Game Theory 110 — The Prisoner’s Dilemma

An altruistic strategy is best over the long haul, but not in the beginning, and not for short term interactions.

Readership: All
Reader’s Note: In this post, game theory is about decision making strategies, not about the PUA kind of game, although they can and do overlap.
Some of the game theory in this post is rather taxing to wade through, but it is well worth your time because it contains some very important conclusions. Also, since the knowledge is cumulative and each section builds on previous sections, you cannot really save time by skimming or skipping. Sorry! Just take my word that you’ll be much wiser after studying this.
A while back, I wrote a primer in game theory, Introduction to Game Theory 101 (2018 February 11). If you have not yet read this post, I urge you to do so before continuing on.
Length: 1,400 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes

Basic Game Theory

In the first part of this post, I will go over some generalized game theory, including Positive-Sum game, Zero-Sum game, and especially Negative-Sum game.  The last part of this post will cover one Negative-Sum game of particular interest — The Prisoner’s Dilemma. In future posts, I’ll be using this theory as a springboard to examine theories of intersexual dynamics in dating and marriage.

Positive Sum or “Win Win” Games

The Positive-Sum game is a game of cooperation and partnership. The partners think in terms of “we”, and “us”, and seek mutually beneficial outcomes.

In a Positive-Sum Game, the interests of the players are not in direct conflict. Thus, there are some outcomes which would benefit all players. Examples include most recreational activities (hiking, camping, having a barbecue), athletic non-competitive sports (e.g. weight lifting, gymnastics, kayaking), and typical business transactions.

Constant Sum

A game is Constant-Sum if the sum of the payoffs to every player are the same for every single set of strategies. In these games, one player gains if and only if another player loses. Examples include competitive sports in which only one player or team is declared the winner (e.g. baseball, basketball, volleyball, etc.).

A Constant-Sum game can be converted into a Zero-Sum game by subtracting a fixed value from all payoffs, leaving their relative order unchanged.

Zero Sum or “Win Lose” Games

In a Zero-Sum Game, the players’ interests are in direct conflict such that there is a winner and a loser. The zero sum game is typically a game of chance, competition, skill, power, and dominance. Examples include card games, and athletic competitive sports (e.g. wrestling, boxing, etc.).

Many non-competitive activities are sometimes cast in a competitive playoff for a fun challenge and entertainment. For example, dancing troupes and science fairs hire judges to pick out the best of show. Construction workers will split into teams and see who can complete the work the fastest or best.

In social intercourse, informal competitions are held to establish social acumen. Most people enjoy this as long as this is done in good will or in fun. However, playing the zero-sum game in serious matters tends to divide people into factions. Some people (i.e. risk-takers) who view this as a challenge are willing to raise the stakes and go all in on it, while others (i.e. risk adverse) view it as unwise, or as a potential threat, and withdraw. Women have been known to sift out risk-adverse men when they play, “Let’s you and him fight!” Women who habitually play the zero-sum game in serious matters are typically deemed by marriage-minded men to be unworthy as a partner, and are thus avoided and rejected from LTR’s, especially if she has an arrogant or presumptuous attitude in the matter.

Negative Sum games

In a Negative-Sum game, the interests of the players are not contingently opposed to each other, such that everyone could lose.

The Negative-Sum game is a game of compromise, sacrifice, and perhaps trust, and the goals depend on the context, the history of interaction, and the personalities of the individuals. Sometimes the game is played for one’s own benefit, and other times, it can be played for the mutual benefit of certain figures who are involved.

A well-studied example of the Negative-Sum game is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. We’ll go over this next.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma [1]

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two completely “rational” individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so. It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence rewards and named it, “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” (Poundstone, 1992), presenting it as follows:

Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communicating with the other. The prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to convict the pair on the principal charge, but they have enough to convict both on a lesser charge. Simultaneously, the prosecutors offer each prisoner a bargain. Each prisoner is given the opportunity either to (1) confess to the major crime and receive a reduced sentence, and in doing so, betray the other by testifying that the other committed the crime, or (2) to remain silent. The possible outcomes are:

  • If A and B both confess to the major crime (i.e. each betray the other), each of them serves 2 years in prison.
  • If A confesses to the major crime and rats out B, but B remains silent, then A will be set free and B will serve 3 years in prison (and vice versa).
  • If A and B both remain silent, then both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge).

The following conditions also apply.

  • Each prisoner has no clue of which choice the other prisoner might make.
  • It is implied that the prisoners will have no opportunity to reward or punish their partner other than the prison sentences they get, and that their decision will not affect their reputation in the future.

A matrix of possibilities and outcomes is shown below.

It is better to Defect!

Here, regardless of what the other decides, each prisoner gets a better reward by betraying the other (“defecting”). The reasoning (from the perspective of prisoner A) involves a deductive argument by dilemma:

  1. B will either cooperate or defect.
  2. If B cooperates, A should defect, because going free is better than serving 1 year.
  3. If B defects, A should also defect, because serving 2 years is better than serving 3.
  4. So either way, A should defect.

Parallel reasoning will show that B should defect.

Because betraying a partner offers a greater reward than cooperating with him, all purely rational self-interested prisoners would betray the other, and so the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each other.

The important thing to understand from this result is that pursuing an individual reward logically leads both of the prisoners to betray, even though they would collectively serve less time if they both kept silent.

The Iterated Prisoner’s Game [2]

An extended, “iterated” version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma also exists. In this version, the classic game is played repeatedly between the same prisoners, and consequently, both prisoners continuously have an opportunity to reward or penalize the other for previous decisions.

The iterated prisoners’ dilemma game is fundamental to some theories of human cooperation and trust. On the assumption that the game can model transactions between two people requiring trust, cooperative behavior in populations may be modeled by a multi-player, iterated version of the game. Prisoner’s Dilemma tournaments have been held to test algorithms and strategies through competition.

If the game is played exactly N times and both players know this, then it is always game theoretically optimal to defect in all rounds. The only possible Nash equilibrium is to always defect. The proof is inductive: one might as well defect on the last turn, since the opponent will not have a chance to later retaliate. Therefore, both will defect on the last turn. Thus, the player might as well defect on the second-to-last turn, since the opponent will defect on the last no matter what is done, and so on. The same applies if the game length is unknown but has a known upper limit. Therefore, if the number of times the game will be played is known to the players, then (by backward induction) two classically rational players will betray each other repeatedly, for the same reasons as the single shot variant.

Of note, this proof holds to be the only correct answer within standard economic theory.

In a non-economic game of infinite or unknown length there is no fixed optimum strategy. This opens up a plethora of game strategic possibilities. Unlike the standard Prisoners’ Dilemma, in the Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma the defection strategy is counter-intuitive and fails badly to predict the behavior of human players. The superrational strategy in the Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma with fixed N is to cooperate with a superrational opponent, and in cases of a large N, experimental results on strategies agree with the superrational version, not the game-theoretic rational one.

For cooperation to emerge between game theoretic rational players, the total number of rounds N must be random, or at least unknown to the players. In this case ‘always defect’ may no longer be a strictly dominant strategy, only a Nash equilibrium. Amongst results shown by Robert Aumann in a 1959 paper, rational players repeatedly interacting for indefinitely long games can sustain the cooperative outcome.

I will discuss some detailed strategies of the Iterated Prisoners Dilemma in some upcoming posts.

Conclusions

The optimal (points-maximizing) strategy for the one-time Prisoner’s Dilemma game is simply defection. As explained above, this is true whatever the composition of opponents may be. However, in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game the optimal strategy depends upon the strategies of likely opponents, and how they will react to defections and cooperations.

For example, consider a population where everyone defects every time, except for a single individual following the Tit for Tat strategy (i.e. making the same move that the opponent did in the last round). That individual is at a slight disadvantage because of the loss on the first turn. In such a population, the optimal strategy for that individual is to defect every time. In a population with a certain percentage of always-defectors and the rest being Tit for Tat players, the optimal strategy for an individual depends on the percentage, and on the length of the game.

Follow up posts will discuss the evolution of winning strategies in The Prisoner’s Dilemma, as applied to Dating and Marriage.

References

  1. Infogalactic: Game Theory
  2. Infogalactic: Prisoner’s Dilemma

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Collective Strength, Conserving Power, Decision Making, Discernment, Wisdom, Game Theory, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Power, Psychology, Relationships, Strategy, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to Game Theory 110 — The Prisoner’s Dilemma

  1. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    DEFCON2 DILEMMA!
    Hey JACK!I just woke up!
    GUESS what happened to ”my cousin of a cousin” yesterday?
    Served with ”RESTRAINING ORDER” from law enforcement for VERBAL ABUSE!
    But he knows his sister is still joking!
    Thats the ”blue pill silver lining” in his PRISONERS-GAME
    You know where this is headed right?
    A:He goes to jail!
    Or
    B:Police shoot him accidently,after her due to his ”verbal abuse”, calling them!
    This is a DILEMMA or a FOOL’S ERRAND?
    Every 2 weeks JACK!
    But he has some mysterious strategy in this ”GAME THEORY”!
    ”There.but for the grace of god goes I” right?

    Like

  2. thedeti says:

    Prisoner’s dilemma applied to relationships and marriage:

    If the rational resolution of the prisoner’s dilemma is for each to betray the other, then the most rational resolution in the marriage is for each spouse to betray the other.

    This also assumes the marriage is a negative sum game in which both participants will lose.

    But marriage is not necessarily a negative sum situation. It can be, but it doesn’t have to be.

    At various times, my marriage has looked like all three of these: A zero sum game when it started, in which I lost and she won, mostly by emotional force. Mrs. deti: “I have to win and you have to lose because no one’s ever gonna hurt me ever again and if I don’t win, I will not play and NO SEX FOR YOU!”

    Then a negative sum game in which we both lost, mostly by default: “Neither of us are getting enough of what we want and both of us are getting too much of what we don’t want. And we don’t know how to get more of what we want and less of what we don’t want.” It was like this for a long time. While both of us became increasingly dissatisfied with the outcomes.

    Until I changed the rules and made it a zero sum game in which I won and she lost, mostly by ultimatum – “I win and you lose, or I walk and burn everything to the ground behind me. Your choice.”

    We are still figuring out how to make it a positive sum game where we both win, mostly by giving: “I am going to make sure you get some of what you want. I need you to give me some of what I want. You’re free to go get some of what you want. I’m free to go get some of what I want.”

    Liked by 6 people

  3. lastmod says:

    More terms and applications to remember! Young men, add this to your binder, and study it, and don’t get it confused with the 20 gazillion applications of “game”

    Looks like “game over” because even the smartest and most deft of men will not be able to cross-reference, use, and apply to every situation when he meet a girl

    Like

  4. Oscar says:

    Way Off Topic: I endorse this trend.

    This lady stopped plucking her bushy eyebrows and removing her mustache in order to “weed out conservative people” from her life

    https://notthebee.com/article/this-lady-stopped-plucking-her-eyebrows-and-removing-her-mustache-in-order-to-weed-out-conservative-people-from-her-life

    So this lady stopped plucking her, uh, very voluminous eyebrows and also stopped removing her stache and now people are writing articles about her.

    Oh also she doesn’t shave her legs anymore.

    Why?

    So she can feel good about not conforming to society’s standards of femininity. And also it “weeds out conservatives” from her life.

    I won’t post the before/after pic, because it’s pretty disturbing, but if this crazy chick wants to “weed out conservatives”, I say “thank you!” And I hope this trend catches on.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      This whole “conservative/Trump supporter as litmus test” trend is something I don’t like.

      But if women choose to make themselves unattractive to keep conservatives away, I guess I can’t argue. And this woman is attractive when she makes the effort; but…. whew…. monobrow and stache…. heinous.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        This whole “conservative/Trump supporter as litmus test” trend is something I don’t like.

        Yes, but politics is the new religion, so these people are just trying to avoid being “unequally yoked”. Makes sense — I mean why would members of the woke elect want to be yoked to the unsaved right-wing heathen?

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        James Carville and Mary Matalin seem to make it work.

        But I see what you’re saying. Conservatives and liberals can’t live together anymore, like, at all. People could still talk to each other in ’68 whether you voted for Nixon or Humphrey. Now, if you tell a Biden voter you voted for Trump, they threaten to shiv you right then and there.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Matalin and Carville are unique even for their generation, really — two hardcore partisan political operatives forming a couple. Not common here at all.

        But … I doubt James Carville is “woke” at all.

        Liked by 2 people

      • feeriker says:

        Hideous looks, hideous personality. Maybe her soul just finally forced her to be honest by making her body a reflection of the soul’s hideousness.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “She’s not that type of girl booger, Why? Does she have a penis?” – Gilbert/Booger, Revenge of the Nerds

        I think she just wants a nice man who doesn’t care about looks. One who will love her for who she is. I’m sure that as soon as you marry her, she’ll shave and pluck and you’ll be rewarded with her inner beauty AND her outer beauty.

        Almost certainly she’s resentful and rebelling against the alpha pump and dump.

        Liked by 3 people

    • elspeth says:

      I think Will S. at Patriactionary covered this story last week.

      It’s not as if liberal men want a un-ibrowed, hairy lipped chick either. So she should really re-evaluate the way she articulates her reasons for embracing ugliness.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        It’s not as if liberal men want a un-ibrowed, hairy lipped chick either.

        True, but “liberal” men are not allowed to say what they want, because to do so would be some sort of “shaming”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        NOVA
        Remember you,scott&lastmod talking about THE SMITHS?
        ”Pease don’t cry for the ghost and the storm outside”, then later…
        ”A piano plays in a empty room,they’ll be blood on the cleaver tonight”
        THIS!Are these MANOWARtm or THE SMITHS lyrics?
        P.S.Why are MORISSEY&MARR such jerks to JOYCE&ROURKE?

        Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        Marr is a bit pretintious…..he thinks he was the band. Moz honestly believes “no him, no Smiths” It’s like poor Bonehead in Oasis……or Brian Jones from the Stones.

        The frontman and guitarist in bands begin to believe that its about “them” and the rest of the band is to just “back them up” this happend with the later Doobie Brothers (end of the 1970’s) they became the poor mans’ Steely Dan, and then it suddenly became Michale McDonald and his backing band which at one time was “The Doobie Brothers”

        The Beatles never came close to this, Paul always had the impression he was going to “rehearse the rest them” after 1967 but they knew each other, and trusted each other enough to speak back to him…..

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        What’s really strange is she is wearing makeup.
        She won’t wax her lip, but she’ll put lipstick on it?
        Mental illness.

        Liked by 4 people

  5. Sharkly says:

    According to the Bible, men already are called to sacrifice, and women to submit. So we both have a Biblical calling to not sacrifice the other person, but to give ourselves up for the other:

    Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

    1 Corinthians 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

    1 Corinthians 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    There is already a ready scriptural prescription for these dilemmas, of mutual sacrifice.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Scott says:

    This reminds me of that scene in “A Beautiful Mind” when John Nash tells his friends they should use a form of assortive mating (not everyone goes for the leggy blonde) so they can all go home with a girl, instead of none of them getting any.

    Because nerds get chicks.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Haha — so true. Most guys learn in HS that the “go for the next tier girls down” strategy doesn’t work, but I guess some take longer to learn that through more failure. In order for an “adjust the sights downwards” strategy to work … you need to adjust the sights WAY, way, way down, to the level where most guys aren’t interested.

      Liked by 4 people

      • lastmod says:

        I don’t get it.

        Guys who can’t get top tier gal, have to go way, way, way down to get experience, then this gets them “confidence” to get a better one? Something you guys never had to do. Lets say a guy does this, he then is ridiculed for lowering his standards by men like you

        Liked by 3 people

    • Danny70 says:

      In 2021 any woman can go on a dating site and get 500 guys contacting her so she doesn’t have to go out with nerds and she doesn’t go out with nerds.

      Guys over 40 have absolutely no idea what the dating scene is like for young men.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. SFC Ton says:

    All of life is a 0 sum game

    Liked by 1 person

  8. lastmod says:

    WHy on earth did any of you get married if its this bad?????????????????????????????????????

    Liked by 1 person

    • SFC Ton says:

      I was young and ignorant of how state sponsored marriages work

      Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Cause she had big boobs, long blonde hair and bright green eyes.

      And the first time I set eyes on her, I just got that old fashioned romantic feeling where I’d do anything to bone her.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Yes. Exactly.

        Don’t take this personally, because I own it too.

        Because pssy makes men stupid. To an extent, it’s supposed to: If men weren’t getting pssy out of it, or the promise of p*ssy, men wouldn’t have much at all to do with women.

        “Women? But they don’t want me. But no p*ssy. Nah, I’ll be over here with my books and TV and vidya games and weed and p0rn. I’ll be working on my car. Or I’ll work at my job/career, make fat stacks, and retire at 55. Then go drive around the country or something. Assuming the country is still here when I’m 55.”

        The only thing that makes us keep coming back is p*ssy. That’s it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @thedeti,

        Yeah pretty much. Here’s how I put it.

        The main thing that men get from women that we can’t get from other men is sex. Sex and children but they’re pretty closely linked and it’s not like you stop having physical attraction and the desire for sex after she births 1.73 children or whatever.

        Everything else, I don’t want or don’t need or I can get in a better version from a male friend. I can cook, clean, load the dishwasher. It’s super easy. Companionship? Male friend. Shared hobbies? Male friend. Communication? Male friend – no communication difficulties, no coded language, no implied meanings. No hyperemotional crap. My wife is the first to admit that women are a pain in the @ss (and she’s one of the least pain-in-the-@ss ones). If a male friend were a pain in the @ss you wouldn’t keep him as a friend. When you marry, you no longer cultivate those male friendships of your youth. They are diminished or outright lost.

        That doesn’t mean you ONLY get sex out of your relationship with your wife. It is possible to be best friends with your wife or at least get along great, have common interests. Ideally you build common memories, fond memories. My wife is my best friend (I got a rare one). It is nice to have a soft-hearted woman to confide in.

        But sex is fundamental. If we weren’t romantically (sexually) attracted to women we wouldn’t bother. And romantic attraction doesn’t involve putting her behind a glass case and admiring her beauty. You want to touch, you want to have sex with her. If they don’t accept that, they shouldn’t marry. Men don’t owe them marriage.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Or I’ll work at my job/career, make fat stacks, and retire at 55.

        If I didn’t have a family, I could’ve retired at 40. But then, having a house full of kids is awesome.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        When you marry, you no longer cultivate those male friendships of your youth. They are diminished or outright lost.

        That hasn’t been our experience.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Elspeth says:

        This hasn’t been our experience either, Liz.

        My husband is pretty extroverted and while he doesn’t spend an inordinate amount of time with his friends, he does spend some.

        And there are times when his phone rings what feels like incessantly. Mostly friends. He actually reprimands me for how I neglect my friends.

        To his credit, there are times when he simply refuses to be bothered with anyone. When he says, “Nope. I don’t want to talk to anyone but my girl.”

        You’re also right about seasons. When we had a bunch of littles, his social life dwindled, because it needed to. Priorities.

        Thankfully he prefers my company -and his kids’ company- most of all. But I don’t think he would do well without those male bonds and I’d never want him to.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “That hasn’t been our experience.”

        Maybe – most women demand enough attention, family time, etc. from the hubby that your male friendships are at least neglected. If you’re an exception, that’s great for your husband – awesome.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        When you marry, you no longer cultivate those male friendships of your youth. They are diminished or outright lost.

        That hasn’t been our experience.

        Interesting.

        I am certainly not close to any of the friends I had in HS (or before then), college, or grad school. It happened gradually, but it did happen. I am not sure that marriage was the biggest reason why it happened, but more that life just moved in ways that drove us to very different places, with different contexts, and different sets of friends. But I don’t have any close friends from those periods of my life. People that I follow on Facebook? Yes, that I do have. But not “friends” in the sense of any closeness or intimacy. Given that these people seem to be in the same bucket for the most part it doesn’t seem like an odd circumstance.

        In terms of friends that are more contemporaneous to my current life situation, there are a few of those, but they aren’t very close. I have had some close friends from time to time in the past 20 or so years, but not very many of them, and they haven’t been lasting ones … people seem to drift along when life changes prompt it. Very few people seem to get close to other people as adults. This also seems a common experience, based on other men I have spoken with about it (including pretty much all of these people who were at one point in the “friend” category).

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        the wife is very demanding of my time and attention. Her “love language” is time spent together. Which is fine since we get along great. But that and raising kids – I don’t have time to keep up with my friends of my youth even though some live nearby.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        There are seasons in life for everything, as the saying goes.
        When the children are wee that’s not the best time to pal around a lot outside the home.
        Friendships are very important to my spouse, and wherever we’ve been he has cultivated and maintained those connections. Just last night he met up with a friend of ours from college. Who is also a good friend to our boys now.
        I’ve never been very social, if it isn’t forced on me.
        We’re very different personality types in that way.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        Just to add, he also has a lot more hobbies that build friendships…
        spearfishing, hunting, ju jitsu and so forth.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Liz and Elspeth are married to natural bull alphas who draw friends to them. Most of those friends are likely underlings and a few peers, I would guess.

        My experience has been like Nova’s. I have a couple of close friends from college I keep in touch with. Mostly, our experiences and life paths took us away from each other, especially after we all married.

        Men like me spent our time paying attention to our wives and marriages. More time than I should have, I’m finding out.

        I’ve spent the last 10 years sorting through and rebuilding out of the rubble from the wrecking ball Mrs. deti took to me and to our marriage. It was all I could do 10 years ago to get her to stop swinging the wrecking ball. We are still in Reconstruction. So, I’ve been kind of busy with that.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Are you sure it isn’t personality types, Deti?
        Most of the folks in the sphere trend INTJish in my (limited) experience.
        Some friends he mentors, some friends are peers, some friends have been his mentors.
        He kind of needs that interaction…it would be a problem if he couldn’t have those connections. In fact, we’ve had assignments where he was the boss and this was a problem because those peer relationships couldn’t be cultivated (conflicts of interest).
        Just my .01

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        The original point was that men give up a lot (I’m sure women do too – this is the male perspective) in marriage. It’s reasonable to note what men get out of it that they can’t get from other men. Primarily romantic love and children. Romantic love isn’t limited to but certainly includes an active sex life with some degree of enthusiasm/desire. This is a common source of marital issues for reasons that have been extensively discussed here. Attraction inequality, female promiscuity, out of control hypergamy, etc.

        Your premarital relationships with other men inevitably diminish. You work a job that you usually don’t care for very much. You live with a beautiful creature who’s largely driven by fickle emotions. You need to make a lot more money because of her instinct to acquire stuff. Etc.

        I don’t claim that wives are nothing but vaginas and wombs. I think the best marriages are BFFs with benefits. That’s not a lot of men’s experience – doesn’t sound like deti’s.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        No it isn’t your Myers-Briggs type and it may have little to do with how alpha you are. Married life means you give up freedom. That’s inevitable but it’s ok for a guy like, say deti, to ask what he’s getting out of it in return for what he gives up.

        Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Come on Jason, you’ve been around here long enough to know why. Because we didn’t know what we were agreeing to. Because marriage was the only legitimate path to sex for Christians. Because it is what we’re “supposed to do” when we find someone we like having sex with that much. Because we wanted a sex partner locked down. Because we wanted a sex partner we didn’t have to work so damn hard for.

      Because we wanted families. Because we wanted children. Because of pressure from family members telling us “if you like/love her that much and she wants to get married, then you should get married.”

      Because of pressure from her sending the clear message that “you need to wife me up right now or I am breaking up with you and no more sex for you and we both know that I can replace you inside of a week and it will take you months just to get over me, let alone find another sex partner. So you need to get to it and propose to me very soon, bub, or you and I are done.”

      Liked by 4 people

      • Because it is what we’re “supposed to do”.

        Same. Everything seemed to be right about it at the time. Healthcare has a “5 Rights” but you can say getting married has something similar.

        Right sex.

        Right attraction.

        Right time.

        Right values.

        Right goals.

        Since I can’t reply to your comment above I’ll put it here.

        “James Carville and Mary Matalin seem to make it work.”

        I just think of them as being two grifters who know how to put on a good act. Both will say anything to get paid.

        Liked by 3 people

      • lastmod says:

        You didn’t know what you were agreeing to? Deti…please….you’re a lawyer, you were then as now a billion times smarter than me, and I even read the credit card application before I sign….

        Marriage was the only legitimate path for Christians? Where? Here? In this forum…..maybe one or two exceptions but that’s really not a true statement.

        I knew what marriage required and entailed because I saw a great one growing up. Problem was that what I wanted, no woman seemed to want…maybe I wasn’t looking enough. Maybe I didn’t attend the right church at age 6….maybe…..just maybe…..ah, yes……….attractive people win, unattarctive must settle, and when they do are mocked for settling…..

        I wanted children. Couldn’t find a wife, hell……a date. I didn’t see hard work in a marriage, I saw the hard work in order to BUILD a strong marriage by my parents.

        If you all needed sex that badly, and would put up with anything to get some, I know some support groups that deal in these matters. Christian and secular.

        The sphere tends to think if you as a man don’t get sex “you will die” or something, or you must be called to celibacy and have The Gift. Sex is a small part in the long run of marriage. Bills have to be paid, work / jobs have to be done. Kids get sick…..or you have a child that requires almost all your free time to care for…….

        So many Christians have premartial sex…..its kind of accepted now as normal behavior and has been for a bit. “Don’t have sex…but if you do, Jesus forgives”

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Jason

        “Marriage” is whatever the state one resides in says it is. A dissolution of marriage is handled according to the law of the state where one resides. Marriage and divorce laws can and do change. When I got married in my state there was no lifetime alimony. Now there is, depending on the marriage’s duration. There was no sliding scale for alimony when I married. Now there is, depending on the marriage’s duration. Child support amounts and statutory schemes change.

        Yes many of us had premarital sex, including me. But it was frowned on in the Moral Majority/”family values” 80s. It was made very clear to us that what we were doing was wrong. People were talking about it then. They aren’t now. Everyone just looks the other way now. There was a lot of family and social pressure to avoid premarital sex and to marry. Went to college- had premarital sex but there was strong pressure from the girls having that premarital sex with you to not have premarital sex with other girls and to “commit” and if they found out you were “tomcatting around” they were done with you and all the girls would talk amongst themselves about what a d-bag you were and then you were getting NO sex or attention from girls AT ALL. Girls had just been given all the social and sexual power, and they used it. See, unlike men who use their sexual power pretty sparingly and judiciously, most women threw their power around and misused it.

        You don’t have to tell me how sex is a small part of marriage and how other things need to get done. I’ve actually lived that and still am. A married man doesn’t spend a lot of time having sex. But he DOES need to spend AT LEAST SOME time having sex, and it needs to be GOOD and REGULAR sex, and it needs to BE THERE WHEN I NEED IT.

        You know, kind of like the money I bring in is good and regular and is there when Mrs. deti needs it. That money has ALWAYS f * cking been there when she needed it.

        ANd that’s all I’m going to say about that.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      Why are you still whining about being single, if it’s this bad?

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        Well first, there is nothing I can do about it. I am not you, nor like the rest of you here.

        Secondly, you ask the dumbest questions of me. I was replying to the OP…and you again make it personal.

        All this talk here about great marriages and then a post and comments then make me look like an optimist around the rest of you.

        You’re a terrible person Oscar. You and I are oil and water, I could actually agree with you….and then you would find a way to disagree with me

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I was replying to the OP…and you again make it personal.

        When you ask “WHy on earth did any of you get married” you’re making it personal. The word “you” is personal.

        You’re a terrible person Oscar.

        I’m not the one who has “a low opinion of” my “fellow man”, or “a seething hatred” of men who are not like me. That’s you, remember?

        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2021/02/10/what-hitting-bottom-will-look-like/#comment-7104

        You and I are oil and water

        Good. I don’t want to “have a low opinion of my fellow man”, or “a seething hatred” of men who are not like me.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        As usual you didn’t read my whole reply as to why I came to this conclusion at the end of high school. I feel for your future son(s) in law.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        As usual you didn’t read my whole reply as to why I came to this conclusion at the end of high school.

        As usual, I did read your whole reply. I know you “came to this conclusion at the end of high school”. So what? How is that any better?

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        You never asked, and don’t care…nor should you really. Ups and downs. Good times, and bad times…..but at the tender age of 50 I do know I went through the whole shebang alone. Sure, I am a big capital “L” loser compared to you all. Fine. When it comes to women, you got me. Even if I became the most dashing of men, got muscles, and “worked really really hard” it would be almost pointless to even bother with that kind of narcissism…….a fifty plue year old man like me isn’t going to attract a 22 year old…..even if I did, I would be labeled a creep by you…and if I did indeed find someone around my age, I wouyld then be told by you to do a hymen check, and run a full scale FBI background check before I dated her……because you know……AWALT (excpet your wives of course)

        Other than that, I am a productive member of society, not a burden or drain. I got my life back (albeit dull for the most part) but at least I can sleep at night now. I’ve done some things that “I” wanted to do, and did them…..and will continue to do more things. Sure….unimportant and stupid to you all…..but at least I had some goals and I did them.
        I can speak the most anceint language of Europe that is still spoken and used and I am still slender. My eyes still have a sparkle in them like they did at twenty.

        I know, I know….yu guys “won” and I “lost” you get the big sticker….but valuing and putting value only on “what women think about how / how many / who is into you / how many IOI’s / what scale and how hot

        You really never left high school. There is no marriage in heaven anyway….so you victory here will mean nothing in eternity.

        Otherwise, I love everyone of you…..specially you Oscar 😉

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jason

        Wow. That was a lot of writing just to evade a simple question. How does the fact that you’ve had “a low opinion of” your “fellow man” and a “seething hatred” of men who are not like you since high school make that “low opinion” and “seething hatred” any better?

        Like

    • SFC Ton says:

      LOL could have retired a goodly while back but I can’t see myself not working

      Health issues cut me back to 70 hours a week, and lately to 50 and it drives me near on insane to be this inactive

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Sharkly says:

    I had no idea what evil would befall me. That’s why others need to learn from our suffering, so they aren’t left to our fate. I wish I’d been red pilled, before I made such a major life altering decision based upon the silly blue pill ignorance I was taught.

    Liked by 6 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “I had no idea what evil would befall me. That’s why others need to learn from our suffering, so they aren’t left to our fate. I wish I’d been red pilled, before I made such a major life altering decision based upon the silly blue pill ignorance I was taught.”

      Agree. This is our charter, learn and teach when the younger men (and women) are ready to learn; otherwise we’re just into a some sort of relational infotainment thing or soothing of old wounds, or something or other, with all this discussion of relationships and female nature. We all wish we had the Red Pill (Understanding), and possibly a good RP spiritual mentor (Wisdom) before we got involved in the SMP/MMP as young men.

      I was lucky in that as Blue Pilled as I was, God guided me to my wife instead of one of the Churchian women I was into at the time. I can take no credit for good ‘vetting skills’ when I wifed her up because my ‘little head was intent’ on the blonde with the curves and big boobs, or the brunette with the perfect ass. Either one of those two, CC jumper (the blonde) or CC rider (the brunette), would have sunk my ship to the bottom of the sea. I would have been divorced for sure and had half my stuff taken from me. If I had kids with either one of them, I’d have lost them too more than likely.

      However, with that said, I still had some rocky roads ahead of me, even though I had what many in the Manosphere would say was the ‘ideal’ situation: 21 year old female, good looking (youth, beauty, fertility), Bible believing, N=0, mature for her age, etc. And yet, AND YET, I too was heading down the road to separation and divorce right around the 7-9 year marital mark with two kids, even though Mr. Blue Pill here thought he was impenetrable: good job, good dad, good spiritual life. I thought that wasn’t possible when we got hitched. There are no unicorns!

      Fortunately, that ship righted itself just in time, and of no real doing by me. It was the grace of God, that’s it.

      So I do empathize with the men who got shot down. I was right there too, just for some reason known to God, I didn’t crash and burn. But even with that said, I was still just as Blue Pilled as they come until just three short years ago. Now I walk around and it’s like I see the freakin’ ‘code in the Matrix’ all day long. I’m thinking, “How did I survive all these years without this knowledge and understanding?” IDK. Again I have to just give God the credit, because it sure wasn’t me and my addled Blue Pill mind.

      Now I consider it a great privilege when I get to help men navigate through this cultural and relational shitstorm we have going on out there. And, I keep learning, there’s no real ‘bottom’ to this subject because the intersexual fundamentals may be easily learnable, however the permutations just seem endless.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        define what blue pill means to you….because you seem to view it as something “bad” and red pill means “good”

        ecoplain please, becuase I know your view / take on it is incorrect

        Like

  10. cameron232 says:

    Something about WASP culture and women.

    https://avoiceformen.com/featured/have-women-ever-been-oppressed-in-the-united-states/

    I like the use of the word “gynogroveler” by one of the commenters.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      No. Women have never been “oppressed” in the USA. In fact, they had it better before they got what they thought they wanted, which is why they were happier back then.

      Liked by 7 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        CAMERON&OSCAR
        I knew these things in 1980 at age 2!Hence why I’m still confused(since early 2012!) by so many men in the manosphere that think it just started in the ’60s or even the ’80’s, which we all experienced first-hand!My family would stick up for the feral women(Mostly aunts) in it and I better shut up,was the law!

        Liked by 4 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        People, especially conservatives, have a very small concept of time and history

        Liked by 6 people

      • elspeth says:

        They seem to be under the impression that the world started turning in 1950.

        Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL or 1980….. age bracket depending

        Liked by 3 people

      • locustsplease says:

        Cooking dinner. (Which they get to eat also) And having sex with your spouse. (Which they get to enjoy too) Is the easiest life role that exists. Its easier than being a child.

        Women are serious about this historic oppression junk. They just refuse to see other peoples pain and labor to judge how their lives are.

        Liked by 3 people

  11. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    In 1969, the republican-democrat oligarchy brought us the beginning of the end of society!IMAGINE if you will, that something has gone terribly wrong!Now except the fact of the horrible unintended consquences!Dawn of the DALROCKIANS is here!We must not be lulled into beleaving these are our family members or friends,they are not,they will not respond to such emotions!What is it?We’ve got a war!We have spawned our own savagery,soon it will consume us all!It’s a horrible, hauntingly accurate vision of the mindless excesses of a society gone mad!They must be destroyed on sight!Were down to the line folks,were down to the line!Dawn of the DALROCKIANS!Only x-rated for physchological nudity for such a barbaric NATION!

    Like

  12. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    RING…,RICKSPRINGFEIELD&MANOWAR?:I called my chick on the phone,her mother said she had 2 tickets for a coutly love rock&roll show,so I got in my car she loves!Eat your heart out RICK SPRINGFEILD&MANOWARtm,shes my girl!she’ll always will be!Ain’t no ROCK&ROLLTROUBADOR singer&courtly love band, going to take her away from me!Your cruising for a bruising rick!

    Like

  13. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: apparently, the Commie Pope thinks God lied.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9316549/Pope-Francis-warns-mankind-faces-second-great-flood-caused-global-warming.html

    Pope Francis has warned that mankind is facing a second great flood caused by climate change unless leaders act to fix corruption and injustice.

    The 84-year-old said that, in the story of the great flood in the Bible, God used his wrath to punish injustice and ‘clean up’ the world.

    He then added that humanity is facing another ‘great deluge, perhaps due to a rise in temperature and the melting of glaciers.

    ‘[That is] what will happen now if we continue on the same path,’ he said.

    Genesis 9:8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. 11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • feeriker says:

      Anti-popes always lie. Just as do anti-presidents..

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      A majority (based on polls) of traditional Catholics think Benedict is Pope.

      Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Is that TLM people or also Novus Ordo “traditional”?

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        From what I can tell, a mix. The poll was linked to by several prominent websites representing a mix of N.O. traditionalists, TLM, and “classic” sedevacantists (who mostly said “neither Benedict nor Francis”

        While I’m sure the numbers are very imperfect, I think the “Benedict is the Pope” idea isn’t nearly as fringy among traditionalists as it was in 2013 – it seems to be common and not just among the crazies.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Interesting. I’ve known a few N.O. “trad” types who are quite sick of Bergoglio but who haven’t gone as far as to say he isn’t Pope. The issue to me seems to be, based on my understanding of the canon law (rusty, since I haven’t been Catholic since 2000), whether Benedict’s resignation was lawful and effective. It seems to me, though, that even if arguments could be made that it “wasn’t”, this would lead to other problematic realities, such that the entire apparatus of the higher church organization ceasing to function in a licit manner — i.e., that the college acted illicitly, and knowingly so, in electing Bergoglio, and that the whole thing is a coup d’etat of sorts. All of that is possible, of course, but it raises much broader and more troubling issues, it seems to me, than the idea that Jorge Bergoglio was simply a bad choice, and that bad choices have been made before (looking at some of the Renaissance era popes here). Sedes of course will disagreee but they are sedes.

        It will be interesting to see what happens after him. Does the left consolidate and elect another Bergoglio? If so, is there a schism at some stage when that person tries to make changes that the left (e.g., the Germans and the Dutch) seem hell-bent on forcing? Or does the college go the other way and elect someone from the “conservative” wing (a trad won’t be selected, either way, I am pretty certain), and, if this happens, what does the left do now that it is used to being in power in Rome again?

        Bergoglio turned 84 in December, and so there is a timeframe coming into view here soon enough, likely.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I’ve said this before – I hope they pick an African traditionalist like Cardinal Sarah. I want to see the left’s heads explode – they’ll want so bad to get excited over a non-European Pope but when they figure out he acutally believes Catholic teaching, basic Christian doctine and morals – it would be fun to watch. Probably won’t happen.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah, the Pope just ditched Sarah though, which isn’t a good sign. But that doesn’t mean the college couldn’t elect a different one. Seems like a long shot but who knows. Sarah was probably the best hope for that happening.

        Liked by 2 people

  14. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    LASTMOD
    Who said we won or that your a loser?
    Why you think everybody else is having sex that is or is not married?
    I can get attention yes,but do I realy care about getting up with any woman?No!
    You know I’m basicaly a CHRISTIAN-MGTOW right? I have considered you my bro for years, but how can I help you?BLUEPILLDEFINITION?Getting into a country-wide social highway pile-up,by rushing into situations without thinking long-term!

    Like

  15. redpillboomer says:

    “define what blue pill means to you….because you seem to view it as something “bad” and red pill means “good””

    Good question, let me take a stab at this. NovaSeeker, you can elaborate if you see something missing from my attempt at an explanation.

    An Allegory from the Matrix…Red Pill> Once taken and ingested, one can see with increasing clarity (and understanding) what couldn’t be seen clearly before, i.e. the ‘code in the Matrix,’ how male & female relationships have been affected by the fall, and the evolution of these relationships over the years (actually centuries or the course of time & civilization, particularly western civilization for us in the West)….Blue Pill>Can’t see the the ‘code in the matrix (the actual truth of the situation)’ because society and cultural conditioning has taught us something very different about male-female relationships than what actually goes on between the sexes. One can certainly see (through observation) and/or personal experience the effects of the Blue Pill conditioning on relationships in general or their relationship specifically, but still be left wondering “What the hell just happened, or what went wrong? Why didn’t it work out? etc.”

    Btw, that’s what happened to me three years ago during the educational program I’ve referenced in my earlier posts. I was left wondering at the time “What the hell just happened there, and why was I so freakin’ powerless to have any impact with my supposed ‘superpower’ skills of mentoring and coaching?” It sent me on quest for answers as to why I was so, in m y mind, totally ineffective with the situation and how I could ‘fix’ the apparent gap in my skillset specifically related to coaching younger women in this program, but more broadly speaking, females in general. I was fueled by the pain of defeat of losing my ‘star protege performer’ (and yes I had emotional attachment to her, but not physical), and I’ve got to find answers to this!!

    There’s nothing inherently bad about the Blue Pill, sticking with the allegory, Neo could have taken the Blue Pill instead of the Red Pill, and awoke back in life and things would have been just as they always had been, except he’d still be left with the nagging doubt that ‘something is just not right here,’ and still not be able to see the source of the problems, just the effects.

    Again, good question, first time I’ve been asked it, so I request you not go trying to ‘tear apart’ my explanation because it’s my first attempt, and I’m still somewhat new to this Red Pill thing (three years). Maybe some of the manosphere veterans on here can articulate it more clearly than me.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. elspeth says:

    I actually popped back in here because I wondered Novaseeker’s take on this, which I find fascinating for a number of reasons. It really speaks to the fracture in our culture that the more education and money people acquire, the more they reject the more traditional, patriarchal model of marriage and family. If you just look at the money, it seems counterintuitive, which leaves the education factor as a major contributor to the disintegration of the type of family structure in which children most thrive. Anyway, here’s the data:

    https://americancompass.org/the-commons/let-them-eat-daycare/

    But sine the issue of mine and Liz’s differing experiences when it comes to male freedom and friendships after marriage is ongoing, I think Liz is right. it’s a personality issue more so than any kind of alpha/beta/whatever issue. Like her husband, mine has mentoring relationships, but also some relationships that are peer relationships. He’s just an outgoing guy, and no matter how close he and I are (and we are quite close), he’s still a man, an extroverted one even, and I’m still a woman, and an introverted one at that.

    His friendships don’t disturb our connection at all We spend quite a lot of time together, but it is pretty targeted time. Walks at 5:30 AM, Retreating to our bedroom fairly early after spending dinner and then an extra hour hanging out with our kids. Taking weekend trips to the coast on a relatively regular basis; things like that. But our kids aren’t babies, so we can do that now.

    Occasionally spending time with friends separately need not mean that you don’t have a close friendship with one another or that you’re trying to escape each other. It really does come down to, ‘What is your personality like and what is required for you to be your best?”

    For my husband, that means having a wide spectrum of relationships, so I want him to have that.
    He is a people magnet, but it’s mostly personality. He can make the occasional enemy, too, which he seems not to mind at all.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      I actually popped back in here because I wondered Novaseeker’s take on this, which I find fascinating for a number of reasons. It really speaks to the fracture in our culture that the more education and money people acquire, the more they reject the more traditional, patriarchal model of marriage and family. If you just look at the money, it seems counterintuitive, which leaves the education factor as a major contributor to the disintegration of the type of family structure in which children most thrive.

      Isn’t the real story not reflected in the data — i.e., the percentage of kids raised in intact families by “class” as defined in that data. That data looks at “couples” only — when you get to the lower ranks, single parenthood is much more common, so the data concerning what people who aren’t in couples are doing with respect to breadwinning in the lower levels dramatically overstates the difference, I think, because it omits the data that relates to the children that are raised outside stable couples in those classes — situations where there isn’t any “intact patriarchal model” at all, because there isn’t an intact family of any kind.

      This does, indeed, break down by the mother’s education levels, married and unmarried, as seen here: https://econofact.org/widening-socioeconomic-differences-in-childrens-family-structure .

      Of course, the data also “leaves out” the highly educated high-income people who are not coupled, or do not have children, too. So it skews on that side, too.

      Overall, it seems clear when you look at different kinds of data that higher educated people (generally higher earning) tend to (1) have children almost always when married, (2) embrace egalitarian marriages and (3) have lowest divorce rates. It likewise appears that lower educated people (generally lower earning) tend to (1) have children more frequently without being married, (2) when married have more traditional marriages and (3) have higher divorce rates.

      Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        Right, Nova. You reiterated the stats with which we are all pretty familiar.

        There were a heap of subtexts here that speak to something much deeper than the stuff we already know: namely that poorer people have more divorce and OOW births than wealthier, educated people.

        What I see that isn’t explicitly stated is that from a policy standpoint, the powers that be don’t offer anything of value to families who are both married and intact and/or working class.

        All the goodies -whether from government or corporately- are spent on day care and subsidies for single moms or working moms. All the rhetoric is geared towards incentives for “working families”, i.e. those who have two incomes or who don’t have a parent at home.

        I see a culture/policy structure which actively disincentivizes marriage among the working classes despite knowing that 1) kids do better in two parent families, and 2) emotionally, they develop better and more securely under the breadwinner/homemaker model.

        Despite my relatively small family of 5 kids reproduced I am all about natalism.. So… when I see that less educated people intuitively understand what is ideal, yet cannot execute the ideal, it speaks to a serious culture issue.

        There used to be a such thing as poor, yet hardworking, moral and dignified. it hasn’t always been that lack of wealth was synonymous with divorce and familial dysfunction.

        When people at the lower end pine for the ideal, that tells me that so much of what has gone wrong, particularly since the war on poverty, is a direct result of social engineering and tinkering with the family via policies that ripped the lowest hanging fruit first.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Oh there’s no question that the changes were deliberate. There is a stated desire to undermine the breadwinner model — I think that’s clear enough. They do not want to support it, because they do not want to support the family model that it contains — they want to make that as difficult as possible to do, so that fewer people do it.

        Simone de Beauvoir once said that she thought that women should not be legally permitted to stay home to care for children, because too many women would choose to do so, thereby undermining the advancement of their sisters. This obviously didn’t actually happen, but the “soft” version of it did, and it was very intentional.

        But this is a consistent theme. The entire system — economics, laws, education, employment/expectations, family life has been rejiggered to suit the preferences of highly educated, ambitious people, and this class is now replicating itself by marrying almost exclusively inside its own ranks, in intact families, and perpetuating the advantages that it structurally privileges in various ways. The whole thing needs to be trashed, however — trying to do it in piecemeal will get nowhere.

        Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      The UMC daycare thing – don’t get me started. I work for a very large engineering company where 6 figure or at least high 5-figure salaries are the norm – I’ll assume that’s UMC.

      These women push the baby out, take their granted time off and are right back at it – leaving their baby with another woman all day long so they can do a useless job robbing taxpayers. That’s their legacy – powerpoint slides that won’t exist a few years from now when that harddrive is wiped. Doesn’t seem to bother hubby that she doesn’t care for their baby. One woman – her little one layed there on the floor of the daycare all day sick becuase the workers don’t care – it made their job easy that he was being “good.”

      The idea of being a stay at home husband while my wife works is less than appealing – to say the least – it sounds pretty faggoty. I’d still do it if I were in that situation and my wife refused to stay home- I have more nurturing instinct than these women – that’s not saying much.

      Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        Even republicans push stuff like this:

        https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/04/romney-child-care-benefit-democrats-465940

        I’m not really into government intervention into the lives of citizens to a large degree, but why not offer tax credits to married families for every child? Remember in the 80s when a single mom would get more and more benefits with every child she birthed? Married families? Not so much.

        Why not offer that kind of incentive to married, intact families? Ease the economic stress of being married and procreating without being wealthy, and you eliminate one of the major stressors on low income marriage.

        See Hungary and Poland offering serious tax incentives to families with 4 or more children.

        I think what really bothers me most is that so-called conservatives and American Christians have a serious lack of vision when it comes to this.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        I think what really bothers me most is that so-called conservatives and American Christians have a serious lack of vision when it comes to this.

        This is a hangover from the late 20th Century alliance between libertarians and religious conservatives, birthed by the “Moral Majority” organization formed by Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich (I knew Paul Weyrich for a while in his later life), which was later succeeded by the emergent “Christian Right” portion of the “Republican base”. It was all a part of the plan to form an organized political coalition that could resist the changes made in the 1960s and 1970s, but this required alliances with libertarians, many of whom were not Christian in focus and were merely focused on getting rid of all kinds of government. It was a pragmatic coalition at the time, I think, but the long-term effects of it have been disastrous for American Christianity, not the least because libertarian ideas, which are not Christian in origin, are now held by a large portion of Christians in this country and are kind of sloshed together with their Christianity in a way that they were not, at least in an organized political sense, prior to the political coalition forged in the 1970s and 1980s.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Exhibit A of one daughter of a prominent Republican …. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/03/caroline-giuliani-on-three-way-sex-with-couples

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Question for class:

        Is it alpha to get your wife into an ongoing three-way with a younger woman (like being a playa and being married at the same time), or is it beta (like opening your wife up to leaving you for another girl)?

        Leaving aside Christian considerations of course, we know it’s immoral. Just a theoretical alpha/beta question.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        A pull it out of my butt guess. It’s alpha because you can get two girls at once and you’re wife’s probably doing it to please you.

        From the movie Office Space:

        Peter Gibbons:
        What would you do if you had a million dollars?

        Lawrence:
        I’ll tell you what I’d do, man, two chicks at the same time, man.

        Peter Gibbons:
        That’s it? If you had a million dollars, you’d do two chicks at the same time?

        Lawrence:
        Damn straight. I always wanted to do that, man. And I think if I had a million dollars I could hook that up, cause chicks dig a dude with money.

        Peter Gibbons:
        Well, not all chicks.

        Lawrence:
        Well the kind of chicks that’d double up on a dude like me do.

        Peter Gibbons:
        Good point.

        Lawrence:
        Well what about you now? what would you do?

        Peter Gibbons:
        Besides two chicks at the same time?

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        6 figures would be umc in my AO but is it in more urban areas?

        Not sure thats a good live in Raleigh or Charlotte

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        Elspeth dropping truth bombs

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        My wife says that I’m allowed to have a younger second wife but only if she’s my wife’s slave/servant. Pretty sure she’s kidding – pretty sure she’d stab the “2nd wife.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “My wife says that I’m allowed to have a younger second wife but only if she’s my wife’s slave/servant.”

        This arrangement is common for wealthy men all over the world. It is practiced openly in the near east, middle-east, and the orient. It is practiced covertly in Europe and Americas. It was also common among the ruling class in east Asia up until the mid 20th century. The emperor (or other position of status) would usually have an arranged marriage with another family in the noble class early in life. When this wife neared the end of childbearing age, the emperor would take other concubines and his wife would then become the “chief wife”.
        Of note, Pete Rambo at Headship Restoration is exploring this kind of arrangement in a modern context.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Pete Rambo at Headship Restoration is exploring this kind of arrangement in a modern context.

        Oh, good. Polygamy worked so well in the Bible, and everywhere else it’s been tried.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Liz says:

      A few months ago an enlisted airman called my husband when he was on an airline trip. They were just about to leave for the next city, and the airman was drunk and sounded suicidal. Mike told his copilot he couldn’t leave until he made sure the guy was okay. He was willing to jeopardize his job, or whatever, to make sure that one enlisted airman was okay. That’s who he is. It turned out well…they were able to get a 1Sgt to the guy’s house, and then they flew out.

      Liked by 4 people

      • elspeth says:

        @ Liz:

        Yes. A man who will not hesitate to help someone in need, even to his detriment if that’s what it means. A good man who cares about someone other than himself. You got yourself one of those.

        For the longest time, I thought my husband’s instinct to do that was unique to him. Then I noticed over the years a few fellow travelers like him among the couples we encountered and decided it was maybe a generational thing. Until I realized that….nope. Not generational.

        So I think it comes down to combination of compassion and confidence that 1) you can make a difference, and 2) that even if it costs you something, you can make it up and still come out a head.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    NOVA&CAMERON
    So the end of public rightwing christianity is nearing its end?
    This not what we dalrockians knew years ago?
    P.S.INTIMACY?Is she a comedy writer, is that vanity fairs new format?Does this come as any suprise to us who know the real rudy guiliani of tax-payer funded adultery&living with a homosexual couple during divorce?
    Those who know him as americas mayor or trumps lawyer might be shocked but us?
    I can’t remember what post it was on dal’ where someone said women write the sickest sex stuff?Is this not more proof?Especialy when their trying to emulate their adulterous parent!

    Like

    • feeriker says:

      Even republicans push stuff like this

      Most Republicans are Godless Globalists, just like the Left they pretend to despise, but with whom they are in firm agreement on most issues.

      If there were really any truly substantive differences between the two parties (that is to say, if the Uniparty that governs us didn’t exist), then Congress would be perpetually gridlocked and no legislation would ever be passed (which of course is not a bad thing at all).

      Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        It doesn’t surprise me at all that a Republican (Romney, in this case) would promote degeneracy. It does surprise me that the Mormon church doesn’t rein him in. Maybe that means he has other masters.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. feeriker says:

    It does surprise me that the Mormon church doesn’t rein him in. Maybe that means he has other masters.

    The Mormons have a history of being heavily involved in the activities of the Deep State (heavy Mormon presence in the FBI). A couple of things that I find especially fascinatimg about their history:

    1) How quickly they capitulated to the U.S. . government when it came to Utah’s statehood. How is it that a fringe (at the time) cult that was seeking to break away from the rest of society and that had been chased out of their other settlements (thus their migration westward to the Salt Lake region) simply ceded the territory that they had conquered, cultivated, and developed as their own over to the feds without a fight? Especially after the feds forced them to abandon some of their core religious practices like polygyny?

    Why didn’t the feds just “Waco” the Mormons rather than work out a settlement with them for Utah’s statehood? What power or possession did the Mormons have that the feds deferred to them like they would defer to no one else (Native Americans know what I’m talking about here)?

    Something just doesn’t add up in either case.

    As for Mittens Romney, it just might be that he not only has the approval of the LDS hierarchy, but is actively doing their bidding.

    Liked by 1 person

    • SFC Ton says:

      Mormons have this weird thing…. ok they have a lot of weird things but this one is where they think they will save America and the Continuation and reclaim or some such the whole natiom.

      Sort of a they can do no wrong deal when it comes to governance and I also think they have a thing aginst criticizing their own in public…. been a while since I knew any but I think those are fairly accurate statements

      Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        SFCTON
        You know about BUDDY BROWN-TRUCK SESSIONS?I did’nt until about ten minutes ago on youtube after seeing about samantha fox’s old ’80’s stuff!Buddy just did ”we gotta be less white” about coca-cola’s ”be less white” pamplet? country song on the back of his pick-up truck(As is usual on his truck sessions!) a week ago& ”offended” in honor of mr.potato head yesterday!You know hes from madison, mississippi right?

        Like

      • SFC Ton says:

        I’ll go look him up. The left seems hell bent on creating White nationist and Southern Separatist.

        Which I surely don’t disapprove of

        Thanks for the intell

        Liked by 1 person

  19. Pingback: The Demise of the Christian Life Script | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: Strategies for the Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: The Spiritual Confusion of Clinging to the “Rules” | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Is Patriarchy for Deplorables? | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Dolearchy Trumps Patriarchy | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: The Meet Cute as a Positive Feedback Loop | 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