” * Note: as this is a Christian oriented site–I should make the disclaimer that the situation I am describing is clearly for after the wedding day. However, even before the sex starts, you can tell if she is “that into you” unless you are truly clueless.”

    DeepStrength also alluded to it in the section “Discussion on Sex” in his “A detailed timeline and how to guide on the process of finding a wife” https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/a-detailed-timeline-and-how-to-guide-on-the-process-of-finding-a-wife/

    As a young man in a traditional Christian-oriented community, how do I “vet” for this passion that you speak of? Having lived a chaste life myself, how do I really know just how much libido I have? I think I have a high libido but am I really just “starving” and don’t realize how little will satiate that “hunger”? Likewise, how would she know what her libido is like, assuming she’s lived a chaste life as well?

    My apologies – it’s not apparent to me how to format my comment with quotes…

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Scott says:

    Caterpillar345

    I am going to do my best to respond to, not necessarily “answer” your question, tomorrow. I am under some deadlines (forensic reports, my actual bill paying job) and I will be writing til pretty late tonight.

    I want to say I am humbled by your trust that I might actually have something to say about your conundrum. It is a question that has been mulled over by the likes of Deep Strength, Donal Graeme and the hosts of this blog for quite some time. How do I know if my abstract/future spouse will be [sexually compatible/horny as me/for as long as me] (for lack of a better way to put it) in this overly sexualized civilization–if I am committed to remaining chaste until my wedding day?

    Big question. Tough to answer. And, as Jason has so eloquently pointed out–I have ZERO moral credibility to speak about But like I said, I will try. Just give me 24 hours.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Scott, Caterpillars question and your response may be worthy of a separate post. But because of the many contextual nuances involved, I doubt that one single post can adequately answer this question. It deserves a full study.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Scott says:

    Ramman–

    You are a legalist. You believe that every single transgression, no matter how small or insignificant must be “repented” of. You have never covered transgressions with the blanket of love. Do you repent when you squeeze the toothpaste from the middle instead of the bottom like she wants?

    You read into things I write with sophistry because you read some commentary somewhere and you are a condescending non-Christian with a leagalist dead heart. I’ve been down that road. I read all that stuff when I was in seminary. I probably still have the books somewhere in storage. It got me nowhere.

    You virtue signal with your adoption story and we are all supposed to believe this was a mission from God. Did He speak to you directly about it? What does His voice sound like? Does he have an accent? Your biological kids weren’t enough for you?

    I think you are a sexually frustrated chump who can’t believe a couple my age still gets it on like we do. Go sell your weird story about how your marriage operates to someone else. It sounds fake because it is.

    Is that clear enough?

    Liked by 1 person

    • ramman3000 says:

      “You are a legalist. [..] sophistry [..] You virtue signal [..] It sounds fake because it is.”

      No, I just disagree with you. There is no need to resort to unfounded personal accusations.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      I’ll offer a simple definition of legalism here for the readers. It’s when you focus on following the rules and maintaining your own righteousness more than you focus on developing yourself towards God’s purpose for your life (which can be very difficult and messy).
      Sorry Derek, but I also get the sense that you’re being legalistic.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. ramman3000 says:

    “Oh no. Please tell me you aren’t a “love languages” guy. Hint– all men’s “primary love language” is sex. At least the ones with normal testosterone levels. That’s true until you are dead. It doesn’t you shallow or unsophisticated. It makes you male.”

    For those who are interested, there is research on this topic, so you can evaluate the above claim for yourselves:

    Egbert, Nichole; Polk, Denise (2006). “Speaking the Language of Relational Maintenance: A Validity Test of Chapman’s Five Love Languages”. Communication Research Reports. 23 (1): 19–26. doi:10.1080/17464090500535822

    Surijah, E.; Septiarly, Y. (2016). “Construct Validation of Five Love Languages.” Anima Indonesian Psychological Journal. Vol. 31, No. 2, 65-76.

    Bunt, S., & Hazelwood, Z. J. (2017). “Walking the walk, talking the talk: Love languages, self‐regulation, and relationship satisfaction.” Personal Relationships.

    Beyond the research, there are plenty of informal polls and studies in which men and women determine their own love languages. Unsurprisingly, there is a lot of noise in this data. Various populations and cultures differ in their approaches. As such, no one love language dominates over others in all cases.

    What is abundantly clear—from a both a formal research standpoint and a self-reporting standpoint—is that “all men’s primary love language is sex” is false. Whether you agree with that the five love languages have full psychometric validity or not (probably not), there is absolutely no question that the majority of men consistently choose love languages other than physical touch as their primary. This doesn’t mean that they don’t like or need sex.

    Like

  16. Scott says:

    The psychometric validity of the construct as a self-report measure is irrelevant. It is a failed model for helping marriages.

    i am a psychologist who tried for years to force that model down the throats of every couple I ever counseled for years.

    Every man who said his “love language” was something other than “physical touch” was saying it to sound deep and sensitive and sophisticated.

    Its just about 10,000 clinical contact hours of experience with it. You really want to go this route? How many couples have you watched self-destruct in marriage counseling trying to pretend this model works?

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Scott says:

    Your website indicates you have a MS in software development. Consuming literature about psychometry with ZERO clinical experience is going to make you sound really dumb.

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “Consuming literature about psychometry with ZERO clinical experience is going to make you sound really dumb.”

      Fair enough. It is my mistake to make. I’m always trying to learn, even if that makes me sound dumb from time-to-time.

      “i am a psychologist [..] Every man who said his “love language” was something other than “physical touch” was saying it to sound deep and sensitive and sophisticated.”

      You are a psychologist and my domain (mathematics) overlaps with yours, especially as pertains to this discussion. The majority of errors that I have pointed out in this thread are statistical or reasoning—not psychological—errors. Moreover, I have presented evidence, both formal and informal, that contradicts your claim. You have made an argument from authority and presented unverifiable anecdotal evidence.

      “Its just about 10,000 clinical contact hours of experience with it. You really want to go this route?”

      Do you? I’m not afraid of examining the evidence, so long as it doesn’t get too personal for you. If you can prove your point, by all means convince me!

      Like

  18. Scott says:

    Here’s what I have been doing for the last 20 years. Its the short version, so as not overwhelm or seem like bragging.

    https://www.treasurestatepsychologicalservices.com/blank-page-2

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Scott says:

    On second thought, lets go ahead and do this.

    Here is what happens in a typical marriage counseling case when the “love languages” model is deployed as the dominant structural basis for solving the couples stated problem.

    First, you give them all the quizzes, have the discussions, etc. You get them buy in to the model as a framework. You sprinkle some Bible verses on it to make is sound Christian or whatever.

    Lets say, for the sake of discussion, the husband in this case “discovers” that his “love language” is “physical touch.” Because he was not raised under a pile of rocks, he KNOWS intuitively that if he makes a big deal of this, he risks sounding like a horn dog or some kind of creep to the therapist, so he downplays it. He does not admit that “physical touch” is really a euphemism for “hot steamy sex whenever I want it.”

    So the couple does this weird dance where everyone in the room KNOWS that’s what he means, but none of us can talk about it because the BASIC PREMISE of the entire exercise requires both parties to acknowledge the others “primary language” and then actually employ that language to make them feel loved! Men “feel” love (and express it) through sex, mostly. Its not a secret, but we have to act like it is.

    If you are reading between the lines, this is called “marital rape” if you push it too far, because the wife will almost always feel obligated to [euphemism for hot sex] with her husband to speak his language. The couple spends hours and hours “processing” what both of them knew from day one, which is he wants more sex, she wants less. It just now has a name. The husband can (and he better) spend millions of dollars for her “receiving gifts” love language, but the minute he says “um, when are you going to mine? I want to have an all nighter tonight. Can I call in my love language?” all bets are off, because “sex is different.” Whamo! No love language for you, sucker!

    Another scenario. The husband “discovers” his “primary love language” is something other than “physical touch” in which case–99.99999999999% of the time, I do individual sessions with the husband where he confides in me that he really just wants more sex and his wife has never really been that into it. So, whatever answers he gave on his original questionnaires were bogus.

    Men, in this society do this on these questionnaires for all kinds of reasons. The most common is shame for having to ask for more sex. ALL men feel like losers when they have to do this. So they try to game the process by working around it with all this smoke and mirrors about “words of affirmation” or whatever, when the problem is, and always has been, he married a woman who he thought he would be having WAY more sex with and now he masturbates in the bathroom every morning instead. His “love language” will NEVER be acknowledged. Not by his therapist, or his wife.

    This, by the way, is what Caterpillar345 is scared out of his mind is going to happen to him, because he is a normal, red-blooded male with a heartbeat.

    Which, of course brings me back the point of this entire article. Would you rather live like that or be single forever? All I am trying to do is figure out what the ingredients for a healthy, passionate, deep, marriage that is satisfying for BOTH people are. So far, what it looks like to me is this one factor:

    HER INITIAL ATTRACTION FOR HIM.

    That’s my hypothesis. Its not brilliant, but it seems to be a pretty stable predictor, based on my exeprience, not just in relationships, but as a mental health professional.

    Liked by 4 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      “That’s my hypothesis. Its not brilliant, but it seems to be a pretty stable predictor, based on my exeprience, not just in relationships, but as a mental health professional.”

      This is well stated and insightful. I hope you won’t take my subsequent criticisms as personal attacks or anything else other than genuine disagreement. As per science and mathematics, claims must be rationally examined and subjected to tests without concern for emotional appeal or personal preference.

      The claim is that 99.9% of men have physical touch as their primary love language.

      Let’s examine the evidence. Even with the wide variability inherent in surveys, men select touch as their primary language roughly 20±10% of the time. If we combine the claim with the measured data, this directly implies the secondary claim that 70-90% of men taking the surveys are lying “to sound deep and sensitive and sophisticated“.

      The results are fairly reliable, having been replicated many times. The measurements have been done over decades, in multiple populations, in multiple countries, in religious and non-religious contexts, formally and informally. For the claim to be true, men must be near universal liars even when they have no reason to lie.

      This is so highly improbable that we could just dismiss the claim outright without further consideration. But your experience says otherwise, so we should respect that evidence. Given (1) the nature of your profession as a psychologist; (2) the anecdotal nature of the claim; and (3) Occam’s razor, the simplest conclusion is that the claim suffers from extreme selection bias.

      The statistical evidence is overwhelmingly against the claim. However, the claim could be true if the survey has little or no psychometric validity—that it doesn’t actually measure what it claims to measure. As far as I am aware, this has not yet been shown in any formal or informal research outside of personal anecdotes.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Alright fine.

        Here are the main threats to internal reliability/validity in those studies-

        First, every one of them is conducted in the context of whatever culture they took place in, which when you account for all the various definitions of “love” it is impossible to know if they are even measuring what they say they are measuring. It is inconceivable to me that 70% of men worldwide express their “love” to their wives in any other way than through “touch.” My best guess as to why they respond that way is because the questions on those surveys are purposely misleading and confound a bunch of other constructs with the one supposedly being measured.

        I have conducted my own informal surveys of such topics, and the most telling one had to do with a “pleasurable activities” log. It was in the context of a study on how to reduce depression symptoms by engaging in ones “favorite” things to do with your partner. A list of pretty much all of the “things” in the world that person might find pleasurable and the respondent was asked to check off their 3 favorite. One of the things was “have sex.”

        I started to notice that pretty much every man had “have sex” as his number one choice. So I started to ask the men about this. What I found was they wished it wasn’t on the list at all. Further investigation revealed that they felt they had to “waste” a check box on something that was more than just a pleasurable activity. I was told the list should read:

        “After sex, what are your favorite three things to do with your partner.”

        The default position for men is SEX!!!!!!

        Followed by whatever else at a distant second.

        Now, one could conclude (as our society does today) that this is proof of the horn dog, animal like unsophisticated nature of men, and that’s fine. But its not how I interpret that data.

        You might ALSO say “well, ‘favorite thing’ does not necessarily correlate with ‘love'” Ok, believe that if you want. Your Occams Razor application says “walking around outside in the real world tells me that the majority of men need sexual release as the primary way to express love to their partners even if they aren’t so good at articulating it that way.”

        Secondly, I mentioned this before (and Sharkly alluded to it) psychology suffers from a deeply flawed replication problem. Getting an instrument to continue to perform in the exact same way over and over again means nothing if the initial premise if flawed. It doesn’t matter how many times you ask men “what is your love language” if the purveyors have a priori concluded that “love languages” is a thing in the first place. It threatens the integrity of all they do. I am not going to go read and critique every single “replication study” on a construct that failed so many times in my practice to solve a problem.

        Finally, if “love languages” was so effective at solving relationship problems, every therapist would do it, and marriages wouldn’t suffer from the abysmal satisfaction rates in the studies I mentioned in the OP. “Love languages” would be a goddam gold mine of a resource to fix all of that. Its been around a long time. Every mental health professional knows about “love languages” and has probably implemented it at some point with the same results as I have seen. They abandon it after a while because it doesn’t work.

        Efficacy is all that matters. Not “can I give this test over and over again and the samples keep answering the questions the same.”

        Only those invested in the books, the seminars, the economic benefits to them personally continue to ram it down everyones throats. (Or the tiny people in sexless –or near sexless marriages– who have received some benefit from it in their marriage).

        Its like saying “sure, most marriages are still in the same dump they were in before they started the program, but replication study!”

        Like

  20. Scott says:

    …and by all means continue to share links to peer reviewed journal articles written by authors who are already fans of the model, and therefore massage their p-values, massage their confidence intervals, and all the rest of it to “validate” a construct that has zero value when contextualized by our radically anti-masculine culture.

    Like

  21. Sharkly says:

    Well, I have read, or skimmed through the whole discussion and although I agree with points that both men have made, I find myself in between and agreeing with both at different times and some times I see them as representing two points on a spectrum, that can both be right depending on the individual. I have also seen some potshots that do not equal a valid argument.

    Neither of these men’s views are why I no longer go to the apostate cunt-worshipping churches. And I believe both men would be an improvement to the typical church.

    I will share a bit of my own experience and opinion. First off arguing psychology as though there is a provable right and wrong, like in a field of engineering, is laughable. It is theory after theory and the most groundbreaking research studies of the past are more often than not, not repeatable. I’ll stack my peer reviewed bullshit against your peer reviewed bullshit and lets see who has the biggest stack of bullshit, and the most fools buying into their emperor’s new clothes.

    Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    God basically says there, that psychology is mostly folly. Labeling a person’s disorder is a far cry from figuring out how that person can bring the greatest glory to God. Don’t get me wrong, these discussions need to be had, and what can be figured out, should be figured out, but, outside of the word of God, and common sense, much of the most solid “bedrock” in the field should be treated as the shifting sand that it is.

    If you want a dick measuring contest, I’ll take y’all on. Testosterone ain’t shit! Dihydrotestosterone is the king of androgens! And I have so much dihydrotestosterone, that it has been both a great blessing and a serious problem all my life. If I tell you half of what I could, Scott will label me as a narcissist. But thanks to a familial excess of DHT, that my father and I seem to have gotten the brunt of, I have genius IQ, I have surprisingly strong muscles for their size, I am hung like a pornstar, my beard is thicker than a yak’s coat in the middle of winter, my sex drive, ambition, and competitive desire to dominate, can each literally keep me up at night, and Etc. While I endeavor to become a balanced person, I was born on an end of many spectrums. Quite frankly being so absolutely masculine by nature has not been ideal for fitting into our feminized society. Being a genius can be aggravating not fun. Being hung like a pornstar is actually quite limiting sexually. I am literally tormented by my masculine drives in a way that can’t be good for my health. I’m a follower of Christ, who has never started a fight, but yet quite a few people seem terrified of me. Anyhoo, despite my overwhelming masculinity, I don’t usually feel a need to try to belittle others who are different from myself in expressing their maleness. Perhaps I don’t have that insecurity that would make me want to trash another man’s masculinity. While I find homosexuality an abomination and effeminacy is revolting to me, I don’t see Derek’s opinions as being any less masculine than Scott’s. When Scott told Derek, “please stop arguing like a woman.” It backfired in my mind, because Derek has largely kept his debate rational and about ideas, while Scott’s retorts seem more emotional and personal.

    Now, on to the topic:
    I once read that O.J. Simpson and Nicole had sex about five times a day on average. I remember thinking how that could really eliminate much free time for other areas of their lives. However it seems Nicole had time to squeeze in some sex with Marcus Allen and some others too, and I think O.J. also admitted being unfaithful. Anyhow, I recall thinking that about two or three times a day seemed like a more reasonable target for a balanced life, and would keep both parties sex organs less raw. I wonder about the seeming neediness Scott talks about regarding sex with his wife, and wonder if their is some issue keeping him or them from achieving more fulfillment. Now I myself don’t see myself being fulfilled with once a week, even if I had a telepathic connection with my wife’s brain and we were both fluent in three of our own private languages. At just once a week, I felt defrauded.
    My wife has Intimacy Anorexia, and so I’ve got some unique experiences. Anecdotes! My wife would endeavor to make sex an experience that distanced us, she would do her best to remove all the intimacy, and consistently add in fighting and insults, Some of her sexual behavior was pretty bizarre, but completely consistent with her intimacy anorexia. Anyhow, I found that sex, even when intentionally stripped of all intimacy, and filled instead with contention and insults, seemed to help me greatly and fulfill a real psychosomatic need that I had. I assume that if the sex was actually allowed to be bonding experience, it would probably be even better and still more satisfying.

    I got married firstly for sex. Per the Bible, It is better than to burn. I wanted a best friend, and somebody to share my life with, and all that, but since my wife reacts to any attempt at intimacy by intentionally making herself odious to me, sex is about the only interaction I still desire with her. Like Scott noted all marriage counselors will curse you in the name of their goddess of cunt-worship if you admit that truth.

    Derek, I’m not sure how, since you’re obviously so smart, but you have totally missed the point on makeup sex.
    For my intimacy anorexic wife, makeup sex was about the only somewhat passionate sex she ever gave. Otherwise her addiction would overrule and she would intentionally remove the passion to try to make the sex as degrading an experience for me while still achieving orgasm for herself.

    And, since it is getting late, I think I’ll share the answer that some of you are looking for:
    Relationships are not usually controlled by what you do as a man and a leader, the relationship is always controlled by the least emotionally mature partner. The relationship cannot grow above the point that the least mature partner will not sustain. So, if the man is the weak link, he can improve things, by getting his act together. But, in our generation, most of the time, the entitled victim spoiled feminist goddess(daughter of the King) is the more emotionally stunted one. So, almost all progress in the marriage is dependent on her maturing in Christ. You as a husband can do cartwheels, send smoke signals, hire a psychologist, call a prayer meeting, drop hints, but until your wife chooses to grow up, or has an epiphany, you’re stuck having the level of development in your marriage dictated by that rebellious immature girl’s selfish choices.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ramman3000 says:

      [SF: This comment was caught in moderation and I didn’t see it, so it wasn’t approved until 2020/2/29.]

      “Derek, I’m not sure how, since you’re obviously so smart, but you have totally missed the point on makeup sex.”

      No, I don’t think I have missed the point, but I have failed to communicate effectively. That’s on me, and I’m sorry for that. Please grant me forbearance and allow me to try again.

      Sex doesn’t sanctify the relationship. As Dalrock said:

      “It is marriage that sanctifies romantic love and sex, but in our modern rebellion we have twisted this around and assert that romantic love sanctifies marriage and sex.”

      Make-up sex is a fundamentally defective strategy. It puts the cart before the horse. The notion that sex can repair something that is broken in the relationship is backwards. It is a trendy psychological concept, sure, but it isn’t Christian.

      Note again Scott’s use of ‘committed partner‘ instead of ‘spouse‘. I don’t think you guys appreciate the significance of this. The notion that romantic love and sex sanctifies the relationship is embedded in this difference. Please, take some time to recognize this. It’s such a simple—almost trivial—difference in language, but it embodies what Dalrock was talking about. Make-up sex is de facto effective for both the married and the unmarried. Make-up sex is psychological and emotional manipulation that results in temporary positive feelings. It is akin to the effects of a drug. As you stated:

      “makeup sex was about the only somewhat passionate sex she ever gave. Otherwise her addiction would overrule and she would intentionally remove the passion to try to make the sex as degrading an experience for me while still achieving orgasm for herself.”

      What did make-up sex solve? It temporarily satisfied some your base physical and emotional needs, but didn’t sanctify the marriage or mend what was broken.

      Have I now stated my position clearly?

      See: Dalrock. “Does romantic love sanctify married sex?

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Jack, thanks for rescuing Derek’s comment from the spam bin.

        Derek was asked: “Ever have make up sex?” Derek said: No. It is not necessary. … If we had sex to cover over disagreements, it would encourage a false sense of serenity. … Make-up sex can’t replace repentance or forgiveness. It makes one feel good, that’s it. It’s emotional and psychological manipulation. … Make-up sex is psychological and emotional manipulation that results in temporary positive feelings.

        From reading your comments, it is now apparent to me that you and I have different definitions of what make up sex is, and that possibly you haven’t actually experienced it according to my definition.
        It seems as if your definition of make up sex, is sex that you would have to cover over a dispute, or to try to repair the relationship, a manipulative use of sex.

        For me it was a phenomenon I discovered, and never would have expected, and it is a bit counter-intuitive. Perhaps some fights are like a big shit test gone nuclear, and when you stand up to your wife, and stand up against her pleading and refuse to back down, and force her into accepting that she will not get her way, your expectation is that she isn’t going to be happy about that, and that she will treat me like shit for a long time to come over the fight. But then after a brief maybe 25 minutes of being apart, my wife who avoids all intimacy will return and initiate a rare apology, and initiate a lingering hug (which she never does), and I can suddenly smell the aroma of her pussy juice filling the room, and OMG! Unscheduled desperately passionate violent physical love making ensues, where for once I sense that she is out of her mind dying to be physically one with me and trying to achieve it with all the physical force her little self can muster. In a way she has already submitted to me, and the sex is a physical token of her repentance and desire to be reconciled to me, to reattach (which is not like her) and a strange desire and passion to be one flesh with me. It isn’t something she does to repair the relationship, it is something that happens after having just repaired the relationship, where she takes advantage of the repaired relationship to quench a sudden powerful passionate craving to be taken and give herself with wild passion to her husband who has become her Lord again.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        “…it is now apparent to me that you and I have different definitions of what make up sex is, and that possibly you haven’t actually experienced it according to my definition.”

        LOL. In the thread above, I was asked “Ever had make up sex?” to which I replied “No. It is not necessary.” I find the concept (in any definition) a bit… odd. I think I understand though. Thanks for the clarification.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. Sharkly says:

    A couple more thoughts:
    As your relationship is controlled by your immature spouse, society is encouraging her to see herself as a victim, and blame you for the problems, and reject any responsibility at all. Society is encouraging her to become even less mature and less responsible, when you need her to become more mature and take on more responsibility for things to improve. So as a “leader” you’ve got your work cut out because the opposition was plowing with your heifer from before you even knew her. It will be hard to get your average whore to swim upstream, against the current, like a redeemed Godfearing saint.

    Scott,
    I think you would come across better if you expresses guilt and shame and repentance whenever you mention your sexually immoral past. I know your field is dedicated to teaching against guilt and remorse and shame for what they feel are personal choices. But as a Christian endeavoring to share Christian values, I think you should hardly mention your fornication, but that in the same breath you don’t also express guilt, shame, and remorse. To act as though, this is what brought me to where I am today, and I wouldn’t have it any other way, is evil and self justifying. If your remorse is not genuine, and you refuse to be ashamed of your wickedness and you lack contrition, your church and all their tradition won’t be able to redeem you from going to where scofflaws belong. I’m not concerned with your past, but with the present. Do God and all of us the courtesy of focusing more on the shame and regret of your past, than how fornication gave you validation and made for great personal development. If that is what you’re thinking, it is foolish, and damaging to others. I hope I have just inferred your intentions and thoughts wrongly. But I don’t seem to recall hearing much warning to others against your past misdeeds.

    Like

  23. Scott says:

    Sharkly-

    Just a quick response to your last comment. Ill have to read the longer one later,

    I suppose its a function of the temporal, wall of text nature of the internet and blogging. However, all of my past blogs, and hundreds of comments on other blogs are filled my virtual genuflecting over my past. I grow weary of it sometimes — for the benefit of those who don’t or haven’t read every word I have ever written online. My wife too. She wrote a very long somber post on Russian Faith about hers that went semi-viral. Some people thought it was “courageous” and thoughtful, others took her to task for being too legalistic and hard on herself. You can’t win.

    I’m tired of starting every post with “I know I have a dirt bag sexual past, and here is a list every thing I ever screwed up and sinned about, BUT here’s what I think”

    It just gets old.

    Like

  24. Scott says:

    In other words, if I don’t do it, I’m a hypocrite

    If I do it too much, it’s salacious and titillating.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. lastmod says:

    Don’t know how mathematics crosses over into psychology…..perhaps with stats?

    Scott, I am tired of explaining in a church environment or “service” environment (Scouts et al) why I am not married, and how I am not a homo, pedo, or sick individual because I like working with young boys and teenage boys. I was trained to be a schoolteacher. I have passed every background check, and every time I want to help with children….out come men, and women…but mostly men wanting to know why as a straight man I like working with children…..and in the same breath, these same people want answers to why men are not going into teaching in the younger grades beacuse boys need men in their lives…..and then I have to deal with men who may or may not be like you defining manhood as sex. I also have a minor drug conviction…so no matter how long I have been clean and sober. No matter the mandated NA, which I have completed…..no matter my renouncement of drugs, no matter my actions and what I do…..I am still viewed as a “drug addict”

    We all have own “costs” of past sin or bad behavior to bear

    I could cite studies that most children are sexually abused by a family member………

    I am not taking sides so to speak because this way over my head. So, I’ll just say from experience.
    My parents had a healthy sex life I would assume. The were very discreet, it was their personality, and the type of marriage they wanted. I grew up in a home where my parents liked each other. They rarely argued. You and your wife seem to have something that is more intense in these matters. My mother got cancer at the age of 58, and of course could no longer have sex, and she died within a year. My father didn’t die. My father didn’t get upset. He had to deal……he had to adapt. Like was all do to situations when we get into them.

    Derek, I can relate a bit more for the fact you have special needs children. I know that well. That duty takes much of the intensity of sex I am sure and focuses it on the children who need that care. It;s not that you and your wife don’t like sex…it’s probably that energy and tension goes to that. I know for a fact that neither of you are like most married christian men I have met with dead cold bedrooms.

    I quit porn when I became a christian, and even after leaving….I have stayed away from it (ddi a lot of reading about it). Christian or not….viewing porn really isn’t good for you brain wise.

    Soul and R&B dancing takes an immense sexual tension off me…the ioi thing and other matters I face (bad, unfortunate genetics) you all know about. Dancing helps immensely in these matters…sexual dreams are still intense though…

    Anyway, carry on

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Bruce Batsche says:

    Men marry for sex (and children) more than for any other single thing. Yes, there is friendship, companionship, etc. But you can have that with male friends without the intersex difficulties, we have more common interests with other men, male friends complain less, spend less, etc. We can cook and clean and wash clothes (modern technology makes those things trivial) ourselves.

    The man gets sex/children (what he doesn’t have himself and can’t get from other men) and the woman gets the fruits of his labor, his loyalty (renouncing of his fallen, polygynous nature), his protection, seed, etc. Yes, it’s more than that but that’s the foundation. She gets these things from him until he’s old/dead, not until age 45 or a decade into the marriage or whatever- same for him.

    I can completely, 100% relate to what Scott is saying here. He’s right – the love language thing is BS – the King of Male Love Language is, ahem, “touch” – no shame in that. My “love language” created eight children with her.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Bruce Batsche says:

    What Sharkly said about DHT – inherited from your father along with your Tom Selleck-Magnum PI chest hair – this (DHT is a precursor hormone to T as well as acting independently) is seriously libido driving (the primary androgen in male sexual organs) and it’s not the guy’s fault – he didn’t ask for this. Couple this with the fact that women run around half naked and/or with pants so tight they’re a walking anatomy lesson, and (importantly) go OUT OF THEIR WAY, to display to men in the workplace/public AND are free to hit on men, saying things that would get men sent to HR (while officially being the harassment “victims”). So yes that IS “torture” (Sharkly’s word). So some poor bastard that comes home to a frigid wife – that’s a bunch of BS – and I feel sorry for that guy .

    If Derek has a higher level of continence, then God has blessed him – good for him (I mean it sincerely). But his experience isn’t every guy’s.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. lastmod says:

    Now Scott come on…..I think it is very evident that you do have a great marriage. The general Christian ‘sphere and all the frequent travelers do know this. I certainly do. It’s a good thing. I know you and Derek have something that is worth emulating. As a piss poor writer who is illiterate, but reads a lot……I saw a disagreement by Derek…….but not a reducing your deep physical love / intimacy with your wife being reduced to caveman levels, or low-brow, or something pornographic.
    My take on the piece was “I have lots of sex because I love my wife” and it could be taken….I said could….”well if you don’t have lots of sex with your wife….you are a lesser man, or a man with problems”

    I see the fight in you because I know what you and Mychael have is indeed deep…….and like my issues, if you post something in a forum…….like this, or Dalrock, or really anywhere…people are going to disagree. Tone and inflection (as I know) are VERY difficult to discern on a medium like this. What could be said as matter-of-factly, could to your own personal ears be an attack….I know that well. Of all people Derek……trying to paint you that way is a bit unfair…and Derek can attest, he and I have gone round and round over on Boxers forum on things.

    Like

  29. lastmod says:

    Derek wasn’t trying to paint you that way…let me make that clear at the end of my post. He wasn’t. Derek can be a bit like my high school Geometry teacher…….a little linear, but he’s not that type of man….

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Scott says:

    Don’t know how mathematics crosses over into psychology…..perhaps with stats?

    Yes. A PhD in psychology requires 2 years of research methods and stats in order to produce and consume the type of literature that we do. It is also a necessary discipline in understanding psychometrics, which is truly our bread and butter. (The thing that makes a psychologist different from all the other mental health credentials is assessment and diagnosis which requires the administration, scoring and interpreting of psychometric tests).

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Pingback: Opportunities | Σ Frame

  32. thedeti says:

    This is a great post. One that gets all the way down to it for marriages.

    I am not a psychologist. I am not schooled in mental health, or relationships, or counseling. I just know what I have seen over the past near-decade since I stumbled backwards into Roissy’s old blog. I’ve seen how deep the rabbit hole goes. And it is really all about this for male-female relationships.

    –It is all about how sexually attracted she is to you at the very start of the relationship. This one fact will determine the success or failure of the relationship. Our entire society and the laws governing interpersonal relationships have been geared toward ensuring that the woman’s sexual attraction is absolutely paramount in determining her motivation to have sex and continue having sex.

    It wasn’t always like this. Before, interpersonal relationships were governed by give and take, with each person giving something to get something. Now, it is all based on the woman’s feelings.

    –You must, MUST, find a woman who was very sexually attracted to you from the very beginning. You ABSOLUTELY MUST hold out for this. DO NOT get into any relationship with any woman where this is not present.

    –If that sexual attraction was not there from the very first interactions, it will never be there, she will never feel it, and you will never be able to generate it.

    This is important, and painful for most men to realize, but you need to read it:

    Most men will never have the kind of marriage Scott has to Mychael. Most men will never see their wives demonstrate that level of hard, visceral, sexual attraction for them. Because most men do not inspire that kind of sexual attraction in most women. Most men are not attractive enough to inspire it.

    See that pic up there, of Scott and Mychael’s wedding where Mychael is giving him that look of love and admiration? See that?

    MOST OF YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO EXPERIENCE YOUR WIVES LOOKING AT YOU LIKE THAT.

    What most men see is women feigning that level of attraction to extract commitment from the man they happen to be dating at the time they’ve decided it’s time to get married. Most of the affection and love and sex wives give husbands is done not out of genuine love or affection, but out of duty and obligation.

    –That does not mean you will be unable to marry or stay married to a woman who didn’t have that initial hard visceral sexual attraction. It does, however, mean that your marriage to her will be very hard. Sex will be, at best, there to scratch the itch and keep your sexual urges in check. That is the best your sex life will ever be.

    This is what most marriages in late 20th-early 21st century America look like.

    There are a lot of causes for this, and if you want to read about them, consult Dalrock’s archives.

    You are never going to see studies from the social sciences that say what I just said up there and what Scott said in his post. Know why? Because women, and their sycophantic male “allies”, will never admit that what we said is true. When evidence from experience and observation bears out what we say, there is great hue, cry, wailing, and gnashing of teeth from every corner. Shouts and accusations of “misogyny” and “hatred” and “incel” and “bitter” arise everywhere.

    Women simply are completely unable to admit this, because if they did, they’d have to admit that they couldn’t get commitment from the men they really wanted, and that they are miserably unhappy because they either (1) waited too long; or (2) settled too much. Their allies are completely unable to admit this, because if they did, they’d have to admit that most marriages under the current sociological model are in near complete failure.

    And…. women would have to take a look at themselves. Women would have to look at what THEY are doing to cause the current problems. Women would have to compromise and learn to live within their compromises. Women would have to admit that the hot fun guy sex party train wasn’t real. And women would have to admit that they weren’t good enough, attractive enough, or valuable enough to secure commitment from the men they really wanted. And… most women would have to start GIVING in return for all that TAKING they’ve been doing over the last 70 years or so.

    And when you get all the way down to it, THAT is what is going on here – women won’t admit they squandered their sexual value. They won’t admit that in the long run, their bodies by themselves weren’t enough to get commitment. They don’t want to admit they were wrong. They don’t want to admit to what they’ve done. They don’t want to start helping clean up the wreckage they’ve caused. And they don’t want to do their share of making their relationships (relationships THEY FREELY CHOSE) work.

    It’s time we all admitted this. It’s time we all faced the facts. It’s time we just acknowledge that the only way a marriage can get a man what he wants in 21st century America is to find a woman who is head over heels for him, so viscerally sexually attracted to him she can’t see straight, wants to f&/2k him so badly she starts ripping his clothes off of him whenever she sees him. And it’s time we admitted that most men just don’t inspire those kinds of feelings in most women.

    It’s time we admitted that most men and most women are not getting what they want from their relationships with each other. Most men can’t meet most women’s wants/needs today. And most women don’t want to even try to meet their men’s wants/needs today. And why should women try? All of society encourages them NOT to.

    It’s just not working now. It just isn’t. It’s time we admitted that.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. thedeti says:

    –That does not mean you will be unable to marry or stay married to a woman who didn’t have that initial hard visceral sexual attraction. It does, however, mean that your marriage to her will be very hard. Sex will be, at best, there to scratch the itch and keep your sexual urges in check. That is the best your sex life will ever be.

    That, up there, right there – THAT is what most marriages are really like. Men married to women who really just aren’t all that sexually attracted to them.

    The reason is primarily because most of those women came to their marriages with varying levels of sexual, social, emotional, mental, and psychological baggage. They had some premarital sex with men they REALLY wanted and were really attracted to, but the relationships and couplings did not work out for one reason or another.

    They had to settle for men who were still attractive, but not the ones they really wanted. They had to settle for men they were kind of sort of attracted to, but not AS attracted as they were to the men they had sex with when they were younger. There is some attraction there. But there is not enough to sustain the marriage through normal marital stressors.

    When you couple that normal situation with the current legal and social environment in which marriages are worthless, commitments mean nothing, promises are not worth the paper they’re printed on, and women are encouraged to walk away from their marriages with cash and prizes, you have half of all marriages ending, and a significant portion of the remaining marriages limping along on life support – remaining together because that’s what they’re supposed to do, “for the kids”, and because of the loss of money, status and reputation both will suffer if one or both decide to blow it up.

    And yes, yes, I get it. Men play a role too. Men are fat, out of shape, uneducated, untrained, underemployed, unemployed, uninteresting, unattractive, unimaginative, boring, passive, timid, sexually illiterate, pornsick, can’t get it up, can’t or won’t make moves, and just generally screw it all up. Yes, yes, I know. But can we, just for once, just one time, take a look at other people’s roles? Can we just for once not blame it all on men?

    Liked by 1 person

  34. lastmod says:

    deti

    That’s a posed photo. My parents wedding photo has a similar look, and they were not having sex all hours of the day, missing work, sneaking away to do it on the kitchen floor, or before myself and my brother came home from school…………….my parents worked for a living. They had to.

    The frequency of sex doesn’t mean a good marriage. The Bobbits (remember the woman who cut her hibbys penis off). Evidently had a very active, and intense sex life. Look how that ended up. The Rideouts (1970’s) crazy-all-the-time sex, a good marriage, she divorced him…..so Scott’s first girlfriend hand the “tingles” hard, gave the ioi’s at sixteen……….this means she would have been a good wife? probably not.

    It’s a bit more than that. A factor….but building a marriage purely on sexual attraction is a little lacking in depth from a supposed “alpha” like yourself.

    Scott has a great marriage, and a good sex life. A good thing.

    I don’t think Scott in this post is blaming women. He is “kind of” bragging that if you don’t have a marriage like him….you might or could have a “not so good marriage”

    Maybe I’m wrong.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Jason:

      I’m not an alpha and never claimed to be.

      Like

    • thedeti says:

      @Jason:

      “That’s a posed photo.”

      Maybe, but women can’t fake that look. Women can fake a lot of things, but they cannot fake that look. If you go on reddit, I’d suggest a subreddit for you to look at

      reddit.com/r/girlsmirin

      It’s just photos and video of women showing raw, hard, visceral sexual attraction at and for men. It is real. It is subconscious. It cannot be feigned.

      Women cannot fake it. That’s why it’s called VISCERAL sexual attraction – it’s in their guts. It’s an involuntary response. Women cannot fake this even if they wanted to; and what’s more, they can’t conceal it either.

      Like

  35. Scott says:

    Jason–

    I think Deti is referring to this. The post was written by Mychael a couple years ago (and includes the same photo) but has a few more.

    https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2017/12/21/a-little-something-different/

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      I hope Jason will note the photos in that link are not all posed photos. Most of them are candids.

      Again – girls cannot fabricate that look.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        Another step to add to the alpha / Game / Frame playbook:

        When you are dating take TONS of pics, have your friends and experts go over them to make sure she has that visceral look. If she does. You have the Alpha’s blessing and approval of marriage……if not, dump her and lock down a woman who has this…if you do marry a woman with this look and she divorces you “you were foolish for using a picture to determine if she would be a good wife or sex partner and you should have followed Darlocks rules for vetting, read DS’s book, became more Alpha……..”

        But they can fabricate everything else?????????????? GTFO

        Like

  36. lastmod says:

    Scott, a bunch of wonderful pictures. No denying that. Your wife loves you. She trusts you. You have not only a good marriage, but a solid friendship, partnership and well defined roles in your marriage.

    So, now you can tell by a picture if a woman is into her man and “he’s leading” and thus determine if his marriage is in trouble or if his wife has or doesn’t have the “tingles” hard for him.

    I’m not buying that. So if we happened to have a picture of your wife when she is indeed upset with you, she still will have the “tingles” look on her face? This is determined how?

    My mother had no idea where she was the last weeks of her life, her picture is a blank stare…..and she looked like an Auschwitz captive…..cancer is evil……so by this could we assume she doesn’t or never loved my father, and his marriage was in trouble?

    Scott, do you ask your potential male clients or men you are helping “Bring in your wedding photos, I will look over them and determine to see if you wife ever really liked you from day one.”

    No, you don’t do that, and if you do………I would even question some of your skills in your respected profession. It just comes off to me by all this, “see my wife thinks I am ‘it’ and if your wife doesn’t have this ‘look’ it means your marriage will be like the one I wrote in my post about “Probabilities””

    Again, I am not attacking, or putting down your marriage, your prowness or manhood……nor is this commentary on your wife. She is an attractive woman, then and now. She loves you, and you have a good marriage……but linking a good marriage to sexual frequency isn’t the basis for a good one.

    I see where you are coming from….but putting stock in a woman’s “visceral” look is like thinking Hollywood actors are not pretending either 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Pingback: The extent of attraction | Christianity and masculinity

  38. lastmod says:

    Just noticed that DS did a pingback….and since I have been banned from his forum, I did the proper thing and checked his take on this. He admits there is some great discussion, but (as usual) “stands by what he has been saying for years”

    This is part of the problem “you men who can’t “meet cute” just shower, learn game / frame / social cues / the secret language of women / whatever, go to the gym, put your nose to the grindstone and you are gonna meet a woman……..and if you don’t? It’s still your problem…you must be bitter, not trying hard enough, and need to read more stuff to fix whatever is wrong with you. My advice is foolproof, men thank me everyday for making them into real men”

    I agree with Scott (I know, its surprising). For many…not all….not most…but for many, a solid swath of the single men in church and out and about……….if this “meet cute” doesn’t happen by a certain age……it plummets fast. It becomes almost impossible over the age of 30 and it pretty much is fifteen thick of concrete on top of you by the time forty creeps around for men like this.

    DS and a few others will claim these men “just brought it on themselves” and “they didn’t improve themselves” and he assumes all these men are overweight, entitled mouth breathers who live in the trailer park across the tracks in his hometown.

    Far from the truth.

    I don’t have the solution, and I would not be surprised if at least some aspects to this could at least be started here in this forum……..yes, if these men want to marry over the age of 30…they will have almost impossible odds (a man like this is not going to marry a 18 year virginal church girl). He marries a single mom? He’s a beta loser. He goes for the mid twenties gal “he needs to stick within his own age range” and the classic “no good women are left….we, the married men got the good ones. We’ll slam you even if you DO find someone”

    I like how he also assumes if a man is single, never has ‘met cute’ he infers that he “must be into Dungeons & Dragons” (add any slap here….Star Trek / Star Wars / comic book collecting). Yes, many are…..but far too many are not….and I would know a “tad” more than him on this.

    Scott being the “natural alpha” (for lack of a better term) did the right thing by mentioning this because the men in this situation cannot say this without being pounced on by men like DS throwing the “you’re bitter, just work out….women don’t care about looks bullsh*t”

    Anyway……my ban by Dalrock I can’t complain about. I dared him to ban me. He did. DS on the other hand is like most christian men I dealt with for well over twelve years “I’m right, you’re stupid” attitude and his ban of me was a little cowardly.

    Like

    • Jason,

      I’m going to ignore the jabs as you do have some good points which are worth discussing.

      I agree with Scott (I know, its surprising). For many…not all….not most…but for many, a solid swath of the single men in church and out and about……….if this “meet cute” doesn’t happen by a certain age……it plummets fast. It becomes almost impossible over the age of 30 and it pretty much is fifteen thick of concrete on top of you by the time forty creeps around for men like this.

      I think you’re right about this. However, the age where it starts to be substantially harder for single men from what I’ve seen is late 30s early 40s.

      The interesting thing is that divorced men don’t seem to have as much of a problem remarrying as the single men to marry at this age and later. Part of this may be looks related, but I also think part of it is behavior related.

      I don’t have the solution, and I would not be surprised if at least some aspects to this could at least be started here in this forum……..yes, if these men want to marry over the age of 30…they will have almost impossible odds (a man like this is not going to marry a 18 year virginal church girl). He marries a single mom? He’s a beta loser. He goes for the mid twenties gal “he needs to stick within his own age range” and the classic “no good women are left….we, the married men got the good ones. We’ll slam you even if you DO find someone”

      In regard to statistics, what I write about is about risk and risk tolerance.

      Is marrying a single mom a bad idea? Much more than a virgin for sure. Can you have a godly and successful marriage marrying a single mom? Yeah. I’ve seen several in many different Churches, but the divorce rates are much higher too. I’d say it’s riskier but each man can figure out his own risk tolerance and what he wants to do.

      “Beta loser” are your words not mine.

      Also, the reason why I banned you was because you couldn’t stop attacking people, especially for things they did not say (e.g. “beta loser,” “D&D assumptions,” etc.). I can see that hasn’t changed. I like Star Trek and D&D myself, so there’s no reason why I would insult my friends and I. But it’s generally true that many people who run in these crowds may have issues with their looks and behaviors that make them unpopular with women.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        Your insecurities and vigor to defend them DS is a bit surprising. Just stumbled on your reply here.

        You banned me. You claim I was “bitter” and “didnt want to change”

        Then have to come on here and defend yourself but couldnt do this on your own forum.

        Then still arrogantly stand behind everything you say and again use your christian stance as some point that you just know more than anyone else.

        Dealt with men like you inside church for a long time. Hence why I left.

        Scott for all the times i have found him a bit “im better than you” at least in the past few posts on here has at least been looking at this situation differently. I applaud this….not because it “justifies” my stances or situations but for the fact he is at least pondering “hmmmm some of what is going on / something isnt connecting or working with many men”

        He didnt give solutions. He doesnt have steps. He didnt tell us why. He just said it. Some of the best solutions come from decent ponderings like this.

        Who knows what could come out of it.

        The last thing men like myself need is another book. Another guide. Another plan. Another workshop. Another slap telling us “looks dont matter / but be in shape have muscles / lead a bible study”

        If you want to take this further. Effing man up unban me and faceoff with me like a man instead of cloaking your self righteousness behind your flimsy faith.

        In the while….I am planning my next trip to England, perfecting my DJ-ing and mixing. Dancing like real Mod and enjoying myself. Otherwise dont reply to me. Argue with my positions on your forum.

        Like

      • @ jason

        I’m not going to unban you. The false accusations and rudeness are are a no go, as such things are listed in the about section of the blog.

        If you can stop and present logical arguments without talking about me at all (e.g. accusing me of arrogance, insecurity, self righteousness, flimsy faith, etc) then I’m open to it.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        Look in the mirror. Logic…..hilarious. A christian talking about “logic”

        You guys cant even agree on what jesus said and in what context but have solutions to all the problems men face through this fairh.

        Just work out. Have muscles. Be a leader. Looks dont matter to women

        Theres you solutions.

        Good day to you.

        Like

  39. Pingback: Trajectories | Σ Frame

  40. Al Blazek says:

    Hi Scott, I didn’t even realize you were writing a blog again. I figured you’d get back into it – hard to stop once you get the bug.

    I’m going to stay quiet for now and see how these conversations develop but wanted to wave hello in a public forum. So howdy.

    Like

  41. JPF says:

    I’m late to the party, but a few comments.

    Scott writes We are like puppy-love struck teenagers at 48 and 46 years old, 4 kids and 13 years in…

    I am very pleased to see your success. Obviously the credit goes to God, you and your wife, (and possibly some to your friends/families/church).

    My deeply religious friends say I am a libertine and that I have not mastered my passions

    My immediate response to such religious criticism is two words long, with a swear-word involved.
    Matt 23 talks about Pharisees adding burdens to other people. God gave enough commands, we do not need holier-than-thou people adding more.

    Derek/ramman3000 wrote With ~55% of first-time marriages (not correcting for factors like religiosity) going the distance. The average first-time married couple is paired for life, has sex once per week, and has two kids.

    Perhaps you did not write what you intended, or I am reading in too much. Scott mentioned the annoyance of having people expect perfect prose for everything written. With that in mind, the last statement is highly deceitful. If not outright dishonest in intent.
    You admit in the sentence before that, in your opinion, only ~55% of first-time marriages go the distance. With 45% of first-time marriages ending in divorce, to claim the “average first-time married couple is paired for life” gives a very false summary.
    A vastly more honest statement would be:
    The average first-time married couple has about a 50-50 chance of ending in divorce. Of the slightly-over-half portion that don’t end in divorce, the average is paired for life, has sex once per week, and has two kids.

    While I am married, and very strongly desired that, I also agree that marriage is a really bad idea for men in our social/religious/legal context, with the only exception to that being the one given by Paul in 1 Cor 7:8-9 — if they burn with passion. In other words, a desire for sex.

    So does dopamine, which is part of the reason men get easily addicted to sex and don’t know when to stop (see below).

    I would be concerned with any man whose bonding with his wife was dependent on the emotional manipulation of daily sex. That is not what I would consider healthy.

    Then I think you have a problem with God. The bonding that results from sex is due to the design with which God Almighty created us. I made clear to my wife, prior to marriage, that sex would be top of the list. Not near the top. At the top.
    I also listed out the top 5 or so desires I had, and then specifically pointed out to her that all of them, except for one, related to her body at least partly. For any person who claims this shows I am not spiritual / mature enough, I have the same two-word answer I mentioned above.

    “cut and paste your last comment next to the heading “the main reason men don’t go to church anymore.”

    That’s a large claim. Can you back it up? If not, it is worthless.
    I cannot speak for every man. But the refusal to affirm the marital rights given in 1 Cor 7:1-9 is part of why I left English-speaking churches. Every time I go back it is a reminder that the places are businesses or servants of Satan/women. Perhaps not 100%, but the effect is close enough.
    So yes, for some, Scott is correct.

    Sharkly, thanks for your comment. In particular, I think this quoted part is essential for Christian men to understand… and also something I never heard in church.
    Relationships are not usually controlled by what you do as a man and a leader, the relationship is always controlled by the least emotionally mature partner. The relationship cannot grow above the point that the least mature partner will not sustain. So, if the man is the weak link, he can improve things, by getting his act together. But, in our generation, most of the time, the entitled victim spoiled feminist goddess(daughter of the King) is the more emotionally stunted one. So, almost all progress in the marriage is dependent on her maturing in Christ. You as a husband can do cartwheels, send smoke signals, hire a psychologist, call a prayer meeting, drop hints, but until your wife chooses to grow up, or has an epiphany, you’re stuck having the level of development in your marriage dictated by that rebellious immature girl’s selfish choices.

    This is similar to the research I have read that indicate that the person least-invested in the marriage is the one with the most power. Because that person is willing to walk away, the other has to keep giving in to prevent the end of the marriage.

    Jason/LastMod writes every time I want to help with children….out come men, and women…but mostly men wanting to know why as a straight man I like working with children…..and in the same breath, these same people want answers to why men are not going into teaching in the younger grades because boys need men in their lives

    The same hypocrites will demand easy divorces for women, and beat up on “dead-beat dads” who are no longer liv‌ing with their children.

    Bruce writes Men marry for sex (and children) more than for any other single thing. Yes, there is friendship, companionship, etc. But you can have that with male friends without the intersex difficulties, we have more common interests with other men, male friends complain less, spend less, etc.

    This is another critical idea, that I have never heard in church. Women are never asked what they expect to provide, above what a man could get from any of his existing friends.

    Deep Strength: Can you have a godly and successful marriage marrying a single mom? Yeah.

    Unlikely however. She already tossed one man; should the second expect better?
    Or she took up with a bad boy, who “strongly” was willing to disobey society’s rules and toss out his wife. Should the “weak” man who submits to God’s rules expect that he will compare favourably with the first? (alpha-widow)
    Or she is a harlot who had sex without marriage. Deut 22 suggests there is something wrong with her later trying to marry. Although the husband was not required to have her killed-this exception is important to note.
    And Christ’s teaching, to his followers, in Matt 5:33-34 about it being adultery to take another man’s wife. Note that this command was not given to everyone, in fact Moses allowed the Israelites, as a nation, to divorce. The Matt 5 command was given to people who were already disciples of Christ — Christ gives a higher standard. I do not see this additional teaching given to pre-Christians.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Pingback: Sexual Consent in Marriage | Σ Frame

  43. Pingback: New Page: Argumentation and Debate | Σ Frame

  44. Pingback: List of Female IOI’s | Σ Frame

  45. Pingback: On the Significance and Value of the Meet Cute Experience | Σ Frame

  46. Pingback: Hopelessness | Σ Frame

  47. Pingback: What’s good for the goose is bad for the gander. | Σ Frame

  48. jakeseg says:

    That axiom is brutal.

    Something I hope I never have to realize too late.

    Like

  49. Pingback: The need for Marriage Education | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s