The Train Wreck – Speculative causes, influences, and alternate outcomes

What has she NOT been saying?

Readership: All
Author’s Note: The content of this post is based on email conversations between NovaSeeker and Jack.
Reader’s Note: This post continues discussing The Rise of the Amateur Sex Industry (2021 January 4).  Readers may like to read this post first before continuing.
Length: 4,200 words
Reading Time: 17 minutes

Introduction

In my previous post, The Slow Train Wreck — A Cautionary Tale (2021 January 18), I discussed a frightening case study. The story started off with a typical suburban wife with two kids, active in serving in her church, and apparently very happy. Then she discovered the online world of Instagram and OnlyFans, and something propelled her into the dark world of the online amateur sex industry.

This post will convey some speculations about how or why this could have happened, including some possible influences. We’ll also discuss some other outcomes that may or may not have been possible.

A Few Thoughts to Consider

  1. The lifespan of a typical marriage in the U.S. is reported to be 7 years. If a couple can make it past 7 years, they are likely to stay in it for the long haul. H+W’s marriage broke down right at the 7-year mark.
  2. Is it possible that only the popularity and attention could be responsible for pulling her away from family and children to make this transition?
  3. Jack and I both suspected that, sometime during her rise to stardom, W must have had some kind of sexual experience that corrupted her mind. This experience could have been something like having a lesbian affair, a tryst with a handsome photographer (or pastor?), or sleeping her way to stardom (having sexual liaisons in exchange for certain opportunities for promotion). But of course, she would never talk about such an experience. Is there any evidence for this being the case?
  4. Feminism has had a weighty influence on western society and women in particular. Does this show up as a factor that tipped W over the ledge?
  5. Red Pilled men know that women are easily guided by the herd mentality. Did the W have any influence from other women that would lead her this way?
  6. Was W anything of a gold-digger? Did she have the innate desire for money, wealth, and luxury?
  7. It is assumed that there has to be a bit of reciprocal cooperation for a train wreck to happen, or at least consent from the spouse, even if that simply means looking the other way and taking no action. This is exactly what H did.

In the remainder of this post, we’ll discuss each of these ideas.

The Seven Year Itch (1955), Tom Ewell, Marilyn Monroe

1. The Seven Year Itch

Early on in my research on this story, I noticed the marriage started to break apart right at 7 years (2016, when W made her “self-discovery” regarding her sexual orientation), and that this fits the wider profile of marriage “data”.

The seven-year mark was when things started to unravel, and then the following year (H=36, W=33 , M+8, 2017), things really started to take off.

I think another “time” element is the age of the children.  When the eldest reaches the age of going to school (including pre-school), the “post-nesting” mindset can creep in, meaning that she seeks to evaluate other options for re-mating, or at least getting out of this nest. (In the past, this behavior was taken as a male trait, but these days, females are adopting many male traits, particularly because they can currently do this without suffering any adverse financial consequences.)  If there are other, younger, kids around who are not old enough for preschool yet, then this can be tamped a bit, and I think this played a role here, at least in part, in terms of delaying the process of unraveling by a year or two.

Kid #3 was born in 2016, and when W finally pushed things over the cliff in 2019, she didn’t have any children who were younger or on the way who would encourage her to tamper down her instinct to leave the nest.  In 2020, she knew that all the kids would be of pre-school age, with the oldest being 10, so she was ready to re-nest.

Finally, Rollo Tomassi’s well-known theory is that women often progress on a life trajectory that is roughly as follows: (1) the “party years” from 18-29.999999999999 when hypergamy rules all dating choices, (2) the “epiphany phase” of lane-changing, seeking different men for pairing than in the party years, and marriage, and (3) the “re-seeking alpha” phase in the mid to later 30s, when the woman leaves her husband/partner to seek more sexually hypergamous mates while she is still young/attractive enough to do so effectively. In this scheme, it is worth noting that W is 35 by the time she leaves, which puts her comfortably in the “re-seeking alpha” behavioral age range.

In summary, all of the timings lined up like a constructive interference:

  • The 7-8-year itch, when things really started to change inside W in ways that made the marriage shakier.
  • The desire to seek alternative mates (re-nest), based on youngest child’s age.
  • Rollo’s “re-seeking alpha” phase in the mid to late 30s.

2. Addiction to Attention and Affirmation

It is also possible that W is such an attention addict that the attention she was getting from her Instagram followers in and of itself encouraged her to blow up the marriage in spectacular fashion.

I think in the case of W, however, it appears that it was more that she reconceived her self-image, bought into a new set of ideas, and so on, and this was happening around the same time that she was also, on a parallel track, discovering that she liked having an audience — a LOT — due to her public speaking and preaching that was taking place during that period.  I think then the two tracks got merged in her head, and once she ditched the church due to adopting her “LGBT” identity and the related ideology, the track that related to craving the audience and attention got rolled into the new ideology, and her new life plan emerged. Instagram of course plays a role here, too, because she starts at some point to get a lot more comments on her appearance, and this also feeds the “audience”/attention track that was developing within her.   

So you have all of these mingling and interacting inside W:

  • The “LGBT” stuff and her growing adherence to feminism and its sex positive variant.
  • Her growing awareness of the depth of her craving for attention and an audience and doing what it takes to attract and maintain that.
  • Instagram, and later OnlyFans, providing just that by means of her appearance and sexiness.

Put all of those together and the “new W” emerges out of the other end of the chrysalis at some stage.

3. Sexual Defilement

Jack and I both had the same thought — Didn’t there have to be some kind of actual sexual event here that put her firmly in the direction she was on?

If this did happen, she has covered it up more or less completely, which is normally what you would expect a woman to do, because that’s what women do in this culture about their infidelities.   It would mess up her story royally if she had an affair with a photographer or something.  Again, nothing even hints of this in her feed, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  It’s true that W has been very outlierish for someone in her chosen line of work in terms of not separating her private and “professional” lives (as almost everyone in that industry does for numerous reasons), despite her kids (I mean heck they are on the same feed as her softcore porn Instagram), but that still doesn’t mean that there isn’t something she is hiding.

It does make logical sense that there was some sexual event like an affair or something that set this off, sometime in 2016 or 2017, but if there was, we will likely never know.  Rollo explicitly asked this question to her H a few times in his interview, but her husband doesn’t seem to think so. Then again, there were a lot of things he was missing at the time and not seeing so he may not have noticed and even today not have any basis to know.  Women can be very good at hiding this specific thing if they’re determined to do so.

There is, however, one tell in that area.  She does talk about how she is sexually free, and how she had a hard time realizing her own pleasure and so on.  At some point in the 2016-2018 period it appears she became more adept at having an orgasm (giving herself orgasms, it would appear), and it seems unlikely that the H was the origin of this discovery.  It seems much more likely, based on what she does say (which is not much, it’s bits and hints here and there), that she either learned this with another lover during this period or, perhaps, by looking at feminist sex-poz orgasm education material.  Either is possible, but given how she looks, and what she was doing at the time, my money would be on the lover option.  It could have been another girl, could have been a guy. I don’t read her as particularly lesbian at all (and she fairly recently claimed that she has never had sex with woman), but my guess is that at some point in her transition, someone really rang her bell, hard, and taught her how to do so, and seeing how this apparently had never happened with H, then this became another problem for H.  H of course doesn’t mention this, but that’s the kind of thing you don’t expect a man to mention because it points the finger at his sexual prowess and, in any case, it is possible, even likely, that W never mentioned this to H specifically as well.

Of course, care needs to be taken here, because this is purely speculative based on snippets of what W says here and there. She never says any of that explicitly, but if you read the tea leaves it’s at least even money that it’s there.  It would just make sense of everything.

4. Feminist Inculcation

Deti famously said that “ALL women born after about 1960 are marinated in feminism and are feminists”. We can see this clearly in W. She has been a feminist and a progressive since she was young.  She may not have been militant about it, but she was a feminist.  She also was rebellious from a younger age.  She tussled with her parents as a teen about body piercings and such, and was sexually active in high school behind her parents’ backs. Her prominent nose ring isn’t recent, she had it before she met H.  She also probably has a higher N than H suggested (although reviewing the interview with Rollo he never really said what her N actually was but that he knew it wasn’t 0 when they married).

In sum, she wasn’t pure at the time of marriage, and she was also a feminist from the beginning, just not “LGBT”-identifying. The picture that is emerging is that she was a more typical soft left feminist college grad who was still a Christian (at least nominally) when she married and thereafter, but in no way was she a conservative Christian when she was married or thereafter.  She may have been in an evangelical megachurch, and may have agreed on the teachings about “LGBT” at the time, but otherwise she was a soft left feminist the whole way who later became a more hard left feminist with the “LGBT” stuff coming into the picture.

5. Herd Influences

W had a sea change in perspective during early 2017, and I am fairly certain the ideas came from somewhere outside her own head.

Jack and I both read comments somewhere that said, “[W] changed when she started hanging out with Glennon Doyle and Amanda Frances.” I didn’t really see much in W’s feed or other articles about her situation that links into much about either of them, apart from a couple of mentions in her feed about reading Glennon Doyle’s books.  Still they could very well have influenced her.  I am sure that she interfaced with quite a bit of online feminism and empowerment personas, and I think this is a key to when her mind began to be influenced in that direction.

Glennon Doyle’s story, as rough as it may be, is pretty different from W.  Doyle is very much on the lesbian side of “bi”, and W, as we’ve seen, is not — W’s “bi” is much more theoretical than actual and lived.  Glennon went from a straight monogamy situation to a lesbian monogamy situation, and W became a basically straight sex worker.  There were influences from “LGBT” ideology in terms of sex positivity and female physical/sexual empowerment, but it seems like they were broader and much less of the “lesbian marriage” type.  Also Doyle seems to really dislike men (unless they are like her puppy dog/doormat ex-husband), sexually and otherwise, like most radfems do, and something that also seems to happen with “bi” women who opt for the lesbian side (misandry is as common as dirt in the lesbian world).  However, W is clearly not like this.  She likes men and male sexual attention, but wants them on her own terms.

Amanda Frances seems more likely as an individual source of influence on W because she spouts the same self-empowerment “if you believe it strongly enough, it will happen” claptrap, almost verbatim, as W does.  But from what I have seen, W doesn’t mention her by name. After getting an impression of W through Instagram, I honestly doubt that she came up with the empowerment claptrap all by herself. I think it’s likely that she was either influenced by Frances or by whomever/whatever influenced Frances herself.

But still, she was clearly influenced by people *like* these, even if it was not these two women specifically.

6. $$$

As I was reviewing W’s Instagram feed, it became clear to me that while all these other things were happening, she was developing a deep desire to be rich.  Not economic security, but rich, as in luxury.  She had numerous posts about how much she loves money, how she wants to have a lot of money, how it’s garbage to believe that chasing a lot of money is bad, and so on. She is in large part driven by money as an end in itself, not just attention.  After she leaves H, this comes into full fruition in terms of her actions and life decisions.

W started her OnlyFans site in October 2019, right after the separation happened and she moved out of the house she shared with H. 

At the end of December 2020, the W posted her earnings numbers on OnlyFans for 2020.  For the first 9 months of her OF (through June 2020), she was earning between $250 and $400 per month total from the site.  Then over the summer of 2020, that increased to around $500 per month, and then in September, which is when her story appeared in the New York Post article, her OF literally blew up over night. In the four months since (Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec of 2020, respectively), W earned 31k, 54k, 20k, and 33k.  Her post says that the total lifetime earnings on OnlyFans is 178k gross, but as we can see the last four months’ account for 138k of that, and the rest trickled over 11 months.  It was basically pocket change until September 2020.

A few takeaways from that information:

  1. She must have gotten to know someone who introduced her to the New York Post reporter for that story. It is simply very unlikely that a small-time OnlyFans content provider in Southern California, earning $300-$400 per month, would have attracted the attention of anyone at the New York Post unless she happened to meet one of them by chance, or she met someone else who knew someone at the New York Post and could make an introduction. This event was the critical one for W, because it was after that story in the New York Post, that W’s narrative went viral, was covered by many media outlets nationally and internationally, and drew all kinds of attention to her OnlyFans page.
  2. W admitted to the New York Post that she had planned to engage in escort-style prostitution back before COVID hit in March (she told the reporter that she had a “date” planned, and that she was okay with the concept of being paid for providing that service, but that she canceled it due to the COVID outbreak), and that would make sense in that she hadn’t earned much at OF at all by then. At that time, she had only earned about $1,600 over 5 months.  I would guess that the prospect of earning that much or more in 1-2 “dates” was pretty attractive to her at that time.
  3. I would further speculate that she went through with that plan (she had, after all, already mentally accepted it as feasible for her), once COVID calmed down, and possibly was engaging in this activity during the summer of 2020 over the summer as well. It seems likely to me that it is at this time that she would have met whomever provided her contact to the New York Post — either someone who worked there or someone who knew someone who did — which led to the story that blew up her business plan. I would speculate that this either happened through recreational “dating” or through escorting, but if I had to guess … given the financial elements involved (she mentioned in the New York Post story that the first foray into that “business line” that she had planned prior to COVID would have involved her being paid a few thousand dollars, so not exactly a cheap trick), it was through the latter.
  4. In any case, at this point W’s annualized income from OnlyFans, even assuming zero growth, is $400k. If she can keep her OF at this level — heck, if she can manage to keep it at half that level on an annualized basis — she won’t need to go into extended “business lines”, so my guess is that W will focus on growing and maintaining her OF cash flow, while trying to find other ways to monetize on an even bigger scale — her Instagram hints at plans to try to do talk radio, or reality TV, or something like that.

In summary, W appears to have been very highly motivated by money as an end in itself and, unlike most women who make the choices she has in the pursuit of riches, she appears to have actually cashed in some well-sized chips so far — so she has been effective at leveraging her appearance, her charm (for all of her craziness, she is capable of being quite charming and affable in her manner, as one would expect of a former bartender, and I expect that she has used this to great effect with her OnlyFans subscriber base to retain them from month to month), and leveraging selective personal relationships to great effect. She’s focused, and it shows. H admitted to Rollo that, by contrast, they struggled at times financially during the marriage — something which makes me think that W feels quite secure that she did the right thing by leaving H, as evidenced by her bank account.

7. What could her husband have done in response?

H made a lot of mistakes in the marriage, both personality/permissiveness-wise and he seems to have been clumsy sexually as well, while being married to a woman with a very high libido who is prone to throes of extreme passion (that comes out in her writings). 

Her husband made a lot of mistakes of permission along the way, and he openly admits these, but at the same time it’s very easy to see how this relationship could have gone sideways on any man, given how sweeping and fundamental her transition was, in the end.

On the behavior of the H, yes he certainly cooperated with her without question.  He knows he messed up now by facilitating what she was doing and encouraging it, both actively (he was her Instagram cameraman I think at least for a while, as is normal for BF/H types, at least “at first” before the pros get involved) and passively by not hemming her in when lines were crossed again and again. 

I do think that it wasn’t easy to see that at the time, given their established dynamic.  I think that changing a long established relationship dynamic that has been in place since the couple met is virtually impossible — it means essentially starting the relationship from scratch again, and at that point people can (and often do) opt for the exits rather than do the hard work of building a new dynamic. 

Now, had he done that anyway, things may have been better by ending things before they got as far as they did. Perhaps she would have ended up differently if she was divorced earlier, who knows?  But I don’t think that the marriage would have survived that at any time following, say, 2016 when she decided she was LGBT.  He needed to push back there, hard — and he sees that now — and he didn’t.  If he did and she bucked and he insisted on upending the dynamic, they may have ended up divorced then and there, but perhaps she wouldn’t have gone down the same road she did otherwise.

I don’t think they were equally responsible.  She bears a bigger responsibility because she behaved selfishly and narcissistically and seems clearly to have demanded to go the way she had determined, marriage or not.  H should have stopped things before they got to that place, but even if he did the marriage would probably have died earlier (again, as I said earlier, perhaps that would have been better, but we don’t know that).

She also is reprehensible for having her kids on her sex worker IG feed — even today! She clearly has very poor personal judgment to say the least and is very self-centered and narcissistic.  She seems very immature as well for someone of her age — very prone to claptrap and sloganeering and not actual hard stuff, but at the same time she is focused and disciplined in terms of what she wants.  It’s just that what she wants is quite selfish.

We can look back on everything that happened and see that her husband could have done something to upend the W’s transformation process, but it probably would have simply blown up the marriage earlier.  And, that could have been better in terms of leading to overall different life outcomes for W, which would have been better for the kids, but that’s hard to say.  In all, it was a marriage that likely would have been hard to fix, although by far the best shot H had was after she went faux-LGBT, and he failed to do it.  Once he did, it was likely impossible to save the marriage, and the further things went on, the worse she got.

Conclusions

In all a tawdry affair all around, sadly.  I feel slimed by having delved into it so far, but at the same time the dive has clarified many things and makes the whole situation a lot less mystifying and more intelligible.  The “fall from grace” wasn’t really a thing.  She was always a bit of a rebel, a feminist, and very sexual.  This kind of thing was always a somewhat higher potential in her than in other women, I think. but not to the degree that she was an outlier — there are plenty of other women with W’s profile out there who are not outliers and have the same profile of soft feminist, highly sexual, and a bit rebellious when younger.  Of course until recently, things like OF simply didn’t exist so what she is doing would not have been possible, but it does, so it is.

It’s a true train wreck — horrible but fascinating at the same time and hard to look away from.  I also think that the story is important for men, because of what happened.  Not because of what W did specifically — although in that regard it does call into mind a new set of risks that simply didn’t exist for men even 10 years ago! But it’s important to see the kind of dynamic of events of how things can unravel slowly and the kinds of things you need to look for and act upon when they are happening.  It’s an important story for men to read and reflect upon I think.

Anyway, I’m officially done with researching this topic and slogging through the slime of the OASIS. But I felt it needed to be done in faith so that others wouldn’t have to do so themselves or, even worse, live through what H just did. There’s something about reviewing the train wrecks that serves to clarify our vision and to be more circumspect, thankful, and hopeful.

Related

This entry was posted in Building Wealth, Choosing A Profession, Courtship and Marriage, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Feminism, Influence, Internet Dating Sites, Media, Models of Failure, Sanctification & Defilement. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to The Train Wreck – Speculative causes, influences, and alternate outcomes

  1. cameron232 says:

    Here’s an anecdote from this weekend related to this series.

    The wife uses a female photographer she knows for our family pictures. The photographer is a typical megachurch evangelical I think.

    Her clients’ photo albums are uploaded to a site. All her clients can view all her other clients’ albums. She doesn’t have a lot of clients – pretty small time.

    Three different women, all mothers and/or wives had family or wedding albums and also had a personal “sexy” album (viewable by all other clients).

    Nosy as I am, I looked at the albums. Sexy lingerie in the bed pics. Asses up in the air ready to be mounted. Tops taken off but nipples covered by hands. One also did photos in the bathtub. Photos in the bathtub included see through top with full breast nudity. There was a third woman whose album I didn’t look at because it looked like BDSM type attire.

    Another detail. These women weren’t good looking. One brunette mom with three kids and a husband was average looking mom. Bathtub girl was a bleach-blonde fatty with her lard ass up in the air and ugly tats, fat boobs. She has a much older husband.

    I relate this because I have been skeptical during this series about how many women are vulnerable to this sort of thing (it’s easy to find loony outlier stories in the news). I probably have a strong normie bias. I have assumed also that women’s very average or even below average looks would be a barrier for most of them. Nuh-uh. Not surprising really when every woman is an amazing goddess.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Yup.

      And keep in mind these are women in an evangelical church (yes I know megachurches are often filled with shallow Christians, but they are large and have many people in them). These are the women who, in theory, have more restraint than average, secular women do. But they also see what the “other” women are doing on Instagram, and they are imitating them … even if the pictures are intended only for the husband’s eyes in their cases (presumably … in theory she could send them to anyone, of course, at a mere swipe of her phone …).

      Women generally pay attention to what other women are doing.

      Yes, there is a core of very devout, moral Christian women who do not do that in terms of observing and imitating, to some degree, behaviors of non-Christian women. That’s true.

      But most women in churches are not in that core. Most are Christian, yes, but also they live much of the rest of their lives in a way that is similar to other non-Christian women — to the way that the culture proposes that women live their lives, in general. It’s very hard to escape that, because the influence of the culture is all-encompassing and pervasive. The only way you do it is if you are very deliberately acting differently — you have to be conscious, deliberate and aware … if you are the normal type of person who goes with the cultural flow, you will flow with the culture, wherever it goes, and racy pics are now where the culture is at, for women. The better looking ones (the bar for this is surprisingly low … you can find slightly above average looking women who are monetizing their looks to some degree on Instagram if you look around … there are just millions of thirsty men out there) can monetize those pics by building followers on Instagram and then upselling them on Patreon or OnlyFans, while the others are using them privately with their husbands, or maybe just for their own self esteem, or maybe even to have a discreet affair in some cases. But the behavior is out there, and it’s not “uncommon” or “outlier” today. Not in the least.

      To the contrary, it’s the outliers who are the ones who are surprised by it.

      Liked by 5 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Good looking women don’t have to try to monetise their social media. Simps from all over will offer to buy them phones and clothes and stuff like that in the 1st message the simp sends.

        Truth be told there is no way to keep women from monetizing their SMP value. That can take form in way to many ways to count. From marrying wealthy dudes to be straight up hookers to everything in between

        Liked by 5 people

      • Ame says:

        on a visit to my boyfriend’s family when i was 16, his mom showed me her new photos – i just about fell over. they were nudes of his mom and his sister, who was younger than my boyfriend. this was early 80’s. also, growing up on the beach, clothing was optional, bathing suits normal, and girls, especially, liked bikini tops that tied so guys could come up behind and untie them easily.

        when i moved to texas to go to a christian college, the same things were found only very veiled. it was said that town had a high abortion rate. girls were puking in the bathrooms on the weekends from too much alcohol. sex was common. the presented ‘conservative’ in public during the day but let loose at night and on the weekends.

        so idk if the behavior has changed all that much – the motive … but the means and opportunity have sure exploded with technology.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Oscar says:

    She was always a bit of a rebel, a feminist, and very sexual. This kind of thing was always a somewhat higher potential in her than in other women, I think. ~ Nova

    What are the odds that H found W exciting precisely because of her rebelliousness?

    Let’s face it, men. If we didn’t find rebellious women exciting, the Bible wouldn’t need to warn us to stay away from them over, and over, and over again.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      That may be true for many guys. I never preferred rebellious women. Sweet and gentle is the best female personality to me.

      I wonder if higher SMV men tend to like rebellious women. At a subconscious level they know they have plenty of options if her rebellion becomes too difficult.

      Male tradespace for mate selection is hotness vs. agreeableness (opposite of rebelliousness). Higher SMV male is more likely to take a chance on a hot but difficult woman.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Male tradespace for mate selection is hotness vs. agreeableness

        Well, yeah, hot chicks tend to be more rebellious, because they can get away with it. On top of that, rebellious women (whether hot or not) tend to be more sexually available, and sexually adventurous, which – let’s face it – is exciting to most men.

        H is not the first man to try to turn a whore into a housewife. The axiom exists for a reason. I saw it constantly in the Army.

        Besides, I’m 45, and I think you’re older than I am. This really isn’t about us. It’s about our sons, future grandsons, nephews, etc.

        Proverbs 5, and Proverbs 7 warn young men away from immoral women, and “crafty harlots”.

        Proverbs 7:11 She was loud and rebellious,
        Her feet would not stay at home.

        If men didn’t find such women exciting, there would be no need for the Holy Spirit to warn us to stay away from them. The warnings are there for a reason.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Pretty close – I’m 46.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “H is not the first man to try to turn a whore into a housewife. The axiom exists for a reason.”

        Yes this angle with H didn’t seem to get explored much. Was he trying to do this? Was W a girl he married that kept her from ‘going the full way of the CC rider,’ i.e. he pre-emptively turned the would be ‘whore into a housewife?” In other words, had she run her natural course, promiscuous teen and then single woman throughout her twenties, would this have been what she would have become without H’s ‘interfering’ in the progression? Idk. The thing about these stories, many times there are parts left out. If he did wife-up a would have been CC rider before she got to ride the CC fully, maybe she was ‘destined’ to jump back on it given the chance. This Ride CC-Marry the Beta-Hop Back on the CC after a few years and a couple of kids, keeps popping up trope like all over the Manosphere.

        Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      Probably true, but on any 2009 scale, W would not count as “rebellious” to anyone other than the tiny group of ultra-Christian outliers like us. W was a mainstream evangelical/Baptist Christian girl when H met her — she wasn’t a steetwalking whore dancing on the tables in bars and so on. She had the kind of natural rebellious phase that is common to many women, including many Christian women, during her younger years.

      What she wasn’t, however, was a member of the outlier/pure/devout set — that’s clear. She was a mainstream church-going Christian, but not an ultra-Christian outlier, or a “true Christian”, from the point of view of people like us.

      So I think that the moral of the story from that perspective is that you can only pick a wife from among the small group of ultra-Christian outlier/pure/devout set in order to avoid running this kind of risk, otherwise you are taking your chances. I think that’s basically true as well.

      It’s worth pointing out that H himself was not a member of the outlier/pure/devout set of Christians, either — he pretty openly says this in his Rollo interview. So perhaps it’s simply the case that for two church-going mainstream Christians, this kind of thing is now the expected norm, more or less. Certainly it appears that way, based on what Cameron observed in his comment here earlier.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        … on any 2009 scale, W would not count as “rebellious” to anyone other than the tiny group of ultra-Christian outliers like us. ~ Nova

        Now that I think about it, it’s even worse than that. The average American Christian can’t even imagine a woman being rebellious, because in order to be a rebel, one has to oppose a legitimate authority. The average American Christian can’t conceive of any authority over a woman that could possibly be legitimate.

        Certainly her husband couldn’t possibly be a legitimate authority over her. Why, that would be patriarchy!

        It’s likely that H never even saw himself as a legitimate authority over his wife.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        It’s likely that H never even saw himself as a legitimate authority over his wife.

        Yes he openly said that to Rollo — he was an egalitarian/complementarian. Rollo asked him. He changed his mind about that, but of course you can’t do that very easily 10 years in.

        In any case, I think that the number of Christians of either sex who actually see husbands as having legitimate authority over their wives numbers in the low thousands, at most, in the entire US. It’s a tiny outlier group. And that is the group that men need to look for wives in … but they also need to be members of that group themselves, of course.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. thedeti says:

    I’ve skimmed Nova’s excellent piece and will read it more carefully later. My thoughts are mostly on what the Husband could have done, what the early warning signs were, etc.

    First, my overarching observation is how any criticism of all this is shouted down with antijudgment sentiment and cries of “sexism” “misogyny” “insecurity”. How women get to this point is by getting everyone to withhold judgment or at least not express judgment. How men get to this point is by withholding judgment or refusing to take action because they do not want to rock the marital boat (or try to steady it in the face of W rocking it), nor appear “controlling” or “abusive”. The claims of the day when an H attempts to put his foot down on something are that he’s “abusing” her or trying to “control” her. It is very possible that any attempts he made to forestall things were met with protests of “you’re judging me!” and “you’re abusive and you’re trying to control me!”

    The implicit threat in such a statement is:

    “You are an insecure little man with a small penis who is trying to chain me to a stove and keep me barefoot and pregnant. How dare you judge me and cast stones at me! How dare you accuse me of things I haven’t done (yet)! How dare you attack me! You’re just a sexist who hates women. You’re being controlling. You’re hinting at me that I’m doing something wrong. You’re protesting at me and telling me I cannot do something and that is abuse. I don’t have to let you abuse and control me. You keep this up, I will divorce you, take most of the marital assets, leave you destitute, and you will never see the kids again. And you’ll never get to have sex with me again. I’ll tell the kids what a mean ogre you are. I’ll tell the court what a sexist and misogynist you are. And I will tell all our friends and family what a mean, insipid, insecure, woman-hating, petty little man you are and how you were abusive and controlling.

    (As an aside, a prime PUA tactic in maneuvering a woman into bed is to say and do things indicating freedom and nonjudgment. “I think a woman should be free to do whatever she wants.” “Hey, no judgment here. You just be who you are!” “It’s all good. Let’s just go with the flow, see what the vibe and energy is in the moment.” No one likes being judged or constricted. But women really don’t like it because of how judgment and restraint make them feel. For women it is all about how she feels about everything – herself, her marriage, her kids, her job, her place in the world, the meaning of life, God, you name it. Things like OnlyFans and the new sex work help her feel good. She gets money, validation, attention, freedom, all of it, and it feels soooo good to a woman.)

    It’s easy to see where the problems began and eventually ended up. It’s tougher to say what the husband could do or should have done. Almost all the time, he has to put down a hard “no”. He has to draw a line in the sand and say “no more” and then he has to tell her to roll it back and she can’t do those things anymore. Or, she can do those things, but she will no longer be married to him. Women have upper hands here since most of the time they will be able to demand alimony and child support. I think husbands will have to decide whether they’re willing to live with it, or fight.

    This is difficult because most men are conditioned to continue compromising so as to keep the peace. Most husbands in H’s position will continue letting a wife push and push and push. They’re conditioned this way because of Women Are Wonderful and because “a good Christian husband trusts his wife” and “any husband who tells his wife ‘no’ is abusing and controlling her” and “judging a wife and telling her no are ‘unloving’, and violate the command to husbands to love their wives”

    It may well be that a man will have to give up his marriage and save himself and hopefully his children. most men faced with this will have to put down a hard “no” and “you cannot do this and remain married to me” and “your behavior is unacceptable to me” and “my wife does not do this. You can do this if you want, but – listen carefully – my wife does not do this. But, I think that once it gets to this point, the marriage may well be over.

    Men can stave this off or at least keep eyes on it by :

    1) manage the household finances. I don’t think husbands should delegate this task to wives. I think husbands should do it. Husbands need to know where the money comes from and where it’s spent and who is spending it.

    2) Laying down expectations for the relationship from the get go.

    –frequent sex at reasonable intervals. No exceptions. No excuses. Deposit copious amounts of yourself into her, frequently, as often as you reasonably want, and she needs to be open to that and cooperate fully. A married woman has frequent sex with her husband. Period. Full stop. She starts withholding unreasonably, you call it out, immediately, and you tell her this is absolutely unacceptable. You’re going to leave for a bit and give her some time to think about whether she wants to continue being married to you and that upon your return, you will expect an answer and then conduct consistent with said answer. A married woman does not act like that. A married woman does not refuse her H unreasonably. She doesn’t like it, there’s the door.

    –no contact whatsoever with exes. None. No talking, no social media, no DMs, no “catching up”, no “we’re just friends now”. A married woman does not act like that. A married woman does not maintain any contact with men she used to date/have sex with. She can act like this if she wants, but she will be doing it as a divorced woman.

    –no close personal friendships with other men. No talking, no social media, no texting, no DMs, no “we’re just friends”, no getting lunch together, no “work spouses”. A married woman does not act like that. A married woman does not get overly familiar with men she isn’t married to. A married woman does not maintain close personal friendships with ANY men other than her husband, regardless of W’s intentions, the men’s intentions, or the nature of their acquaintance (personal, church, professional, etc.).

    –no posting lots of selfies on social media and especially no posting selfies in sexy or suggestive clothing. Lots of selfies on facebook or IG or other social media sends the following message: “Check me out. Aren’t I hot? Wouldn’t you like to have sex with me? If I think you’re attractive, I might, despite being married. Even if I wouldn’t have sex with any of you, I really really love the attention I get from this.” A married woman does not act like that. A married woman does not let anyone see the goods even if she has no intention of letting anyone sample the goods. A married woman does not let anyone even think that they might have a chance to see the goods. She doesn’t like that? There’s the door.

    I don’t care that this sounds abusive or controlling. I don’t care that this sounds restrictive. The fact is that a woman who agrees to marry agrees to forsake all others, leave her family, and cleave to her husband. In this context, cleave means she joins herself to him in such a way that she can’t be separated from him. So she agreed to those restrictions. She agreed to give up much of her control over and freedom with her own life (as he agreed to do the same with his life). She agreed she would do those things for him. She agreed to “have and to hold”. She made promises to him. She needs to either keep those promises or leave the marriage, or not make the promises in the first place. She doesn’t get to have it both ways. She doesn’t get to have all the benefits of marriage with none of the obligations. She doesn’t get to be a married woman but act like an unmarried women. No. Men have to say “no”.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      This is difficult because most men are conditioned to continue compromising so as to keep the peace. Most husbands in H’s position will continue letting a wife push and push and push. They’re conditioned this way because of Women Are Wonderful and because “a good Christian husband trusts his wife” and “any husband who tells his wife ‘no’ is abusing and controlling her” and “judging a wife and telling her no are ‘unloving’, and violate the command to husbands to love their wives”

      It may well be that a man will have to give up his marriage and save himself and hopefully his children. most men faced with this will have to put down a hard “no” and “you cannot do this and remain married to me” and “your behavior is unacceptable to me” and “my wife does not do this. You can do this if you want, but – listen carefully – my wife does not do this. But, I think that once it gets to this point, the marriage may well be over.

      Yes. H himself goes into exactly this in some detail in his YouTube interview with Rollo.

      Basically, H was conditioned not to interfere, as you say there. What made that eventually change was when she continued to post lingerie and other sexy professional shots for weeks on end on Instagram, and it was leading H to have panic attacks, elevated heart rate, sleeping problems and the like. It was flight/flight reaction, even though at first he mentally ran from the obvious conclusion as to what was causing it. Once he could deny the cause no longer, he put his foot down, finally, told W it had to stop, and the marriage ended. Hew fully recognizes that he waited far too long to do that, but I think, from everything I have heard and read about their relationship from the beginning, and as that was reflected and documented in the IG record, that dynamic in the relationship went back to day one, so it would have been no small task to “reset” it at any time during the course of relationship. He picked the worst time, and he admits that openly, but my own view is that if he pushed back earlier, the marriage would have ended earlier … once 2016 happened, the die was cast, more or less.

      For people in other relationships, if you already have a dynamic like H and W had (Christian egalitarian/complementarian) then be prepared for something to blow up at some stage unless you reset the dynamic now, when you have the chance. Bear in mind that resetting the dynamic at any time, even when there is no pending crisis, can in and of itself result in the marriage ending if the wife decides she “doesn’t want a marriage like that”. But if you don’t do it in order to avoid that, you may very well end up in the same place. The moral is “do not have a marriage like that” … but if you’re already in one, well … you have your work cut out for you, that’s for sure.

      Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        Bear in mind that resetting the dynamic at any time, even when there is no pending crisis, can in and of itself result in the marriage ending if the wife decides she “doesn’t want a marriage like that”. But if you don’t do it in order to avoid that, you may very well end up in the same place. The moral is “do not have a marriage like that” … but if you’re already in one, well … you have your work cut out for you, that’s for sure.

        This is true. What W did was not so much change the rules, but continue moving in the same direction as the preexisting rules suggested would be acceptable. What happens with men trying to turn their marriages around, especially going Red Pill, is that they are not only stopping the flow, but reversing it, regressing it, and setting a new set of rules and expectations. I did this in my own marriage when I couldn’t take it anymore. I imposed a new set of rules and standards Mrs. deti had to comply with, or the marriage would end. I took enormous risks in doing so. I knew full well I would see one of two reactions: (1) she digs in her heels and refuses, in which case the marriage would end at great financial cost to me, social cost to her, and emotional/mental costs to our kids; or (2) she accedes to the “new normal”, in which case we go into uncharted territory and we proceed slow and steady and in which I must have a firm hand on the wheel from here on out.

        My marriage started out much like H and W – egalitarian/complementarian, but with a less than optimal sex life. I think that if I had forced the changes in year 1 or 2 when we were childless, or even in year 5 when we had a 2 year old, the marriage probably would have ended. Forcing the changes in year 15 was different probably due to our age and maturity, the crippling financial and social consequences we would have sustained, and the attitude I think she had of “I did pick him, I did promise him, I know what God has said about this, and do I really want to ‘die on this hill’? Do I really want to force the issue, because, well, I think he’s really serious and I think he means it.” And, well, I was dead serious and I did mean it. I was prepared to walk that all the way out, hard as it would have been.

        I’m setting this out not to pat myself on the back, but to illustrate one possible result when a man forces new rules to stop a wife’s marital misconduct. A possible result from slamming the brakes on the marriage, bringing it to a complete skidding stop, turning the vehicle around, and forcing a complete change in direction. “Either the car stops now and we’re going somewhere else, or I’m bailing at full speed and that won’t be pretty.”

        Liked by 5 people

      • Oscar says:

        …. that dynamic in the relationship went back to day one…. ~ Nova

        So, a rebellious woman chose a passive man, and vice-versa.

        We need to teach our sons, nephews, grandsons, etc. that it’s crucial for them to test the women they date for agreeableness. Find opportunities to tell her “no”. There’s no need to be mean about it. Calmly tell her “no”, and see how she reacts to it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        And, well, I was dead serious and I did mean it. I was prepared to walk that all the way out, hard as it would have been.

        I agree with the principle that this kind of resolve is required to turn things around in terms of reversing an established dynamic, but the issue here is Christianity as well. Different kinds of Christians have different kinds of rules about divorce, but none of us permits divorce because our wife won’t agree to a certain relationship dynamic — rightly or wrongly. If you make a credible threat to walk, and you do walk, knowing that this is not “accepted” as a reason for divorce in your church, you could be making a mistake of eternal proportions, I think.

        It’s truly a box for Christian men.

        The only real solution is as Oscar says — marry a true outlier woman and vet her for compliance/agreeableness, hard, during the courtship phase and avoid the issue from day one.

        Of course, it can still go sideways, as Ton says happened in his marriage (people can always change, and some people will change in ways that are not predictable), but your risks seem lower if you do it this way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Different kinds of Christians have different kinds of rules about divorce, but none of us permits divorce because our wife won’t agree to a certain relationship dynamic — rightly or wrongly. … It’s truly a box for Christian men.

        I think doctrinally we have to adjust, because this ungodly scenario is clearly not God’s intent, for the divine ordinance of marriage to be used as a satanic lever to force the man to hearken unto the voice of His wife.(original sin) If she begins defrauding you of sex, per 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, that defrauding is by definition immoral and a sexual sin, thus it is the sin of sexual immorality.(Strong’s Greek: 4202. πορνεία porneia) used in Matthew 19:9 “… except for the cause of sexual immorality(porneia)…”
        Also, if she moves out, or divorces, then:
        1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

        We have to be prepared to make a judgement that those who willfully and unrelentingly do not follow God’s commands, are not “God followers”, but have become their own goddesses or servants of some other influence. No man/woman can have two masters. Proper faith in God results in serving God.(observable works) The continuing willful refusal to obey God is evidence of their unbelief. Making them an unbeliever, despite their unfounded claims to the contrary.(“Lord, Lord”) Those who are repentant, do works commensurate with repentance.

        So, if the wife is unwilling to stay together or to provide sex, they can be declared an unbeliever, (right or wrong) by your own spiritual headship as an agent under Jesus Christ. And they can be divorced. Otherwise, if they want to stay together and will provide for your sexual need, and claim to be a believer, then bear with their crap as you try to wash them with the word to hopefully eventually present them to yourself without spot or blemish.

        That’s just me thinking out loud. What do y’all think about that?

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        Different kinds of Christians have different kinds of rules about divorce, but none of us permits divorce because our wife won’t agree to a certain relationship dynamic — rightly or wrongly. … It’s truly a box for Christian men.

        I think doctrinally we have to adjust, because this ungodly scenario is clearly not God’s intent, for the divine ordinance of marriage to be used as a satanic lever to force the man to hearken unto the voice of His wife.(original sin) If she begins defrauding you of sex, per 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, that defrauding is by definition immoral and a sexual sin, thus it is the sin of sexual immorality.(Strong’s Greek: 4202. πορνεία porneia) used in Matthew 19:9 “… except for the cause of sexual immorality(porneia)…”
        Also, if she moves out, or divorces, then:
        1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

        We have to be prepared to make a judgement that those who willfully and unrelentingly do not follow God’s commands, are not “God followers”, but have become their own goddesses or servants of some other influence. No man/woman can have two masters. Proper faith in God results in serving God.(observable works) The continuing willful refusal to obey God is evidence of their unbelief. Making them an unbeliever, despite their unfounded claims to the contrary.(“Lord, Lord”) Those who are repentant, do works commensurate with repentance.

        So, if the wife is unwilling to stay together or to provide sex, they can be declared an unbeliever, (right or wrong) by your own spiritual headship as an agent under Jesus Christ. And they can be divorced. Otherwise, if they want to stay together and will provide for your sexual need, and claim to be a believer, then bear with their crap as you try to wash them with the word to hopefully eventually present them to yourself without spot or blemish.

        That’s just me thinking out loud. What do y’all think about that?

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Nova

        “but the issue here is Christianity as well…..”

        I don’t think it has to be the threat of walk/divorce and I’m not into this manipulation/dread game BS. You simply lay down the law. She can leave or she can have you removed from the house. You didn’t divorce her – the sin is NOT on you. You are not in sin to enforce your authority as a husband and are not responsible for the consequences IMO.

        I find the idea of being married to a woman like this so disgusting that I genuinely wouldn’t give a shit. Her divorcing you would be freedom.

        If my wife pulled this crap, I’d become the controlling monster they accuse men of becoming. Her phone, the internet router, whatever would be smashed into a million pieces in front of her and the kids and the kids would fully understand why. Every penny of my money would be pulled from our accounts. I guess i’m selfish (“think of the children”) but I’d get my way or burn it all to the ground.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        So, if the wife is unwilling to stay together or to provide sex, they can be declared an unbeliever, (right or wrong) by your own spiritual headship as an agent under Jesus Christ. And they can be divorced. Otherwise, if they want to stay together and will provide for your sexual need, and claim to be a believer, then bear with their crap as you try to wash them with the word to hopefully eventually present them to yourself without spot or blemish.

        It’s a sticky wicket. Cane Caldo had the best solution to it, I think. It was something like this (paraphrasing).

        –A man married to a woman who persistently refuses sex and who will not remain with him can be declared for all intents and purposes an unbeliever, and he is free to divorce. He is not free to remarry. If at any time she repents and expresses a willingness to return and to provide sex, the man is required to take her back.

        Agree, don’t agree, but that seems to be the best route to take and most consistent with our faith. It’s the route I would have taken had Mrs. deti dug in her heels. I would not have remarried, mostly because after this much time and my age I just don’t have another marriage in me. This also doesn’t include what happens if she commits adultery. Protestants hold that when adultery happens, the innocent party can divorce and remarry. They also hold that when an unbeliever leaves, the innocent party can divorce and remarry. Catholics hold marriage absolutely indissoluble until one party dies, regardless of either party’s conduct during the marriage.

        This calls on married couples at times to make very very hard decisions, many of which include legal divorce but remaining spiritually and religiously bound to the spouse, meaning according to our faith you’re not free to remarry and you may not have sex with others.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        It has always been the case that many marriages broke down for the same reasons we see here. Lack of attraction, won’t have sex, fundamental incompatibility, “growing apart”, people who can’t get along with each other, someone develops an addiction, job loss, what have you.

        In western cultures, before no fault entered the picture, married couples found all sorts of ways to deal with this while not getting divorced. Most times, the man just masturbated. Or if he had spare money he hired the occasional cheap prostitute. If he had more social status or wealth, he took on a mistress or a “kept woman”. The man kept this on the downlow, to preserve his status and wealth, and to avoid bringing shame on his family. The wife didn’t like it, but tolerated it as long as he was discreet and she kept access to the house and the money.

        Among the lower and working classes, the couple would simply separate. This happened with some frequency among married couples when the kids were grown and gone and the marriage had long ago completely broken down. They took up different residences, separated out their finances, and lived completely separate lives. Usually, the estranged husband contributed to his wife’s support mostly because he was legally required to and because as long as he kicked in an allowance, she left him alone to live as he wanted. He gets what he wants: He lives as he wants, has illicit sex with whom he can get, and he no longer has to live with a woman he can’t stand. The wife gets what she wants: continued financial support without having to live with and have sex with a man she can’t stand.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        legal divorce but remaining spiritually and religiously bound to the spouse, meaning according to our faith you’re not free to remarry and you may not have sex with others.

        Right.

        Remarriage is where the rubber generally hits the road. No church formally approves of sex outside marriage (all look the other way, as has been discussed, but not formal approval). So what people do is divorce, and then either have sex outside of marriage while the church looks the other way, or avoid the church altogether, and then address the issue, if any, if and when they want to remarry. That is generally where the circumstances of the divorce are scrutinized, if at all, by the relevant church.

        That is, even in churches that consider the divorce itself to be sinful in those circumstances, the situation generally doesn’t become an issue per se with the church unless one is in church leadership (in which case you generally lose that) or you want to be remarried. For Joe average Christian in the pew, that means remarriage is the most likely context.

        So if you don’t remarry, the issue normally doesn’t arise. For Catholics it can arise if they civilly remarry after a non-anulled yet civilly divorced marriage, because the Catholics won’t (or aren’t supposed to … some priests will) give the sacraments to such persons or allow them to be sponsoring parents for baptism. For Protestant Christians, given the sheer proliferation of ecclesiastical options, it appears that the primary constraint is internal (i.e., — what does the individual think they are bound to, before God), because it seems likely not very hard to find a Protestant church who would remarry you under the described circumstances. Eastern Orthodox generally get the muilligan provided that the circumstances aren’t egregious (they won’t let you remarry the person you left your spouse for, etc.).

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        No church formally approves of sex outside marriage (all look the other way, as has been discussed, but not formal approval).

        Most Protestant denominations look at divorce and remarriage like this

        “We would really rather you didn’t divorce but recognize there are circumstances where it’s necessary or advisable. Divorce is allowed under those circumstances but not condoned. You should not remarry after divorce, but recognize that extramarital sex is sinful. Remarriage is allowed to prevent sin.”

        In other words, “these are all very bad for your spiritual and temporal condition, but living unhappily with an incompatible spouse is worse. Living the rest of your life without (allegedly) licit intimate companionship is worse. So, we will reluctantly allow divorce and remarriage in these limited circumstances (that expand with each passing demand for this or that exception).”

        You all might chuckle at this. But what I wrote up there really is the approach of most Protestant faiths. It’s “we know it’s sinful, but doggone it, people are unhappy, and it’s difficult, and we have to do something to help them. Plus, people get mad at us when we tell them (correctly) they don’t have biblical grounds for divorce, and they threaten to leave the church and the faith, and we just have to make this compromise so people will be happier and won’t get mad at the church or clergy and will stay and keep volunteering and tithing.”

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @thedeti,
        “Most Protestant denominations look at divorce and remarriage like this…”

        It seems like (or can seem like to me) most Protestants do not recognize marriage as having ontological existence (as opposed to moral or legal reality). As a result, divorce (and even remarriage) can be presented as a one-time sin. You sinned by divorcing and/or sinned by remarrying but you are forgiven of that sin.

        Luther recognized marriage as instituted by governments (I don’t know if he ever changed his mind back to the Catholic position on this).

        In Catholicism and Orthodoxy (at least when their traditional teachings aren’t ignored), it isn’t a one time sin because you are still married to your original spouse.

        This is not an attack on Protestantism or pro-Catholic/Orthodoxy, just an explanation I think for why you see this in evangelical Churches, even fairly serious ones.

        One can’t help but notice this rule isn’t equally applied. Try screwing over your wife in an evangelical church (leave her for a hotter, younger congregation member) and see how far their tolerance extends. In general, women’s sin is more tolerated – we wouldn’t want to be mean and judgmental to the winninz.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      How men get to this point is by withholding judgment or refusing to take action because they do not want to rock the marital boat (or try to steady it in the face of W rocking it), nor appear “controlling” or “abusive”.

      Have ye not heard, oh Deti of little faith? Happieth wifeth, happieth lifeth! Repent, misogynist sinner!

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Dang, man that was good.

      One more thing. Men need to learn to not give a fudge. I mean really not give a fudge, not just say you don’t give a fudge. Burn it to the ground. The whole flippin thing. I understand that the kids suffer but that’s on her not you.

      Either she gets in line or you get freedom from her. Either way you win.

      Like

    • SFC Ton says:

      Men can stave this off by not getting a marraige contract with the state

      Liked by 3 people

    • Joe2 says:

      @thedeti-

      Catholics hold marriage absolutely indissoluble until one party dies, regardless of either party’s conduct during the marriage.

      That is not true. The Catholic Church has grounds for Marriage Annulment. The pertinent canonical grounds (among others) for Marriage Annulment are as follows,

      Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2)
      You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not
      possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious
      conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been
      directly and principally intended.
      Fraud (Canon 1098) Reasons for Marriage Annulment
      You or your spouse was intentionally deceived about the presence or absence of a
      quality in the other. The reason for this deception was to obtain consent to marriage.

      Thus, the marriage can be annulled if you intended to marry someone who had a strong religious conviction and later learned by their conduct that wasn’t true or before marriage said that they would never deny sex, but after marriage they began to deny sex.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Catholics view this kind of marriage as not a marriage at all. The “marriage” is void ab initio, or “void from the start”. It was never validly contracted.

        Roman Catholic marriage requires four basic things: 1) freedom to marry and qualified for marriage (i.e. not married to another living person and you are what you represent yourself to be); (2) assent to marriage according to Catholic doctrine (fidelity, open to children, no birth control, sexytimes are to be both creative and unitive, raise the kids Catholic), 3) joining together by a priest, and 4) consummation. So, you’re eligible to marry, you agree to all the Catholic stuff, the priest joins you, and you go have sex. You’re now married in the Catholic church. But you are NOT married in the Catholic church until all four of those things have happened.

        Strictly speaking, annulments happen or are supposed to happen when one of the four things never happened. Usually, the grounds for annulment are asserted to be under 2), in which one or both parties manifestly did not assent to do or be “all the Catholic stuff.” The “Catholic stuff” most people “did not agree to” is the sex, kids, and birth control stuff. In annulments, it is almost always asserted that one or both parties never agreed to or lived out true Catholic doctrine on sex and family, that he/she/they were doing this before the marriage, and that it was always this way from the very start of the relationship to the present day.

        The claim is that the parties were never validly married because one or both of them never lived out Catholic doctrine, and thus never agreed to it in the first place. The theory is not that annulment ends the marriage. It’s that annulment is a declaration that no valid Catholic marriage existed in the first place.

        That seems to be where the rubber meets the road on annulments in the US.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “The theory is not that annulment ends the marriage. It’s that annulment is a declaration that no valid Catholic marriage existed in the first place.”

        This is correct. There were historic reasons. Coerced consent. Men who were lost in a foreign land, presumed dead who came home to (remarried) wife after many years. These things actually happened.

        Catholic marriage is sacramental marriage. The Catholic Church distinguishes between natural marriage and sacramental marriage.

        Another important point. The declaration of nullity is a legal verdict. It carries moral (i.e. actionable) but not absolute certitude. It is not an anti-sacrament and it is not an infallible judgment.

        And of course it’s horribly abused in the American Church.

        The Eastern Orthodox practice has been different as far as I understand. Divorce is allowed for grave reasons but the person must live in a constant state of penance. Some people have claimed this is the real, underlying cause of the West/East schism although I haven’t seen any proof of this.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        There were historic reasons. Coerced consent. Men who were lost in a foreign land, presumed dead who came home to (remarried) wife after many years. These things actually happened. ~ Cameron

        Within living memory, in fact.

        https://www.npr.org/2019/07/27/745104831/declared-dead-at-war-he-returned-alive-to-find-his-world-had-moved-on-without-hi

        Back home, because Dixon had been reported killed, his wife had moved on. She remarried and had a child with another man.

        At the time, Dixon says, he didn’t have much to say.

        “I can’t blame her. I was dead. Then she found out I was alive. The only obvious thing to do was to divorce one of us.”

        Dixon and his wife would divorce. But he couldn’t resent her, he says.

        Talk about no good options.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “The pertinent canonical grounds (among others) for Marriage Annulment are as follows,
        Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2)
        You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not
        possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious
        conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been
        directly and principally intended.
        Fraud (Canon 1098) Reasons for Marriage Annulment
        You or your spouse was intentionally deceived about the presence or absence of a
        quality in the other. The reason for this deception was to obtain consent to marriage.”

        Just to follow up, the above is not a direct quote from the code of canon law.

        The following is how the code of canon law reads:

        “Can. 1097 §1. Error concerning the person renders a marriage invalid.
        §2. Error concerning a quality of the person does not render a marriage invalid even if it is the cause for the contract, unless this quality is directly and principally intended.
        Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.”

        1098 immediately follows and clarifies 1097 – a relevant error in a particular quality that negatively impacts the conjugal life between the spouses (the entire purpose of marriage) and is committed (willful deception) for the purpose of obtaining consent of the will of the spouse. The paragraph quoted first is a progressive interpretation and is typical of the problems in the American church (and others).

        Like

  4. SFC Ton says:

    There was no rebellious spirit in my ex wife when we married . Was a goodly part of her charm and well that shit didn’t work out like the Christian man o sphere predicts.

    Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      There’s no guarantees – an Amish girl can go bonkers on you. Finding a girl from a devout Church and vetting her gives you the highest probability of success but there’s always some risk.

      Women want men but don’t need a man (individually that is, collectively they do – men do everything that is essential except have babies and raise children.)

      Like

  5. redpillboomer says:

    “Anyway, I’m officially done with researching this topic and slogging through the slime of the OASIS. But I felt it needed to be done in faith so that others wouldn’t have to do so themselves or, even worse, live through what H just did. There’s something about reviewing the train wrecks that serves to clarify our vision and to be more circumspect, thankful, and hopeful.”

    Thanks for breaking down this story down the way you did. One thing I think that goes beyond the H & W story is the society we now have that creates a context for this kind of thing to take place. It’s not just the technology of the OASIS, it’s the attitudes and the mindsets about male-female relationships these days that spawns all kinds of behaviors that just a few decades ago were seen as aberrant and deviant behavior, now being normalized. It’s only going to get worse as the technology evolves and the attitudes/mindsets devolve in the coming years. We’re spawning a whole bunch of W’s and H’s out there nowadays, secular and Christian, albeit not as financially successful as W.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. redpillboomer says:

    “–no posting lots of selfies on social media and especially no posting selfies in sexy or suggestive clothing. Lots of selfies on facebook or IG or other social media sends the following message: “Check me out. Aren’t I hot? Wouldn’t you like to have sex with me? If I think you’re attractive, I might, despite being married. Even if I wouldn’t have sex with any of you, I really really love the attention I get from this.” A married woman does not act like that. A married woman does not let anyone see the goods even if she has no intention of letting anyone sample the goods. A married woman does not let anyone even think that they might have a chance to see the goods.”

    This right here is helpful. I know a married Christian woman who is doing this. I kept thinking why? To what end? Yes, the attention/acceptance/validation is a drug-like high I’m sure for her, however the missing piece of it I think you captured in this line right here: “Check me out. Aren’t I hot? Wouldn’t you like to have sex with me? …” Yes, her pre-frontal cortex (cognitive thinking) and limbic brain (emotions) is enjoying the attention from the male likes and comments, but I’m guessing here, underneath all of it, her hind brain is saying “Would you pick me out from all the others to have sex with ME?” The ultimate validation. Men choosing her over all the other women to procreate with. Again, all this is subconscious level thinking, not conscious level thinking. This married Christian woman I have in mind, with all her Instagram posts of her in the gym and in various workout positions, now makes more sense to me. It’s not just posing for regular attention/validation, although that’s welcomed by her, subconsciously she is signaling sexual availability to the males on Instagram to come F me (or at least acknowledge they want to F her). Thoughts?

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      You pretty much nailed it sir.

      Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        Thanks. This angle, the subconscious desire to have men indicate by certain kinds of attention that they want to F them, this may be driving a lot of this ‘look at me’ behavior on social media. Sure they love all the likes and comments that give attention/validation; however maybe subconsciously, they really are after the attention/validation (signaling) that indicates the man (men) want to do them. This is the ultimate level of being ‘desired.’ I think of the married Christian woman with the gym selfies. As the selfies progressed over time in her Instagram, there were increasingly subtle and some not so subtle signs of this. For example, in the increasingly colorful patterns and tightness of her yoga pants and tops to the point of hints of camel toe and cleavage. She started out fairly plain in her gym attire and make-up, nothing too tight or revealing, and she never quite devolved to the ‘gym THOT’ look; that look that makes you go ‘Woe, are you here to workout or audition for a porn shoot?” However, as a married Christian woman, it seemed to me she was trying to get as close as possible to ‘the look’ without appearing to be one. Idk. Maybe the ladies could weigh-in on this. Is my interpretation of what is going on with her valid, or is there something else going on here?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Sure they love all the likes and comments that give attention/validation; however maybe subconsciously, they really are after the attention/validation (signaling) that indicates the man (men) want to do them. This is the ultimate level of being ‘desired.’

        Yes, but these are the same thing. That is — the seeking attention and validation always has a sexual basis to it. All attention from men does, and women are well aware of that. This is why you see the progression in “escalating appearance” that you’ve noted. Once women notice that men are noticing them, they know that it’s sexual (it always is … I mean it’s a picture, they’re not appreciating her personality!) and they amp up the display to see if they can amp up attention, and if that happens, then they amp it up some more … always to see how much more sexual attention from men they can get. The attention from men is always sexual. There isn’t any distinction between a woman posting pictures of herself for likes and affirmation, on the one hand, and sexual attention from men, on the other — it’s always the same, and women know this when they put any sort of picture on instagram that is personal (of themselves alone), rather than of their kids or family/vacation pics or what have you. Selfie of self is seeking male attention, and male attention to the appearance is always sexual.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        NovaSeeker wrote,

        “The attention and validation always has a sexual basis to it.”

        This is a key point that has somehow been overlooked and which needs to be emphasized.
        The amount of attention that a man gives a woman is proportional to his interest in escalating to a sexual interaction. Men are usually polite to most women, but men won’t give continual attention to a woman unless he wants her.
        Mature women know this, although they might deny it. They love to feel eyes on themselves. They get a thrill out of the attention, but have different reactions to whether the man escalates or not, depending on the man, and if and how he escalates. They tend not to respect men who offer a lot of attention, but never escalate, even though they’ll string him along to get more attention. But anymore, most men are afraid to escalate, which makes women very indignant and sometimes disappointed. Some women who are fishing for attention are actually fishing for a man. This is why flashy women are a red flag. Serious minded men should be looking for unintentional IOIs, not short dresses and cleavage.
        Immature women usually find it entertaining or annoying.
        Interestingly, men are not so much aware of it as women are. Men tend to focus more on her response and building a connection, and remain unaware of their own motivations for offering attention.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Around the time of Christ, the Roman poet Ovid said, regarding illicit sex:
        “Whether they give or refuse, it delights women to have been asked.”

        Apparently nothing has changed, except for now blue-pill churches try to teach us that women are always our moral superiors. And Feminists claim that Ovid was a misogynist.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. bee123456 says:

    Deti,

    “First, my overarching observation is how any criticism of all this is shouted down with antijudgment sentiment and cries of “sexism” “misogyny” “insecurity”…”

    Patheos hosts blogs for all religions, not just Christian. Within two of the Christian blogs I have read, lots of “Christian” commenters yelling and criticizing any husband that attempts to lead or correct his wife. These commenters are both men and women.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Ame says:

    haven’t read the comments yet . . .

    Novaseeker – excellent work on all of this.

    it’s been many years since i read it, but Francine Rivers wrote a novel series called Mark of the Lion set in the time of the Romans and the first church. in the series is a female character through whom the author goes into veiled depth about the extreme sexually deviant depravity of the time. i couldn’t help think of that fiction character while reading Nova’s writings about W. there truly is nothing new under the sun.

    since Eve, woman has wanted what she cannot have, deceiving herself that not only what she cannot have is more glorious and wonderful than what she does have, but that what she cannot have is something she deserves and is therefore being withheld from her unjustly. i see that all through the narrative about W. also, this thing that she cannot have is preventing her from fully realizing her great and glorious potential.

    while woman is wiling away her time fantasizing about all the delicacies her forbidden fruit will afford her if she can just attain it, her Husband is just doing his thing, not realizing that his W’s mind has gone to a whole different universe. by the time he becomes aware, it’s too late.

    another significant thing i see throughout the bible is the personality of people described, sometimes in the womb:

    11 And the angel of the Lord said to her [Hagar],

    “Behold, you are pregnant
    and shall bear a son.
    You shall call his name Ishmael,
    because the Lord has listened to your affliction.
    12 He shall be a wild donkey of a man,
    his hand against everyone
    and everyone’s hand against him,
    and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.”
    Genesis 16:11-12

    22 The children struggled together within her [Rebekah],
    and she said, “If it is thus, why is this happening to me?”
    So she went to inquire of the Lord.
    23 And the Lord said to her,
    “Two nations are in your womb,
    and two peoples from within you shall be divided;
    the one shall be stronger than the other,
    the older shall serve the younger.”
    Genesis 25:22-23

    i don’t understand how God chooses to give some more defiant personalities than others, but i know he does. i see it in my siblings, and i see it in my daughters. unfortunately, my siblings and i didn’t have any authority or boundaries, and while 2 of us got out fairly unscathed, 2 didn’t. the effects of that are tragic and sad as they’re playing out at this stage in our lives.

    my daughters, though, have had my firm and honest hand in their lives, and they have lived enough to come to appreciate the boundaries i’ve placed on them. we’ll see how that plays out over time, but i have good reason to be hopeful.

    i know that there are many theories and ideas and proposals about how to keep a woman faithful. this is a natural thing as men are fixers. i think it’s been shown it’s more complex than we’d like … the unknown factors, which are various and not always standard, are difficult to account for and predict.

    there are women like Ton’s ex who present the perfect woman all around, who no one would guess could do ‘that’ e.v.e.r. then there are women who are unrestrained who truly pull themselves together and choose to be faithful – i know of one such woman (though, admittedly, she was sexually abused by her dad and another male relative most nights while growing up). i grew up without hardly any restraints at all, and, buy the grace of God, i made it. why i made it and my sister and brother didn’t, i don’t know.

    i think, though, that if there is one common thread among women who honor their husbands and their marriages, it’s that they have a healthy fear of not doing so, and also that there are some boundaries placed on them from somewhere – God, family, friends, culture.

    iirc, Elspeth once said that her father told her that once she married, she no longer had a place in his home. that’s a great incentive to make a marriage work.

    Liked by 5 people

  9. Oscar says:

    First, a huge “thank you” to Nova for doing the dirty work, so the rest of us don’t have to.

    Second, as I mentioned before, most of us are middle aged, and married. This doesn’t really apply to us directly. However, most of us have kids. I have daughters in their late teens, a teenage son, and a pre-teen son (plus a whole bunch more).

    I don’t know about you all, but I knew exactly jack crap about vetting a wife when I was looking for one. No one cared enough about me to sit me down, and explain to me what red flags to look for, what they look like, and how to test for good traits, like agreeability.

    We need to fix that. We can’t save every young man out there, but we can teach our sons, our nephews, maybe even their friends. Maybe we can let a truth bomb or two slip around young men at church.

    Those of us who have daughters need to raise them to be those exceptional young women that godly young men need to look for.

    We can’t save the world, but maybe we can save a few marriages, and families before they start.

    Liked by 8 people

  10. feeriker says:

    Proverbs 7:11 She was loud and rebellious,
    Her feet would not stay at home.

    Coming soon (or maybe it’s already happened):

    Pastor Caspar Milquetoast’s man-shaming sermon, based on this very verse, that expounds on why such a woman would make an excellent Christian wife.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. redpillboomer says:

    “I don’t know about you all, but I knew exactly jack crap about vetting a wife when I was looking for one. No one cared enough about me to sit me down, and explain to me what red flags to look for, what they look like, and how to test for good traits, like agreeability.”
    I can agree with you 100% on this. God was guiding me 30 plus years ago when I was relatively clueless about vetting women, especially Christian women. I came very close to vetting with my little head instead of the big head. It would have cost me dearly I can see now in looking back. I got the right girl because God guided me to her and away from two other ‘Christian’ girls who I can now see in retrospect were CC riders; one was 24 and still riding, the other 29 and looking to get off the carousel and stick the landing. I am confident I’d be married to neither one today, divorced and maybe paying alimony/child support. Yes, we need to teach the young men how to vet properly, the young women too, but that is a job for the women, mothers and grandmothers. As I understand it, it’s what they used to do a couple generations ago until the moms and grandmas all bought into this ‘You Go Girl’ stuff, “You can have it all!” The results are in, look at all the thirtysomething women in our society that have no husband, no children and no good ‘marriageable’ prospects. A number of the one’s I know are either trying to turn ‘cad’s into dad’s’ (getting players to commit), or looking around muttering to themselves and others, “Where have all the GOOD men gone? Where the hell did they all go?”

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Jack says:

    There’s a lot of good discussion under this post.

    Last month, the theme was about OASIS. This month, NovaSeeker and I are going to explore the conundrums surrounding the current SMP and marriage — and it is a conundrum, especially for Christians. It’s not pretty at all. In March, we’ll cover some strategies and caveats, but I’ll tell you now, those won’t look too good either. But anyway, it’s good for us to go through these things. It is my hope that we’ll be able to outline some clear choices so that people can make better decisions and have some idea of what to expect — especially for those of us with teenage or young adult children. It must be h@11 for young people walking through the SMP these days. We’ve got to help them all we can.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      There are good options aviabale if a man is the balls to exercise them

      Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “It must be h@11 for young people walking through the SMP these days. We’ve got to help them all we can.”

      Agree. I shudder thinking about them navigating through what now passes for an SMP/MMP these days. It was difficult back in my day, I can’t imagine what it’s like now for a young man or woman who is marriage minded. Oh, let me amend that a bit; yes, I can imagine based on everything I’ve read, heard, and the little bit that I’ve witnessed with my own eyes (being an older guy) what it MIGHT be like nowadays to be out there in the current SMP/MMP. However, when I think of the things today’s younger people need to be aware of and work around just to participate in what is, or is supposed to be, a natural social function, i.e. the dating & mating process, it seems like the list of what to watch out for is daunting and endless. Just a few things they need to be aware of: players pumping & dumping, PUA’s using all kinds of tricks and techniques to get laid, sluts, feminists, hook-up culture, the CC, dating apps, ghosting, foodie calls, 80-20 rule (80% of the females are after the top 20% of the men, maybe 90-10 rule now), female Alpha F*cks/Beta Bucks strategies, Alpha seed/Beta need, entitled thirtysomethings with virtually unmeetable standards by any man, Booty calls after returning from a ‘date’, unchecked hypergamy, friend zones, beta orbiters, simps, Chad & Tyrone, cads, single mothers and their ridiculously high standards, baby mamas, budding virtual sex technologies, Only Fans, porn as far as the eye can see and of every imaginable kind & niche, etc., etc. etc. Seems like something out of, idk, navigating through one of those horrific WWI trench warfare scenes–barbed wire, crawling through seas of mud, endless shelling, murderous machine gun fire, or some scene or other like it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Finding a “great” mate was always hard … it was always competitive, the great game, if you will. But the difference is that if you were like most people and didn’t get to have a “great” mate, you still mostly ended up in an “okay” situation, which was at least tolerable, at least most of the time, and quite a few people ended up in situations that were pleasant and happy despite not having an objectively “great” mate. And of course there were quite a few people “stuck” in crappy marriages, too — not as many as the feminists of today like to claim, but it also was nonzero.

        The difference with today is that the market has been liberalized — made into a “free market” with very few rules, and mostly freedom for market participants. Any market that is liberalized tends to get dominated by the strongest hands in the market, because freeing them from the rules lets them use their advantages more freely for their own benefit. The adage that “a rising tide raises all boats” is probably true of the SMP in general in that most people overall probably have more pre-marital sexual encounters than they did in 1950, but the distribution of these is wildly uneven, and finding a suitable marriage partner is much, much harder for both sexes under the liberalized system of the SMP/MMP/”dating market” than it was prior to the sexual revolution.

        Under the liberalized market, the top men hold the most power (smallest in number for the demand related to them), followed by the top women, followed by the top half or so of women, followed by the men between 65 and 90 percentile, followed by the next 1/3 of the women, followed by the men between the 45 and 65 percentile, followed by the remainder of the women, followed by the remainder of the men.

        So like this:

        Top 10% of men
        Top women (9s, 10s) … not close to 10%, more like 1-2%
        Rest of the Top 50% of women (5s-8s)
        Men in percentile 65-90
        Next 30% of women (3s-4s)
        Men in percentile 40-65
        Remainder of women (1s-2s)
        Remainder of men (percentiles 1-39).

        This means that half of the women are more empowered than 90% of the men in the market … something which leads to alpha chasing (women are generally not attracted to men whom they know they have power over) and long droughts for the men below the top 10%, even if true “incel” is concentrated at the lower rungs. And even though only those men are truly “incels”, men are disadvantaged relative to women at all levels of the market apart from the very top … even at the bottom they are disadvantaged relative to women at the bottom.

        The reason why it ends up this way is that when you take pregnancy out of the equation and economic dependency out of the equation, women are “freed up” from necessity in mate selection, and select based on desire, which results in a very concentrated skew upwards, while at the same time, male demand in the market far exceeds female demand (men have higher libidos across the board — not in every case, but enough generally so as to skew the entire market), other than at the very top of the male side of the market due to the concentration of female demand there … so that in the rest of the market outside the top 10% of males, women are the “sellers”, and men are the “buyers”. That’s why you have Instagram and OnlyFans and internet porn and cam girls and sugar babies and all the rest as well — male demand exceeds female demand, such that females are “sellers” and can, if they wish, literally charge men fairly easily as we have seen recently.

        Because of these two things (hypergamy, and the imbalance in overall demand/desire), a liberated sex/relationship/dating/marriage market will always empower almost all women at the expense of almost all men, with the exception of the very top men. It just always will, due to those two factors, once you take away the things that naturally hem in the “freedom” of the market (pregnancy and economic dependency). A “liberalized” market for this simply doesn’t work.

        In the long run it doesn’t help the women participants either, really, because they are often left with relatively unattractive men as options for mates once they are done exploiting the height of their own market power, but that’s something most don’t worry about until the 30s, and that’s just human nature — most humans of both sexes have terrible future time orientation innately unless it is forced on them by external constraints and/or social expectations and rules.

        All the challenging things you mention are by-products of the fundamental underlying cause here, which is a structurally imbalanced market which can only ever be structurally imbalanced if it is permitted to function in a fully liberalized way — because the sexes are not similarly situated in such a market, or even close to being so.

        It gets back to the point of devising strategies for younger guys to deal with this reality, because the deregulated market is not going away any time soon.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        The difference with today is that the market has been liberalized — made into a “free market” ~ Nova

        The marriage market is far from free. A free market requires protecting property rights, and enforcing contracts. The government literally, actively oppose both in the current marriage market.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @Novaseeker

        My only nitpick on this comment: the precise percentages. Not that I know the real numbers, I just don’t think we can know them with that type of precision.

        That out of the way, I have to say this is the best description I’ve ever seen of hypergamy and the marriage market. I would love to see this fleshed out as a full-length article but for now I’m copying and saving this comment for future reference (not plagiarism).

        Outstanding.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “(men have higher libidos across the board — not in every case, but enough generally so as to skew the entire market)”

        Yes. Female libido is (on average) lower, therefore more discriminating. Thus hypergamy. Not the dictionary definition of hypergamy (marrying up in social status). I mean hypergamy of the most base kind. Romantic/sexual attraction hypergamy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        While I agree with the idea of helping young people navigate today’s shark-infested SMP and MMP, I also cannot help but wonder: would I I blame any young person for refusing such help? After all, they would not be out of line to say “your generation screwed things up, which is what has led to the mess MY generation has to wallow in! Why would I trust YOUR generation to fix things, or even give useful advice?”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “Your generation screwed things up, which is what has led to the mess MY generation has to wallow in! Why would I trust YOUR generation to fix things, or even give useful advice?”

        This is what the Boomers said to the previous generations before them. It is unwise to reject the council of older people who care about your wellbeing.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Our generation should not be trusted, nor the Boomers before us. But not all of us were part of screwing things up, and some of us are trying to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. In every generation there is a mass of conformists and a few folks who do their own thinking. And of those who do their own thinking and go their own way, there are even fewer who actually head in the right direction. And even of those few who are headed in the right direction, many are still doing so based upon faulty conclusions, and might still give bad advice.

        It is my belief that to best navigate these “shark-infested” waters, one should logically seek out a guide who comprehends the ways of the sharks, being a bit sharkly himself.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        And of course there were quite a few people “stuck” in crappy marriages, too — not as many as the feminists of today like to claim, but it also was nonzero.

        Which was the reason for the commands to husbands to love and to wives to respect. Which was also the reason for the modern day secular blue collar Americana versions of those commands, which were (paraphrasing Goodfellas):

        [Husband], you gotta go home. You can’t just leave your wife and kids for days on end. It just looks bad. I mean, we just can’t have this. I mean, because then, everybody will think they can do it. Nobody’s saying you can’t do what you want. (i.e. get a sidepiece, sleep around on the downlow). But you can’t leave your wife and kids high and dry. We just can’t have it.

        And the other to the wife:

        [Wife], you picked him. You made promises to him. You have to have sex with him and you have to take care of whatever he gives you for you and the kids. You can’t just leave. You can’t just go to Mommy or your friends and complain about how mean he is and how hard it is. Now go back to [husband], work it out, and take care of him and your kids.

        This goes to the rules and “regulations” you are talking about. There were rules. There were things you had to do, and couldn’t do, in the old SMP and MMP. The rules applied to everyone, but they were more restrictive on women. There were rules and regs for men (if X, then Y; you must have A, B and C to play this game), but mostly restrictions for women (you are not allowed to do D, E, F, and G.). That is what women did NOT like and what women chafed against.

        So now it looks like this: “Women can do pretty much whatever they want as long as both partners are on the same side of the age of consent. Women are free to impose whatever requirements they want on the men they choose to associate with. Men can play or not play. If they want to play, they have to meet women’s requirements. If certain men cannot meet those requirements or choose not to try, they don’t get to play. Have at it.”

        Like

  13. SFC Ton says:

    Catholics belive in mercy to the guilty and cruelty to the innocent.

    Liked by 1 person

    • doclove says:

      I have agreed with most if not all of your comments. I disagree with your comments about Catholics. All Christians to include Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians who are merciful to the guilty and especially cruel to the kind are idiot Churchians and not true Christians on that issue.

      Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        All good Doc! There are religions…. being a Catholic etc and there is being a man of God

        Catholic doctrine, especially regarding infidelity in marriage, is way easy of the one who broke the covenant and way harsh on the victim of that crime

        That church in particular seems to have a serious track record along those lines.

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Thanks for clarifying your comment Ton. I assumed it meant pedophiile priests and their victims or something.

      It’s not a matter of punishing the victim party and rewarding the innocent party – even when these exist (in the real world neither is usually a pure victim or transgressor).

      It’s a matter of marriage being a real thing vs. a legal fiction or moral category. It’s also very much based on a very reasonable interpretation of the words of the Lord (which I understand can be interpreted in different ways).

      Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL it does mean that too but it’s low hanging fruit. The Catholic church and Catholics are without moral standing in my eyes because of how they favored child rapist over children. Though there are other things I disagree with as well

        Saying a man must go without sex and endure the agony that creates becuase his wife went a whoring is cruel to the man.

        Saying his family name and blood line must come to an end becuase the sins of a woman is also cruel

        Yet that same church says the woman should be forgiven without paying any kind of price in this life or the next.

        There is no real world or spiritual good in that man suffering but it’s a great deal for the whore

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I don’t think Christian men are entitled to sex or continuation of their bloodlines to the point of disobeying Christ. Christians suffer in obedience to Christ and are blessed for it. That can mean Eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven if your wife is a whore. She is still your wife. Pretty awful I understand.

        Woman forgiven by whom? God forgives the whore who repents of her sin. Catholics definitely don’t claim there is no suffering or punishment. Purgatory is most definitely suffering. Of all Christians, Catholics are the ones who teach that sinners suffer in the next life one way or the other according to how we live.

        Like

  14. redpillboomer says:

    “It gets back to the point of devising strategies for younger guys to deal with this reality, because the deregulated market is not going away any time soon.”

    This is the challenge. If I was a twentysomething male in today’s market, I’d need someone to lay it all out for me (assuming I’d listen), walk me through it all from A to Z, and maybe coach me as I worked my way through the marketplace looking for a decent girl to be my girlfriend and eventual wife. It is possible, but it seems to me, for the young males, every which way they turn it is problematic for them; and that sadly even includes dealing the church girls who should be the ‘unicorns’ but most aren’t much different from their secular counterparts. I get that it can be tough for the women too, but it seems like scaling a ‘sexual Mt Everest’ for the males, unless they are top 10%. Those guys have it ‘made’ I guess until they don’t anymore. Not sure exactly what that looks like for the top 10% as they age into their 30s and 40s, somewhere along the line it has to stop working, or not work as well, as it did when they were younger. I was never in that category, even when I was a twentysomething, but that was far back enough in time, that I did fairly well in the SMP/MMP of that day (late eighties). My wife was probably an eight when we got married, and I had worked my way up to an 8, 8.5, and in her eyes, I was probably a 9-9.5 because of the status and resources I had in built up by my late twenties. Today, sheesh, I don’t know. I’d have to think about that a bit; where would I stand? Idk. I do know one thing, the knowledge I’ve gained in just the last three years being Red Pilled has really created a level of understanding of intersexual dynamics that I had never had all those years being Blue Pilled, even though I did fairly well for myself in the SMP/MMP in my younger days despite being so Blue Pilled. Yes, how about you knowledgeable guys unpacking this for the rest of us. Your post directly above Novaseeker is a great start! Help the rest of us to raise our level of understanding on how to mentor/coach today’s young men, and in some case, young women. I think that is something we can do, and be of service to, for the younger generations in the years going forward.

    Liked by 3 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      I was high value in the mid 80’s.

      Fast forward to now and I’m unsure. Keep everything else the same; high levels vs insane expectations, 24/7 anti rural/ anti Southern White Man and pro race mixing propaganda, sjw’ism etc….. I probably would have dropped out sooner then I did

      My advice to any 20 year old who wants a non toxic life in general and a family life relatively free of all the bullshit is to leave the USA. This place is a pile of shit that’s just starting to burn. Go to college, get a skill set that is useful on the world wide level, stay in college and learn to speak whatever language you need, while racking up massive amounts of college debt. Leave the country, leave the debt, never return. You’ll get to side step all the up coming polical violence too

      But it ain’t easy. Hell probably going to be 10 years before the dumbasses in my family understand the wheels have come off and won’t be going back on.
      ……………

      Value as you age is going to depend on how you age. How fit you are, what have you accomplished, skill set delvoped, amount of cash stacked etc etc.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Value as you age is going to depend on how you age. How fit you are, what have you accomplished, skill set delvoped, amount of cash stacked etc etc.

        A young man is judged by his potential. An older man is judged by his accomplishments.

        As for your predictions of future political violence, please allow me to add a very different perspective.

        As you know, I’m an immigrant. I haven’t talked about this before on these blogs, but my family fled Communism. My earliest memory is of the day the civil war reached our little town.

        Having already lived through this once, I used to think that the best case scenario was a relatively peaceful split between the free states and Communist states. That possibility no longer exists.

        We’ve been in a low-intensity civil war for years now, and what’s coming won’t look like Civil War I. At least not the official Civil War I. It’s going to look a lot more like Bleeding Kansas, or for a more modern scenario, the Yugoslavian Civil War.

        I completely understand your assessment that to flee is the best option. My family fled once. We’re not running this time. I believe there’s nowhere left to run, because the rot will spread worldwide. Fortunately, unlike my native country, the US is enormous. There’s plenty of room for likeminded people to gather together and hunker down. It’ll be rough, but I believe we can weather the storm.

        Either way, no one knows the future, and each man needs to do what he believes is best for those for whom he’s responsible.

        God speed, brother.

        Liked by 4 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        I agree Oscar. Enough to not merit hashing out the differences

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        My son is well on his way to this option, really. He’s spent his college summers outside the US in Eastern Europe (different places) and has spent most of the “Covidtide” period over there as well. He has skills and languages, and one year left for his formal degree … he has told me he sees no future for guys like him in the US (and he will have a fairly elite degree when he finishes it next year). He doesn’t plan to import a wife .. no. He doesn’t plan to live here. He already has multiple passports. The ripcord … it’s going top be pulled.

        I’m sure there are plenty of other like-minded, like-situated young men in their early 20s who are either doing or thinking about doing the same thing. The US really isn’t a good place for a young white guy to be today, at all, really.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        Good to hear Nova!

        My son is thinking it won’t get worse and that money and being in the rural South will be enough.

        History says the federal government loves committing genocide on Southern Whites who disagree with them politically

        I’m hoping he’ll see the world differently when he’s 40.

        My second home is way down south, in some back water nation almost no one has heard of. Southern folks did well there after 1865. No reason why we can’t do well down there again

        Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Fast forward to now and I’m unsure. Keep everything else the same; high levels vs insane expectations, 24/7 anti rural/ anti Southern White Man and pro race mixing propaganda, sjw’ism etc….. I probably would have dropped out sooner then I did.”

        You and I had some similarities back then, a few differences, but basically we would have probably been considered ‘catch’s.’ For me, back then when I lived in Oklahoma City and was stationed at the Air Force Base, the women’s expectations for a man didn’t seem ‘sky high’ like they are now. They seemed more ‘reasonable.’ Pretty much they wanted a handsome younger guy with a good paying job that had some degree of upward mobility. So, relative to the Air Force males, an Enlisted man was just fine with them, an Officer even better. That was about it. Maybe throw in a good personality, i.e. not a bore, with some good character, i.e. husband/dad material. That’s pretty much what it took to land a 7-8.5, even some 9s-9.5s depending on how they were raised, if church girls most definitely available for marriage as they hit their mid-twenties. Back then most women seemed to be looking to get married by at the latest 26-27 years old, and those 26-27 girls were beginning to panic quite a bit. Today, that age range is still having too much ‘fun.’ In the back of their mind’s they might be thinking of jumping off the CC, but then probably saying to themselves, “Nawwww, I kind wanna ride for awhile longer. I’ll jump at 28 or 29.” In OKC, they were definitely not anti rural/anti southern, If they had any ‘anti’ about them it was probably more related to race and ethnicity, i.e. they wanted to, if at all possible, marry within their race/ethnicity. SJW’ism, not a factor yet. Feminism a little here and there on Campus at OU (where I did my Masters), but not overt feminism; mainly seemed to be down in the humanities area, but even there, you could still navigate around it. Bet that would be ‘good luck’ trying to navigate around anything in those departments now if you’re a male. So yes, it has changed quite a bit in 30+ years. Even 30 years ago I had to do some dating around and vetting because quality girls existed, but you had to go find them, but they were findable with some effort and good advise in the form of, “Hey, have you tried looking over there at X location.” Now? I was visiting that area two Thanksgiving’s ago, not only had it grown a lot as a city, but it seemed closer to being an Atlanta (I live in Georgia now), more than a smaller city surrounded by rural townships that it was thirty years ago. The younger women I saw walking around the OU campus and downtown OKC doing whatever, occurred to me to be more like ‘city/suburb girls’ than small city/semi-rural girls of OKC’s yesteryear.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Feminism a little here and there on Campus at OU (where I did my Masters)…

        I did my Masters at Missouri University of Science and Technology, which used to be called Missouri School of Mines (they should’ve kept that name). In case you couldn’t tell, it’s primarily an engineering school. Talk about a sausage fest!

        Not that it mattered to me. I was already married, and had five kids. The sixth was born while I was in grad school.

        The best kept secret in the Army is Fort Riley. It’s right next door to Manhattan, KS, which regularly makes lists of “best small cities” (pop. ~ 56,000). It’s also where Kansas State University is located.

        Young officers who arrive single almost always leave married.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        Thats what i heard but blood and soil matters to me ans I would never tie my blood line to jayhawkers and the like

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Thats what i heard but blood and soil matters to me ans I would never tie my blood line to jayhawkers and the like ~ SFC Ton

        I have this crazy feeling that you and I are going to switch roles, and for the same reason.

        You’re the “blood and soil” guy. I’m the guy who’s been unmoored from “blood and soil” since childhood, because of political violence.

        My wife and I are planning to move back to the “soil” where her “blood” is from, and where my dad is buried, and you’re planning on leaving your “blood and soil”, because we both see a lot of political violence in the near future.

        Life is weird.

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL legit! At the end of the day we’re a collection of random dudes trying to figure shit out with the limited wisdom and understanding

        I know you’ll appreciate this in a way other folks won’t….. There are things me and my older son have done that I don’t want my younger sons and grandsons to experince.

        Not sure how I can pull that off and keep my family here.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Ton

        I get you, brother. Many of my relatives fled our native country for other countries, but many others stayed. It’s been almost 40 years, and I still don’t know who made the best decision.

        God bless you and yours.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        May the peace of the Lord be with you and yours

        Like

    • Joe2 says:

      …it seems like scaling a ‘sexual Mt Everest’ for the males, unless they are top 10%. Those guys have it ‘made’ I guess until they don’t anymore. Not sure exactly what that looks like for the top 10% as they age into their 30s and 40s, somewhere along the line it has to stop working, or not work as well, as it did when they were younger.

      Nope, they keep what they have. There is no “reset” button or deterioration which diminishes what they had when younger. Albeit my experience is limited, I witnessed this firsthand years ago when I got involved with some neighbors who went to hear a lawyer speak about estate planning, wills, Medicare, etc. What did I see? I saw an old bald (chrome dome) man in a dark blue suit with red tie and a cummerbund. Granted he was tall. What did the women see? I don’t know, but they were smitten with the lawyer and swooned over him saying how handsome he is. A few years later he passed on. So whatever he had he took to his grave.

      Like

  15. lastmod says:

    “My advice to any 20 year old who wants a non toxic life in general and a family life relatively free of all the bullshit is to leave the USA”

    And go where? Thailand? My Uncle married a woman from Thailand in 1968 when he was stationed at Ubon during Vietnam. This was waaaayyyy back when American women were supposedly pre-feminist. My Aunt is a decent woman, but had a gambling problem that almost cost them them their home twice in the 1970’s and once in the 1980’s. Nothing yells louder than angry Thai lady at 7am at her grandchildren….

    I lived in India. The women there, even the “lower castes” supposedly are just as feminist as here. Japan…….yeah okay. South Korea? A Korean lady will murder you in your sleep if she feels slighted.

    Easter Europe….ah yes……the place where all women just want to be a housewife and live a god centered life. Get real.

    The only option for a 20 year old guy: Be naturally good looking, or just looks max and have an attitude that sh*ts on everyone else…….maybe he’ll be okay

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Pretty much all women (not individually I mean collectively) with low birth rates are feminist. That means most women in the world are feminist the main exceptions being certain Muslim countries (some of the “-stan” countries) and parts of Sub-Sahara Africa.

      Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        There are places where women vote but the society and the culture isn’t toxic. Two that o push with my family have good gun cultures one has world renown fishing, but the 1st rule of fight club is you don’t talk about fight club.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        There are places where women vote but the society and the culture isn’t toxic.
        That situation is like milk setting out. Their society will eventually spoil from that, it is only a matter of time.

        If I had the option to go through what I’ve been put through, or to be murdered in my sleep, I think being murdered in my sleep would be my preference. However, I don’t recall that actually happening a whole lot in Korea. I think on average your chances of having a lasting marriage with a Korean woman is better than with a Western woman, provided you don’t bring her over here. Some Korean women do marry undesirable American men just to get over here, and then divorce and look for somebody they really want to be married to here, once their paperwork is completed and they’re allowed to stay here. That scenario happens far more than the murder scenario described above.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Danny says:

    In modern relationships the only power men have is to walk away which is what many are reluctantly doing. The “Alpha Male” routine doesn’t work and you will be branded a monster and/or laughed at for doing it. The best advice for young men is to build a content single life because it’s unlikely you will attract one of the small number of women that are good risks for marriage in this degraded society.

    Like

  17. SFC Ton says:

    It’s clear some folks know very little about the world

    Like

  18. Pingback: Something’s not right… (about Sexual Authority) | Σ Frame

  19. redpillboomer says:

    “In modern relationships the only power men have is to walk away which is what many are reluctantly doing.”

    Only TRUE power, yes, especially for the top 50% of men. It appears the women are beginning to notice an increasing ‘supply & demand’ problem that they’ve got. Some are beginning to become aware of MGTOW, and the shaming and vitriol thrown at men for ‘going their own way’ seems to be increasing daily, if female podcasts on the subject are any indication.

    “The ‘Alpha Male’ routine doesn’t work and you will be branded a monster and/or laughed at for doing it.”

    It works for a select percentage of men, but I think it only works for pump & dumps (say the top 20 percent of men) and for STRs (maybe top 40%). The ‘Alpha Male routine’ as you call it, to me seems very problematic for an LTR. How do you keep that stuff up for 10-20-30 years or more, especially when she holds most of the cards in a divorce and knows it? IDK. I listen to some of these RP content creators relationship maintenance views and go, “Okay dude gotcha, all good for the short run in a relationship; but how do you keep that up over the long haul, especially if you’re doing it in your own power and not relying on God’s?” For example, some of them continuously refer to ‘maintaining frame,’ which I think is synonymous with the Biblical view of male headship or priesthood. How do you pull that off in an LTR if the wife is not submissive/respectful/God fearing and has been conditioned by society to hold feminist views of relationships which she expresses overtly, or they’re more covert, operating in the background?

    “The best advice for young men is to build a content single life because it’s unlikely you will attract one of the small number of women that are good risks for marriage in this degraded society.”

    Yes, but I’d phrase it with a bit more of a positive spin: Build a strong single life for yourself, learn/practice/master vetting skills from men who know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to male-female relationships, i.e. like many of the men on this blog, not the PUA guys or the RP content creators in their mid-upper forties who still think they can pull in the 22 year old’s with their game. Some of these guys understanding of intersexual dynamics is good based on their life experiences, and what they’ve personally learned from the school of hard knocks, but many of them are running businesses on YouTube and other platforms (selling books, courses, having coaching calls that can be very expensive, etc.). Oh, and as far as the vetting goes, the young men need to be taught, if you’re looking for American women as a possible wife, your vetting will have to be VETTING, i.e. marinated with a lot of wisdom/understanding (gained from older men and a small, select number of women who “get it”) and realize you still may have trouble finding her because the young/beautiful/fertile/VIRTUOUS females are fast becoming an extinct species within our culture.

    I feel for you young guys. We’re here to help as best we can, but you’ve got a very difficult task ahead of you if you’re going to go in search of the unicorn. There are some out there still, but not easy to find. Rely of God first, the wisdom of older men second, and you might be one of the fortunate few who pull it off in this day and age. I know a few of you that have done it, however that has mostly been inside the church realm. Not that the church world is perfect by any means, it’s close to the secular world now in terms of the females feminist leanings, but there are some good, quality girls still in it. I’ve seen a few of them myself. Out in the secular world, good luck finding a unicorn out there. It’s one hell of a shit show. The few I’ve seen/known that I thought were ‘good, quality’ women, turned out to be chameleons. They looked good on the outside, i.e. like a quality woman in dress and appearance, but on the inside they were all sluts, sleeping around, chasing alphas, high N counts, not able to hold a man and pair bond, Alpha widows, and many have STDs, especially herpes, etc.

    Like

  20. Pingback: The Centrality of Sex in Western Culture | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: The Lopsided Liberalized Mating Market | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Sexual competition continues after marriage | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: The Christian Conundrum | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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