The Future of Intersexual Relationships is Transactional

You’ve got the looks. I’ve got the brains. Let’s make lots of money!

Readership: All
Length: 1,500 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes

The Rise of the Geisha and Danna

Our study of The Rise of the Amateur Sex Industry in January emphasized how both men and women, in response to the degradation of the SMP and MMP, are resorting to faux relationships of a transactional nature. Women who are gifted with looks, charm, and the mind for business are dominating the new SMP/OASIS. These women were compared to geishas in the discussion, and this trope resonated around the ‘sphere.

Farm Boy wrote a post on this topic at Spawny’s Space. In it, he wrote, 

“Is there something comparable [to a geisha in] the West? Not formally. Probably there are some fellas who have ladies that they lean on, with the fellas providing gifts and the like. Perhaps the market for such a thing has never been big enough to create something legitimately.”

“It really should not be that difficult for a lady to figure out what the customer wants, then package up the product. Just listen, think, figure out what to do, then respond appropriately when needed. This is perhaps about some of the easiest money around if you can cultivate such a customer.”

Spawny’s Space (Farm Boy): Geisha (2021 January 19)

Yes, the real challenge for female competitors in this arena lies in the invention of a suave personalized image of femininity, and the presentation and marketing thereof.

In Japan before the WWII era, geishas underwent several stages of training, starting as young as 6, and lasting many years. It was traditional in the past for an apprenticed geisha to take a danna, or patron. A danna was typically a wealthy man, sometimes married, who had the means to support the very large expenses related to a geisha’s traditional training and other costs.

Likewise, now there is a vacuous need for a new kind of pimp/madame/master/mentor/danna — someone who can educate and coach young attention/income seekers to be an idealized geisha from a man’s point of view. This idealized geisha would have all of the honeycraft and creampies that men covet, and none of the witchcraft and $h!t testing that is typically inherent in the average unregenerated female. This idealized geisha would also have the image and PR necessary to succeed.

NovaSeeker described the technical aspects of this as a “production”.

“Creating HQ content is a “production” as Delphine describes. You need lighting. You need direction. You need scenes and a planned flow. It isn’t Shakespeare, but it also isn’t a woman alone in her bedroom with her cellphone taking a video of herself touching herself. It’s a production. It requires other people. It requires multiple takes, in some cases. It requires post-production and editing. And all of that is more time consuming (much more), more invasive to personal life, and more costly than taking pics and videos with your own cellphone yourself (or via your IG boyfriend or some OF BFF) together with the occasional pro shoot (bonus if your BF is a pro photographer, or if you have a BFF who is). It crosses those lines of “accessibility” and “ease of production” that have made OF so attractive to women, precisely because it is no harder for them to produce content for than Instagram. That changes, quite a bit, if one is shifting to HC video content.”

Of course, parents and especially fathers should have given young girls training in poise, manners, and etiquette, especially concerning how to get along with men. Wealthier families sent their daughters to a professional finishing school. However, the past few generations have dismissed learning these social graces as demeaning and old fashioned. Their failure to transmit the time-tested traditions of the old regime (and the knowledge of God’s ordained order of creation) has left modern generations of young women without any concept of the personal wealth they might have at their disposal, given proper training.

But with the rise of OASIS, it seems that (some) women may now begin to recognize the value of the values of the past — but they have no dannas to guide them… yet.

The bards of yesteryear foretold of this coming age.

The Future of the West

Long time commenter horsemanbombadil summed up the Geisha analogy as follows.

This is the future of the west.

Men have detached and have little interest in long term provisioning. Economies are entering hard times, depression. Large groups of men and women who are not the 20% are going to be forced into singleness for all of their 35-65s.

Many women post wall do not have the skills\jobs to support themselves until retirement. Many men do not have the 20% to be desirable but because of self-focus are economically comfortable.

Social supports like siblings, extended family are fractured so the extended family living arrangement is gone.

The solution?

Men women sharing resources to live comfortably but without the romantic, family ties.

The housekeeper who tends house for the confirmed bachelor common in the late 1800s, early 1900s…

The girlfriend experience\geisha that pretends but is a formal honourable business transaction.

The legal and accepted hooker. Simple, clean sexual transaction as needed.

Women for the most part cannot do the pure corporate grind as singletons for 40 years, 25-65 no matter what feminism says. They want to be part of a social unit. But men do not trust them on a social level.

The social contract is broken.

So the answer is a business contract.

Focus here and everywhere is the pre wall and immediate post wall periods — the 20-year period mid-twenties to mid-forties.

But there is an equal 20-year period that must be addressed. 45-65 retirement.

What does society do with large groups of bachelors and spinsters in these groups?

How to incentive them to continue working, being good citizens, being part of society when they have no family, no meaningful work, no human interaction?

Large groups spending two decades despondent, discarded, without hope? Abandon any animal and see what it does? It either goes mad, goes aggressive or lays down to die.

Society cannot have this in large numbers. It will find a solution.

The natural evolution will be to form new units, but at arm’s length.
Based not on mutual need like prehistory to 1900, not based on love like 1900 to 1970s, not based on hedonism\free love like 1970s to present.

Based strictly on business relationship play acting as social.
I trust my work associates because it is in our mutual best interests.
Do I emotionally like them? Irrelevant.

That is what the next base unit of society. A small business group.

Borders in a boarding house.

Home owner and housekeeper

Worker and live in geisha.

Independent singleton and on demand date\sexual partner.

Both sexes are fine in the 20s to 40s.* Those decades are full of establishing whatever the lifestyle is. The CC, the becoming successful at work, the making one’s mark on the world.

The peak performing years. This can replace social bonds by achievement or pleasure.

But once one plateaus? When tomorrow will not be better than today. When the body tires?
When the sparkle of the pursuit becomes the grind?

Forget even the baby clock etc.

The day when you realize, I don’t want to do this anymore? But I have a decade or more to retirement or the home? Women how do you suck it up and do your corporate job? Men how do you suck it up and stay part of society?

At this point being alone will be intolerable. Socially and economically.

The sexes will gravitate to what biologically are designed for. The programming cannot overcome forever. But the biology will not overcome the mistrust and jadedness caused by the decades of experience. So the answer will be some compromise of the biological need to form units against the emotional detachment of experience.

The playacting model.

* I disagree that both sexes are “fine” in the 20s to 40s (most men suffer exceedingly), but horseman’s overall point still stands.  Please read The Futility of Justifying the Crash Landing (2021 February 15) for more on this.

Conclusions

When love and trust evaporate, then human interaction boils down to a series of transactions in order to fulfill needs. The needs will not budge, and if people will not trust God to fulfill those needs, then they are reduced to bartering and various power plays in order to satisfy those needs.

But even this approach requires training and preparation.

Enter the new 21st century danna and the geisha finishing school.

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 Asia, Attraction, Building Wealth, Child Development, Cultural Differences, Culture Wars, Discipline, Education, Female Power, Game Theory, Internet Dating Sites, Models of Success, Purpose, Relationships, SMV/MMV, Taiwan. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to The Future of Intersexual Relationships is Transactional

  1. Novaseeker says:

    I’m not sure bombadil’s schema fully works.

    One thing is that women want social contact, as he rightly says — that is true. I do not think, however, that women get this social contact in a way that is in any way satisfying for them through business contact with men — that is, as subscription-only OnlyFans online geishas like Nikole Mitchell, or as sugars on SeekingArrangements, or certainly as straight-up prostitutes. Women will do these things for money, certainly, and as a way to monetize attention-seeking behavior, but it isn’t socially satisfying in the way women crave. So when bombadil says this:

    “Women for the most part cannot do the pure corporate grind as singletons for 40 years, 25-65 no matter what feminism says. They want to be part of a social unit. But men do not trust them on a social level.

    The social contract is broken.

    So the answer is a business contract.”

    I think that it doesn’t follow that a business contract is any sort of solution from a female point of view. It may “work” as a satisficing option from a male point of view — and in fact it likely does for some portion of men. But from a female point of view it doesn’t get what they are looking for — it isn’t a “social unit” to them, because they are doing it for money. It’s a grift for them, a side hustle. It isn’t “socially satisfying”. It can at times scratch the itch for male attention, yes, in the case of Instagram and some of the OnlyFans women, but when women start doing this for money, it becomes a grift to them, it isn’t a social unit, but something they do for money, with and to/for men who are providing the money. So it doesn’t work to fulfill the female social need in the way he says it does. I have no doubt that women will continue to participate in the grift, as we have seen, and that it will likely continue to grow, but it isn’t because it satisfies a woman’s need for a social unit — it simply provides a way for her to easily monetize her normal attention-seeking behavior, and in that sense it’s a no brainer. I mean if you are dressing to attract men’s eyes on the daily anyway, why not get some grift cash from it? It makes sense to me, therefore, that this will grow, but not because it satisfies some social need and desire — rather, it’s a way for women to monetize their sex appeal.

    As for this:

    “But there is an equal 20-year period that must be addressed. 45-65 retirement.

    What does society do with large groups of bachelors and spinsters in these groups?”

    Here lies some more fundamental problems, I think, in addition to the one I discuss above about the lack of social “satisfaction” of these arrangements for women.

    One basic one is that men generally are not willing to pay older women for these kinds of “services”. If an older man is inclined to seek the services, he will do so from a younger woman. So in no way do I think this addresses any kind of “linkage” between older women and older men. And the handful of older women in the range he is talking about (45-65+) who are physically situated so as to be of interest to men seeking such services are generally in such high demand in the dating market from men of all ages that they aren’t going to be engaged in the older male grift market, either. This may sound contradictory to what I have been saying about how much more attractive older women have been getting but it isn’t, really, because my point has been about women who are mostly 30-50. Once you get into the 50s the number is much less, and once you get past 55 it’s almost zero. In general while women aged 30-50 are much hotter than they used to be, if you shift the lens to 45-70 that is much less the case, and the percentage of women in that group who are interesting to the men in that group as “geishas” is very low indeed. Not enough to support the kind of phenomenon between the sexes at those ages that he suggests.

    Another problem is that, apart from their attractiveness, women in this age range are quite often not very interested in men. Post-menopause women’s interest in men varies significantly as between different women — some women remain about as interested, and others become more or less completely disinterested. Nothing similar happens to men — men’s libido gradually lessens, but no menopause effect. There is another mismatch between the two sexes in these age ranges, in addition to the one I pointed out in the paragraph above. Quite a significant number of the women in these age ranges are more or less content to live without men as long as they have a cohort of women BFFs that they can “do things with” that they want to do, such as travel, engage in hobby activities and the like. They fall out of any market for men.

    I do think bombadil is onto something about the idea that men are attracted to the OASIS in these age ranges. Yes. These age ranges are the “sugar daddies” of SeekingArrangement. I am sure that they are a large portion of the customers of women like Nikole Mitchell or of the “Mrs. Poindexter” OnlyFans star. But the women in the 45+ set? Not the same women these guys are seeking. And both the sugars from SA and the OF girls see what they are doing as a grift, not as satisfying a need to be in a social unit — attention seeking, yes, but that isn’t a social unit.

    That leads me to a broader point on this post. I do think that there is a growth market in what can be described as “Western geishas”. By this I mean, “bespoke quasi-prostitute”, as fits Western culture. You see this in SeekingArrangements, at least in the higher-end aspects of it. And you see it also in the higher end aspects of prostitution, if you look around for the truly expensive online prostitutes (the likes of $1200+ per hour variety). These women are providing a different kind of experience than the streetwalkers of yore, for certain. It is more bespoke, it is more focused on the client, it is often not a one-and-done encounter and, in the case of the true sugars of SA (and not the prostitutes who are on SA), a kind of “paid fake girlfriend” arrangement — all of which are a kind of Westernized form of geisha.

    However, unlike actual geisha, there is no “danna” here. We have no tradition of such thing in our culture apart from “kept women”/mistresses, and that is where SA is the closest modern representation, but it isn’t that close, because the relationships there are no way as long term or as solidified as the olden days “kept women” ones were, where the women were kind of like unofficial second wives in a system which eschewed official polygyny. SA things aren’t really like that. They don’t perdure, in part because generally when men in the West spend cash on females in a transactional way like that, it is generally very heavily skewed towards women in the same age range of 20-30, perhaps 35. The phenomenon of “growing old with one’s geisha”, whereby a danna remains with a geisha until she is well beyond the sell date is simply alien to the West and, contra bombadil, I don’t see this developing here at all.

    Having said that, there is still the market for these emergent “pseudo-geisha” of a Western variety — who are more like bespoke non-hooker prostitutes (i.e., women who are effectively prostitutes, but who never feel like the man is with a hooker), whether of the in-person (SA, high-end online escorts) or online (OF) variety. I have no doubt, for example, that a woman like Nikole Mitchell is effectively one of these, catering to specific men’s tastes in more bespoke and customized ways, while being a woman who is educated, articulate, lives an outwardly “normie/suburban” lifestyle, and is therefore relatable and comfortable in a way that Suzie the Floozie Streetwalker is not. But there is an end date for it. That end date isn’t 30. It may, today, not be until around 45-50. But it isn’t much north of 50, at least not yet.

    Liked by 3 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      I don’t see any major changes in the smp/ mmp ( sort of ) becuase we have a society/ culutre that works well for a goodly number of people and works well enough for another chunk of folks. Which is probably 45% of us. Give or take. For sure it is a train wreck for a small majority, but even then it works well enough between train wrecks for those folks not to do anything radically different. Things like only fans etc will be strong facotrs but still effect the margins because most women want to fleece a series of LTR’s for a large chunk of cash vs the pro sex model were they get $100 bucks from a hundred dudes a month. And most guys aren’t cut out for direct pay to play. I think most dudes would rather use porn.

      Marriage, college and eccnmoic stability will continue to be an upper class/ upper middle class affair. I am curious to see if higher skilled blue collar men join those ranks socially since a lot of guys push the 6 figure mark and UMC seems to start at a 100k

      Marriage and the smp will be pretty much what it is now for the middle class. Some success, some failures, divorce, remarriage, attempts to blend familes etc etc.

      Things will continue to get worse for the rest of folks but it will be more of the current dysfunction. Whatever new dysfunctions come up will be a spin off the current dysfunction

      But we’ll know how well those statements age in a decade or so

      Liked by 7 people

    • thedeti says:

      Good comment.

      women in this age range are quite often not very interested in men.

      Except that almost all of them need men’s money.

      The primary reason women are staying with men past age 45 or so is because they can’t make it on their own. They can’t. They can’t make ends meet without money, and for almost all of them, the only way to get that money is from men, by any means necessary.

      Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Nova, I think you live in a different world. DC/New York high powered, whatever.
      I work for a very large corporation with thousands of employees. Salaries are UMC at least for Florida.

      I do not see attractive 40-something women. 30-something, yes. 40-something? Maybe attractive compared to our grandmother’s 40’s? Objectively attractive, no. And definitely not 50s. I don’t see any men who would wife these women up – maybe an elderly man?

      I was talking to a 50 something divorced female engineer (think “old, leathery ex-cheerleader type) earlier this week. She retired but came back because she was doing nothing but sitting around her condo drinking wine when not at the gym or out with girlfriends eating. I see these 40 and 50-something divorcees all the time. They are not happy. The cat (rabbit more often) woman who goes through cases of wine – that’s not a stereotype – it’s true. All she could talk about was her ex and how he now has young children from his younger wife. And how she couldn’t drink as much when out with girlfriends because she now has to show up for work (useless, souless, BS work).

      These spinsters – most of them want a man – I don’t know if it’s for status, loneliness (they have girlfriends) or missing their other half. Female instinct? It’s easy to laugh at them but it’s pretty sad. Yeah, I know they made their bed…

      Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        I do not see attractive 40-something women
        ………

        I see it as another class issue. Saw more of the women Nova is talking about in the few years I was doing buiness in a super zipcode then all my other days

        Buddy of mine is running around with a 52 year old lmc chick. She turns heads. Her body is insanely hot but her face looks her age…. Hard to tell how many second looks she gets.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. SFC Ton says:

    “…and if people will not trust God to fulfill those needs…”

    ………

    I’m not sure the Almighty is in the business of fulfilling those needs.

    Can’t point my finger on it, but this line of thinking has always seemed flawed to me.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I was thinking about this yesterday. Many of the pro chivalry Christian sinistries out there promote some form of “prosperity gospel” when it comes to relationships.

      Sure, they may reject the notion that god will bless you financially, but all of a sudden they will say that when it comes to marriage, it will happen. “Just get married (without paying any mind to vetting)”

      And if you have fear you just aren’t trusting God. But if the relationship ends in failure, it’s all your fault even though we will also say that god ordained and allowed it to happen.

      As if risk assessment and rationality aren’t to be used.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Scott says:

    I’m not sure where this fits into the disagreement between Nova and the OP, but it is breathtaking how many divorced women I am personally aware of in the >40 crowd who still think they are hot, and any day are going to meet their one true love.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Oh absolutely.

      To take one example I was able to observe rather closely over the last five years. Divorced in late 40s (around 46-47). 2 teenaged kids (sons). Objectively hot — an 8 for women in the 45-55 range, overall borederline 6/7 still, even without facial surgery and if you see her from behind, you would guess in her 30s).

      She dated around for a couple years after the divorce — she really dolled up for a couple of years, focused hard on looksmaxing hair and clothing was super-sexy/displaying her physique and so on — she looked awesome really. In that period, she dated some objectively attractive guys, many of them a bit younger in the late 30s, early 40s range — no guys in the 50s range. In some ways I think she wanted to prove to herself that she still “had it”, and she did … for dating. She slowed down a lot with the full-court press after about 18 months or so, a bit jaded that none turned out to be “that guy” who was interested in marrying a woman almost 50 with 2 teenaged boys.

      She still dates, here and there, now in the early 50s, but more sporadic. She’s less focused on dating, and more zen about it now, as one can obviously gather from her still attractive but not lit-up-like-the-christmas-tree approach to her appearance. No long-term boyfriends have come out of it, half of holidays are alone when kids are with dad (“I love these holidays alone, actually, it’s so relaxing…”) and so on.

      I am fairly certain she was fairly certain she would NOT be where she is now, in her early 50s, when she skipped out in her late 40s as one of the hotter “normie” (i.e., non-celeb, non-professionally-beautiful) women in her cohort. But here she is.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Elspeth says:

      A lot of this is due to media conditioning, or seeing images of older women who are still attractive. There’s all lots of fitness social media sites whose daily posts are women 40+ , often 50-ish, who are in really, really good shape. No starlets.Just every day women who put in the work. This woman, for instance is 58:

      I’m sure there are other such accounts but you get my point. Women often see themselves in those images even if they aren’t even as attractive.

      One of the things that have told older single women is this: If you’re 40 and single and even in good physical shape, being willing to entertain men 50+ is your best bet of landing a husband. My experience seeing older women who got married bears this out as true. A bit of realism goes a long way, but our culture doesn’t really offer women much opportunity to face hard realities until the bottom drops out.

      Liked by 6 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        ELSPETH
        You know if anybody agrees with you here its me!You also know once I learned nevada still had legal prostitution around ’05, plus all the legal beastiality in washington state up until ’06 or so, I was never going to beleave anything republicans or churchians ever said after that too, for obvious reasons right!?

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Scott says:

    Plus the Pet Shop Boys reference is pretty cool.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. Elspeth says:

    Got distracted by Scott’s comment, but I had a thought about the OP.

    I agree with Ton. I don’t believe the overall trajectory of intersexual relationships will be transactional. Even people who dabble in transactional relationships for a season or period of life will eventually find a way to settle into something more conventional. That may not be marriage. It might be cohabitation or exclusive long term LTRs with the freedom to live independently, etc. But we’re wired, I believe, to desire exclusive relationships and most people will at some point, if they can.

    I think this is true for both men and women.

    Liked by 3 people

    • feeriker says:

      Even people who dabble in transactional relationships for a season or period of life will eventually find a way to settle into something more conventional. That may not be marriage. It might be cohabitation or exclusive long term LTRs with the freedom to live independently, etc. But we’re wired, I believe, to desire exclusive relationships and most people will at some point, if they can.

      I think this is true for both men and women.

      I begin to wonder what measures TPTB will take in the future to make marriage almost an impossibility for heterosexual couples outside of the economic Top 10 Percent. They’re already doing their damndest now in a lot of little ways (giving feminst ideology enemas to everyone from a young age, creating a perverse incentive-laden tax code, trashing the economy, etc.), but will there come a point when they essentially outlaw it and hunt down those who engage in it? I know, I know … such “paranoid conspiracy theories” should be unthinkable. But so was legalized same-sex “marriage” only a couple of years ago.

      This whole topic described by the OP and its original reference posts is just too damned depressing to dwell on…

      Like

    • SFC Ton says:

      LOL even I settled down.

      Sort of

      Liked by 1 person

  6. redpillboomer says:

    “One thing is that women want social contact, as he rightly says — that is true. I do not think, however, that women get this social contact in a way that is in any way satisfying for them through business contact with men — that is, as subscription-only OnlyFans online geishas like Nikole Mitchell, or as sugars on SeekingArrangements, or certainly as straight-up prostitutes. Women will do these things for money, certainly, and as a way to monetize attention-seeking behavior, but it isn’t socially satisfying in the way women crave.”

    Also, for the women who don’t engage in monetized sexual activities mentioned above, it seems social media attention/validation is the middle ground between the ‘social contact they crave’ and being a ‘pay for play girl.’ That’s why I see the one’s I know in real life endlessly posting on social media. The one thing I’ve found very interesting in the thirty somethings when they ‘take their mask off’ so to speak, it’s what Novaseeker mentioned above, they CRAVE the traditional family relationships, aka husband and kids… and they seem to be at a loss on how to create it, particularly the post-wall women. And the post-wall women gravitate between sad and mad at the men because they won’t consider them as wife material except the simps who they are not really all that attracted to. The early thirties women are trying to ‘shift lanes’ (I believe that’s how it’s been metaphorically described) between the SMP and the MMP (aka jumping off the CC), because they realize those handsome cads they’ve been riding throughout their twenties are not going to wife them up, and many of those dudes don’t have the resources anyways that the women want/need to start a family. The early thirties I know seemingly end up in a sort of ‘no man’s land’ between the SMP and MMP, but EACH ONE OF THEM want to crack that MMP and seem befuddled how to do it, hence the huge rise in dating coaches for these women trying to coach them back into the MMP, i.e. be and do the feminine things that men find attractive and want to wife up. However, it seems most of the men that want a wife are looking at the twenty somethings, not the thirty somethings, unless the man is divorced (or has some other form of baggage); or in some way, shape or form has a lower SMP/MMP rating himself and not all that appealing for a partner unless he’s got some coin in the bank.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Liz says:

    There are business norms and social norms. Sometimes the two conflate (and it’s often very grating when it does, think of the friend who invites you to dinner and you find out it’s to sell a product), but I don’t see this (writeup) working as a longterm strategy.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Yoda says:

    See that you have a language translation option I do.
    Yiddish you have, but Yodish you have not.
    Rectify this you can?

    Liked by 7 people

  9. Farm Boy says:

    “The one thing I’ve found very interesting in the thirty somethings when they ‘take their mask off’ so to speak, it’s what Novaseeker mentioned above, they CRAVE the traditional family relationships, aka husband and kids… and they seem to be at a loss on how to create it.”

    Speaking of how to create it, one way is covered here.

    https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2021/03/12/wandas-vision/

    Liked by 2 people

  10. horsemanbombadil says:

    Thanks for the inclusion in the article.

    I agree with all the comments especially about the needs of older women.

    My thesis as such was strictly from an economic, societal point of view, what to do with women unable to provide for themselves and men unwilling to stay socially engaged.

    Individually women 45+ are basically screwed. Economically no one needs them. Sexually\romantically no one wants them. Their need to be part of a social unit…who cares?
    But what does society do with thousands of spinsters?

    The best they can hope for is to become the beloved housekeeper Alice on Brady Bunch.
    Androdgenous, not really family, but quasi accepted into a family that was clearly not hers.

    That is the Best a future spinster can hope for.
    The vast majority is the invisible corporate drone who goes from empty home to lonely cubicle and back again. Over and over. For decades.

    In the choice between “go mad, go aggressive or lay down to die” luckily for society women rarely go aggressive.

    Tldr older women? Who cares? Not my problem.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Back in the day, spinsters would at least have some domestic skill sets where they could help out a relative’s family.

      Not really true anymore.

      I know of a circle of women in their 50s/60s who still date (men older than them) and they think they are the sh!t.

      In reality they’re living vicariously through their female relatives who are in their 20s.

      Liked by 4 people

    • feeriker says:

      Individually women 45+ are basically screwed. Economically no one needs them. Sexually\romantically no one wants them. Their need to be part of a social unit…who cares?

      But what does society do with thousands of spinsters?

      What about those “spinsters” in this age range who actually HAD loving husbands and stable families, but at some point chose to deliberately “shit their own nests,” become “strong and independent,” and go EPL (yes, I’m looking at YOU, ex-wife)? Are they owed our sympathy, concern, or attention as “victims” of the status quo? Or do we let them lie in the hard beds they created and then urinated, defecated, and vomited in?

      Like

    • SFC Ton says:

      Tldr older women? Who cares? Not my problem.
      ………

      Can’t see ’em from my house

      But we all know what society will do about them.

      Go deeper in debt to keep them afloat

      Liked by 2 people

  11. thedeti says:

    Intersexual relationships have always been, are now, and will always be, transactional.

    The past is prologue.

    Men and women have always exchanged what they have to get what the other has. Women have always sold their bodies for money and men always paid money for sex. It’s just that we didn’t call it that, explicitly. It was:

    Woman gives man sex, babies, and housekeeping in exchange for food, shelter and clothing. It’s just that she has to pick one man and stay with him for life. We used to call these women “wives”. She can cuck him but she needs to keep it quiet. Most women did not do this because if they got caught it was The Scarlet Letter and she’s out on her ass with the clothes on her back.

    Man gives woman all his money, time, labor, and resources in exchange for sex and a womb. It’s just that he’s supposed to pick one woman and give him his money. We used to call these men “husbands”. He can have sex with other women on the downlow, as long as he keeps it quiet and doesn’t shame her. If he gets caught, he could be forced to pay alimony forever, as well as a lot of social repercussions.

    We used to call this arrangement “marriage”. And it worked pretty well. Until women decided they didn’t want that anymore. They decided they wanted to have sex with whomever they wanted to, when and where and how they wanted. They thought it all through, except for that little fly in the ointment of who’s going to pay for it. “Yeah, men will still pay for it, because sex, and they’ll do what we demand because they need sex.”

    But there was one other little thing they didn’t think through. How will women get the status they crave if they can’t get marriage? Well, they get married once, get a designer baby, divorce him, take an income stream, and claim the status of “divorced”. Because “divorced” is at least higher status than “never married”.

    All we’re doing now is moving to a new transactional model. It is simply more overtly transactional. The transaction aspect of it is more explicitly stated as between the parties. There is no more “holding out”. She doesn’t have any legal right to his money. He has no proprietary or territorial interest in her sexuality. She provides a service, he provides money or other things of value.

    Most of them will be fleeting and temporary “relationships”. They are inherently volatile and unstable. Either party can end them at any time for any reason. They cannot be legally enforced; neither has any rights to the other’s value.

    This will put men in a state of constant pursuit. This throws men off because men want stability and predictability. Men need a woman to be there through all the crap and the hard times, and most men will not have that. The woman he’s paying for can leave anytime she wants. Or he’ll have to get rid of her when she stops sexing him up to his satisfaction or otherwise becomes more trouble than she’s worth. So men will have to be constantly on the lookout for “the better deal” or at least a replacement for when (not if, WHEN) this woman leaves or becomes too much of a hassle. Putting men in a state of constant pursuit drives their values down, because high value men do not constantly chase p*ssy. High value men have better things to do than worry about where their next sexual rendezvous is coming from. But these will not be high value men. They’ll be acting like hypergamous women – always looking to trade up, or at least trade in, for when the current model breaks down or wears out.

    This will lower women’s status as a whole. Women crave the status of marriage. They crave being “owned” by a high value man, because his value transfers to her value. His value elevates her value. They also covet total unfettered access to all his money. Women’s status and value is determined by the type, worth, and value of man she can get and keep. “And keep” is crucial here – any woman can have sex with a high value man. Any woman can get a high value man to spend a little money on her as long as she meets that value with sex, very rapidly, very soon. But few women can keep a high value man.

    All this will have the effect of preventing all but the most valuable women from being able to keep any man at all. And this drives women’s status down. The only “status” women will have is material acquisition and monetary wealth. They’ll be acting like men – working to acquire money and status, for “independence”.

    Women will have no safety or security. They will have to provide for it themselves, with their own money, or finagle it from men. They will shout louder and complain more about men’s boorish, hamfisted conduct. They can demand more police and white knight protection, and will get it. But it will not really compare with having one man she trusts implicity to give her that safety and security. One man who she knows will act as vicious attack dog and who will lay his life down for her. She won’t have that. No man will be willing to die for her unless he can claim her as his own.

    And all this will be going on as an open secret. Everyone knows women are whoring themselves out to the highest bidders. Everyone knows men are paying money to masturbate into the flavor of the month’s vagina. It’s just that no one will know who women’s highest bidders are. No one will know which women these men are using as flesh lights. We all know it’s going on, and we all know what is going on; we just don’t know with whom.

    Before, men had their wives; and women had their husbands, and we know what men and women do with their spouses, and there is a high hedge of protection around that relationship that is quiet and secret and no one else really knows about. Now, with constantly shifting transactional relationships, there are no secrets, no mysteries. Only the identities are shrouded. Everyone knows who’s doing what, and what men are paying, and what women are doing. We just dont’ know who’s doing whom, until it’s over and someone starts blabbing.

    The problem for men and women here is that men will have to do without that which is most valuable to them: Property rights and territory. Women will have to do without that which is most valuable to them: Status among other women, and safety and security. Men will have to do with poor facsimiles of relationships consisting of paying a little money for a little sex from a woman who then goes away. Women will have to do with poor facsimiles of commitment consisting of giving a little sex to a man who pays her a little money, then goes away.

    And all this will continue our current state. Women disrespect men, because there’s nothing to “respect” about a man who has to pay overtly to get a woman to spend time with him and who constantly chases.

    Men hate women, because there’s nothing to love about a woman who sells herself to the highest bidder and who will not give herself to him.

    Liked by 9 people

    • Liz says:

      The problem for men and women here is that men will have to do without that which is most valuable to them: Property rights and territory. Women will have to do without that which is most valuable to them: Status among other women, and safety and security.

      I’m not a history genius, but can’t think of a successful society that didn’t offer those things.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Liz says:

      Although it is true in the pure sense that intersexual relationships are transactional, like other social norms that isn’t the only variable. One could say the same about family and friends. Just take this forum as an example. Would the dynamic change if Jack asked for one dollar per month to participate here? A buck isn’t much…But the overt nature of this new transaction would change things, wouldn’t it? This is just an online relationship.

      Liked by 7 people

      • cameron232 says:

        The older, divorced women I see. I think they want love. To be loved by a man. I don’t think that “love” is entirely pure or selfless or whatever but I don’t think they are merely interested in transaction. Many of them have their own money. They still want a man. They won’t say it openly – I think that is embarassing for them. But you can tell from how they talk.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        The older, divorced women I see. I think they want love. To be loved by a man.

        Yes. They want a man to claim them. They want a man to stake a claim on them, take her for his own, and stay with her and support her. Because to her, that’s love – his staying with her, his protection and provision. She doesn’t want to say it in exactly these words, but she wants him to just do it, to just take her, and to do it on his terms in his own way.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      All this will have the effect of preventing all but the most valuable women from being able to keep any man at all. And this drives women’s status down. The only “status” women will have is material acquisition and monetary wealth. They’ll be acting like men – working to acquire money and status, for “independence”.

      Women will have no safety or security. They will have to provide for it themselves, with their own money, or finagle it from men. They will shout louder and complain more about men’s boorish, hamfisted conduct. They can demand more police and white knight protection, and will get it. But it will not really compare with having one man she trusts implicity to give her that safety and security.

      A different model is being aggressively pushed. We can call it the “Kardashian Model”. I am probably going to write about this in a subsequent post, but the popular culture is currently aggressively pushing this model whereby women can be high status among other women, have a lot of money, children and so on, while men are side players, flitting in and out, no relationship lasts and this is normal, and life is focused on sex, glamour, money, and fabulousness. Substance isn’t required, nor is actual stability or actual anything — it’s all a simulacrum, but if you push the simulacrum sufficiently hard, it can become the new expectation.

      It will be pointed out that the Kardashians are outliers and most women know they can’t be like that and so on, and that’s all true, but none of that means that it doesn’t forge a model which then becomes a subtle set of expectations for life, or at the very least a kind of shadow “plan” for women to capitalize on their appearance for purposes of financial independence, status (at least in social media), sex, glamour and excitement. Even if not everyone can be the Kardashians, lots and lots of women can be “wanna-be” Kardashians … Instagram and the rest of the social media is packed full of them, as is OnlyFans, as is etc etc.

      It will be similarly pointed out that the Kardashians themselves would have not come into being had it not been for a very “old style” pairing between female looks/fertility and male resources/status (Mama Bear K’s first marriage fits that bill to a T), but that’s now fading into the woodwork, as the lives of the various Kardashian filles are the main focus, and not a one of them has ever stepped near anything like a stable relationship with any sort of significant durability, yet it detracts nothing from the overall status and fabulousness of the scene. Men are constantly available, no rarer than drinking water, and are sidelights to the glamorous, female-status-centric world of independence, excitement, constant attention, and the ability to do more or less whatever the hell you want without consequences.

      These women all have followers in the hundreds of millions at least. Even if it’s a fantasy for most, it’s a potent one, and potent fantasias with a lot of backers tend to end up having a lot of cultural impact, even if its by the back door. Kardashians is porn for women, full stop — forget romance novels. And it has the added benefit of being real — well, sort of — unlike the bodice-rippers are.

      Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        the popular culture is currently aggressively pushing this model whereby women can be high status among other women, have a lot of money, children and so on, while men are side players, flitting in and out, no relationship lasts and this is normal, and life is focused on sex, glamour, money, and fabulousness. Substance isn’t required, nor is actual stability or actual anything — it’s all a simulacrum, but if you push the simulacrum sufficiently hard, it can become the new expectation.

        And yet, for women, nothing other than getting and keeping the highest value man possible has yet proved a satisfactory measure of female status.

        Women tried this with feminism. Women tried this with jobs and careers – working alongside men, competing with men for jobs, money and status; and besting men in a few instances. Getting men to work for them and lording their jobs and money over men. And yet – women don’t like it. It doesn’t sate them. When they can get a man to do all that for them, they quit and stop doing it, or cut way back. Under the Career Model, women still wanted men who looked just like the men from before, only even better. He has to make even more money than her. He has to be more capable, smarter, and more ambitious than her. He has to be smarter than her. He has to be more ambitious than her. He has to be even higher status than her. He has to be partner to her associate. He has to be department head to her department member. He has to be neurosurgeon to her general practice physician.

        She is playacting at being a man, but he has to actually BE the man. She can have a dck; but his dck has to be bigger.

        They still try to get high value men. Kim got or had Kanye, until the latter went off the rails (or back on, depending on how you look at it). The Kardashian Model’s “high value men” are either athletes or very wealthy men or extremely good looking men. The Kardashian model still calls for her to have men, but they don’t have to actually BE manly like under the Career Model. They just have to APPEAR manly on the surface. When you actually get to the substance of their men, they aren’t really masculine. They just look masculine. Those men submit to their Kardashian women. They accept their place as secondary players. Until they get tired of it or it drives them mad, as it appears has happened with Kanye (I’m not sure which – either his exhaustion or insanity).

        Women don’t seem to like the Kardashian Model either. They’re grindingly unhappy – mainly because they have even less access to men than they did under the Career Model. Women have to do even more for themselves under the K Model. Men who operate under the K model walk away from it or lose their minds; or it breaks them, and they become Winston Smith and accept their fetters and shackles.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yeah I think it’s not that the Kardashian model is a substitute for the UMC model. It’s that the Kardashian model is being peddled to everyone else.

        So … you thought not being married and everybody having exes, sometimes multiple exes, and baby daddies and what not, and all of that was low class behavior? Not at all. You go girlfriend! It’s high status behavior as long as you’re hot enough, sexy enough, fabulous enough, fun enough, popular enough, and savvy enough to work all of those things and parley it into a living, with like-minded sisters (not necessarily of the blood as in the K case) supporting and sharing your life. The idea is not that every woman will become rich like the Kardashians — they can’t peddle that, people are not so foolish. The idea is to make the idea of not being married to the same man for very long, or not being married at all, respectable and a “life script” that includes kids, people’s respect and attention, glamour, fun, excitement and so on. The idea is not to peddle this as a lifestyle to the girls who want to become DC Lawyerettes — they will follow the UMC path of marriage to get the best outcomes for their kids. The idea is to push this one everyone else — that is on the remainder of the folks below the UMC who still value marriages, and to provide, at first in a fantasia form, a new emergent model for respectability among women. In other words, it’s advocacy of the same kind there was in the period from 2000-2010 for gay stuff — use the media, celebrity, entertainment, popular culture, to normalize things that are not heretofore normal, and change the culture over time. That’s what’s being done here, in numerous ways, and it’s remarkably clever because it flies under the radar screen in its effect.

        It’s emergent, so, no, it hasn’t taken hold yet. But I would recommend watching closely what happens in the next generation, with the people who are not yet 20 today, the people who are not yet 15 today. That is who is being influenced here, not women who are adults already.

        Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        It’s almost like there is some sort of plan/ effort to use the Kardashians are bait, there to lure young women into wrecking their youth and beauty on a gambit they are unlikely to pull off…….

        Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I think a way to bring societal attention to “plight of women” is to actually support the trans rights movement.

      I am disgusted by them and do not condone them, but the political implication is that by supporting them, you destroy the feminist movement.

      Rather than keep on being the religious white knights of society that try to stick a bandaid on every social Ill, I think we should all force an acceleration of certain leftist policies.

      Trans rights in sports for instance. All opponents of it were for women being on boy teams, were for title 9 when it took boys sports away. They still are. Now girls sports are threatened.

      Good. Destroy girls sports. Let all women suffer the consequences of their political actions. They promoted this crap, but now they don’t want to deal with the consequences. Too bad.

      Why should we do this?

      We show them that the modern system actually hates them, and that a return to patriarchal/traditional structure works to their benefit.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        I agree. This would be a great time to go Leninist on feminism. Essentially it’s “you break it, you own it”. And the beauty of it is that it doesn’t even require taking a stand. It just requires shutting up about it. Just don’t make a negative fuss about it, stay quiet, let the trans movement win, and it’s a massive loss, de facto, for actual feminism across the board.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Yep. And doing nothing accomplishes more than what the conservative elite in DC will do, which is make the problem even worse.

        It’s fascinating how a movement that has 0 accomplishments since its inception 70 years ago continues to exist.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Let us do evil that good may come of it. Let us condone the emasculation of men into women ‘cuz then women will reverently respect our male sex as they ought. I’m almost sure of it. /S LOL

        Guys, you’re being pathetic. Condoning transsexualism is not the path to holy victory. Do you really want the little league coach counselling your grandson about how much better he could be if he transitioned? And finding that the courts are set like a bear trap to snap shut the moment the child wonders aloud if it would be fun to play as a girl.

        Seriously! Reading some of this foolishness makes me feel like I must have fallen asleep and awakened to suddenly find myself the wisest man in the world. I understand the need to think outside the box, but God’s rules regarding wisdom and foolishness still apply, even outside of the arena of conventional thinking.

        The apostle Paul has already provided the reductio ad absurdum on this type of silly thinking in Romans 3:5-8.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Girls have infiltrated every male sport and organization.

        The likelihood of going back on that is 0. May as well ruin it for them too. At worst the women will now be truly “equal” to men when it comes to this bs. At best, they wake up and come around.

        But you probably think that god emperor Trump still has a plan and that the Supreme Court is going to overturn gay marriage

        Stop trying to save a failed system. We need to destroy it entirely.

        If your argument is “I don’t want my kid to be in that situation” don’t put them in public leagues to begin with

        Like

      • feeriker says:

        Rather than keep on being the religious white knights of society that try to stick a bandaid on every social Ill, I think we should all force an acceleration of certain leftist policies.

        Classic “black knighting,” and yes, it works if applied heavily and relentlessly.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        I’m in

        But let’s make sure the pyrrhic victory is worth the price

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I wouldn’t say it’s a true Pyrrhic victory. There are three parties, and we are taking the neutral ground to screw over the larger threat.

        At some point people will have enough of the Tran circus and demand it to end. It’s just a fad at this point, until they promote the next thing.

        We can attack the fad, or the permanence of the feminist empowerment movement.

        We are not capable of reforming the system. Therefore conventional warfare tactics are off the table.

        We are guerrillas who seek to overthrow the failed system

        We can try to bandage an exception for women’s sports, while men’s sports suffer, or we can ruin all women’s sports and opportunities, while assigning the blame to the SJW leftists.

        We merely play libtard for an issue and signal to them they can continue down that path, or oppose all of it.

        As it stands now, morons in the Midwest and south are preserving left wing feminism

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      The thing that has gotten lost between then and now is that people used to be willing to fulfill the needs of certain others out of love, loyalty, and good will (or charity, if you prefer). There was a spirit of cooperation that motivated participation. Everyone wanted to be a part of something larger than themselves. (Remember the Prisoner’s Dilemma?)

      With widespread divorce and diversity leading to the breakdown of social capital, fewer people sense anything larger than themselves that they would want to be a part of. So now, with more and more people resorting to defect mode, it has become foolish to make any investment or sacrifice for the benefit of another. In such a situation, some type of transactive agreement needs to be in place in order to reduce the chance of a cooperate-defect worst-case fiasco.

      Also, transactions are fewer in number because the number of transactions needs to be known for the strategy to be optimized.

      Liked by 8 people

      • thedeti says:

        The thing that has gotten lost between then and now is that people used to be willing to fulfill the needs of certain others out of love, loyalty, and good will (or charity, if you prefer). There was a spirit of cooperation that motivated participation. Everyone wanted to be a part of something larger than themselves.

        Agree, except it wasn’t love, at least not at first. It was loyalty and integrating yourself into society so you can reap its benefits. Love comes later. For now, when you’re a young dumb and full of c*m man, you get married so you can bang like rabbits and work it out of your system. Your sexual needs are satisfied, so you can go do all the other things you need to do, like build society. And your wife is around long enough, you learn to love.

        When you’re a young wide eyed innocent girl, you get married so you can have your own home, your own nest, your own things around you, and your babies. You can go cluck with all the other hens at the PTA meeting and the Women’s Club because your house is nicer than Jane’s and your husband is hotter than Susie’s but Susie has a nicer house and a new fur coat and a Caddy while you’re driving the Chevy. You have some status, more than some women but not as much as others, and it’s fine. And you go hang out with Mom and Dad, and with your in laws, and your extended family. They come over to your nest to visit now and then. And you’re content with your little nest. Your husband is around long enough, you learn to love.

        Both of you are getting more than you would have gotten alone. Both of you together built something that works, and it’s more than you would have been able to build by yourself.

        Liked by 8 people

    • elspeth says:

      When I first read this post, I had a similar thought. Namely, I thought, “When have relationships between men and women ever NOT been transactional on some level?”

      Yeah, the true love thing is real (and great), but until recent human history that was just gravy. There’s a reason Victoria and Albert’s love is still legendary. They were extremely atypical for their day.

      Liked by 4 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        ELSPETH
        You know about myself at age 7/8 &a certain girl at age 6, better than most!Were her&I typical?Hence why all this people over age 18 can’t figure out relationships, is so weird to myself&most likely herself ,who is around age 40 right now!

        Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      All we’re doing now is moving to a new transactional model. It is simply more overtly transactional. The transaction aspect of it is more explicitly stated as between the parties. There is no more “holding out”. She doesn’t have any legal right to his money.

      You’re a lawyer, deti, and I’m not, but you and I BOTH know that as long as the system remains feminine-primary in its focus (and it will ALWAYS be so in this secular world), the “law” will create some way to guarantee that men are held liable for financial support of ANY woman they’ve maintained an intimate relationship with for any significant length of time. It’s simply inevitable. The transfer or resources from men to women is what the system is all about and what it always will be about.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Commonwealth countries are already there.

        Here in the states, my state bar had a panel on family law updates since me too and one of the executives stated the only way to protect yourself from accusations is to be married to the woman.

        Dumb, especially since marital r* is no longer a defense anywhere.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Last sentence meant to say: the law used to say it could not happen if you are married. Now it does.

        So if you beg your wife too much you can be found guilty of harassment or assault.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Farm Boy says:

    There’s a reason Victoria and Albert’s love is still legendary

    Victoria was always pissed off that Albert died young because he caught a bug while bailing out the future King Edward from one of his many philandering escapades.

    Here is a picture of the philandering son

    It might have been better if he was kept in a can. Also, the modern day Prince Harry also

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Scott says:

    Mychael is working the ER today and my new contract is only a few minutes from there.

    So I stopped by and brought her Starbucks. When she came out she was blushing and giggling and lit up like a Christmas tree to see me.

    “My husband!!” She exlaimed, doing the little hand clapping thing.

    It makes my whole day when she acts like that. It’s so friggin cute.

    It’s not a transaction.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Scott says:

      Just a quick report from normalville

      Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Scott I guess we’re flesh and blood and have real, physcial needs (and the instincts to have those needs fulfilled) but that doesn’t mean relationships are transactional (or have to be). Children need their parents – that doens’t mean their love is transactional or isn’t real. People’s need for each other in particular relationships is part of the cultivation of human love I suppose. Your wife gets something out of you – doesn’t mean it’s a transaction.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Sometimes I hate to admit the luck involved

        We’re just like that. All the other nurses swoon with “aww, you too are ridiculous. Why can’t I find that?”

        Liked by 5 people

      • elspeth says:

        We know full well that we are lucky. Nothing about the way this all started would have indicated this level of happiness or success. We just thank God for it (fully cognizant that many people who had less baggage and made better choices are not as happy and many are divorced). We humbly try to help others. It’s really all we can do because we know we don’t deserve this.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ Scott

      “My husband!!” She exlaimed, doing the little hand clapping thing.

      It makes my whole day when she acts like that. It’s so friggin cute.

      It’s not a transaction.

      Would she keep doing that if you stopped reciprocating?

      Liked by 1 person

  14. horsemanbombadil says:

    Deti said,

    “Agree, except it wasn’t love, at least not at first. It was loyalty and integrating yourself into society so you can reap its benefits.”

    That is the basis for my point of view. How do we get societal engagement?
    At the individual level its all been said. Its all now blatantly transactional.

    How does a man earn, work, build, protect other than for himself in the Kardashian model.
    He buys His house, he pays for His sex, he looks after His dog and possessions.
    And his level of effort, both work and fighting, are minimal because his real needs are minimal, and the need to over work to virtue signal is gone.

    Liked by 6 people

  15. elspeth says:

    By “transaction”, I mean that in every relationship, both people get something out of the relationship’s existence The kind of relationship where being “in love” is the impetus of the relationship’s beginning is a very new thing, and I was commenting based on an understanding of how marriage has worked down through the ages. Even with my outlier-ish marriage, I try as much as possible to think in general, as about my own relationship, when conversing online.

    In today’s world, there are relationships that manage to transcend transactional-ism. I would definitely say that our marriage is a union in which the physical, emotional, and spiritual come together to form something beautiful. I think I’m going to get SAM’s permission to describe in his words what he thinks our relationship is. He is far more poetic than I am about it. It’s cute and romantic and profound all at once. It’s not a contract, but even he would say that he brings X to the marriage, and I bring Y to the marriage. It doesn’t take away from the love. We both have obligations and some of them differ from one another’s

    However, throughout most of human history, even in arranged marriages, it has been that the couple first agrees to fulfill obligations, and then they fall in love later. I have a modern example.

    There’s a British/Bangladeshi woman with a hugely popular cooking show on Netflix (and no, we don’t pay for Netflix, it weirdly came free with our family cell plan). We watched her for months and the way she gushed about her husband when describing how she makes this recipe or that cake, or whatever, it would be easy to think that there was some great love story behind their marriage. Nope.

    At some point she mentioned (maybe one of my kids googled her I don’t know) that her marriage was an arranged marriage that their respective parents put into motion. They came together and the love blossomed.

    That’s what I meant by “transactional”, the agreement that each spouse makes certain commitments and (ideally) those commitments will be honored no matter what happens.

    The postmodern ethos is strong, even among conservative leaning people who want a return to sanity. There is not a mutual exclusivity (in marriage) between the experience of passionate adoration and the interdependent obligations that are an inherent part of the marriage contract.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I think some men are tempted to think of it all as transactional because they can only get love, desire, respect, etc. out of a particular woman by bringing a lot to the table in terms of achievements and financial success and so yeah it feels like you’re buying these things and it’s easy for men to feel like a walking ATM. The burden of performance. Would she still love me if I lost my job and was a grocery bagger at the supermarked?

      I’m sure there’s some equivalent feeling for women – I can guess.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        She loved me when I was a 33 year old broke graduate student living in a really crappy apartment and barely had enough to take her out on dates.

        And it was a big risk applying for the army scholarship and only the active duty internships.

        If I had missed that (with all my eggs in one basket) it would have been catastrophic financially.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Scott says:

        It was very high risk/high reward (people who get those internships are way more marketable after the military as provides)

        She says I made it look easy. But I was a wreck inside during those days.

        Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        I would still love my husband if he lost his job. In 27 years, that has actually happened twice. Thankfully, the season was short-lived both times, mainly because he has a stellar reputation and it has opened doors to bigger and better opportunities both times.

        Was it temporarily stressful? yes. Did I treat him with less respect? Nope. Did it affect our intimate life? Nope. Did I still adore him and look up to him as someone worthy of emulating (he has always been a better person than me)? Yes.

        Maybe that’s the difference Scott is trying to illustrate.

        Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        WHen I was a golf course maintenance man, she used to take care of my blistered feet when I came home. I think she would love me even if I lost my job. My dad had unskilled menial jobs his whole life and my mom still loves him.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Liz says:

        “I would still love my husband if he lost his job. In 27 years, that has actually happened twice. Thankfully, the season was short-lived both times, mainly because he has a stellar reputation and it has opened doors to bigger and better opportunities both times.”

        I don’t think Mike would be as effective a leader if he wasn’t willing to draw a line in the sand and quit at any time. And he has, on a couple of occasions. Had to move the family after only eight months of an assignment that was supposed to last four years. Then he wanted to get out, and they kicked us off base. I was the sole provider for a few months. It was rough but we moved on.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        “I think some men are tempted to think of it all as transactional because they can only get love, desire, respect, etc. out of a particular woman by bringing a lot to the table in terms of achievements and financial success and so yeah it feels like you’re buying these things and it’s easy for men to feel like a walking ATM. The burden of performance. Would she still love me if I lost my job and was a grocery bagger at the supermarked?”

        The old, Blue Pill Chivalrous Nice Guy mentality has a semblance of a transactional model in mind. It ultimately fails because it doesn’t provide what women really want, but it was touted as a model because it kept men manageable, which is something that women and dominant men want. Chads provide something that younger women want. Betabux have something that older women want. But incels don’t have anything that women want, and they are not manageable either, so they are condemned by most women.

        Liked by 3 people

  16. Oscar says:

    This series makes me think of the song “House of the Rising Sun”. Because I’d only heard The Animals’ version, I didn’t realize until recently that it’s an old folk song about a girl who’s enticed into a life of prostitution.

    There is a house in New Orleans they call the Rising Sun.
    It’s been the ruin of many a poor girl and me, O God, I’m one.

    If I had listened to what Mama said, I’d be at home today.
    Being so young and foolish, I let a rambler lead me astray.

    Go tell my baby sister never do like I have done
    Spend your life in sin and misery in the House of the Rising Sun.

    My mother she’s a tailor, she sewed these new blue jeans.
    My sweetheart, he’s a drunkard, Lord, Lord, drinks down in New Orleans.

    The only thing a drunkard needs is a suitcase and a trunk.
    The only time he’s satisfied is when he’s on a drunk.

    Fills his glasses to the brim, passes them around.
    Only pleasure he gets out of life is hoboin’ from town to town.

    One foot is on the platform and the other one on the train.
    I’m going back to New Orleans to wear that ball and chain.

    Going back to New Orleans, my race is almost run.
    Going back to spend the rest of my days beneath that Rising Sun.

    But, hey, nowadays we have WAP, so I guess there’s that.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. elspeth says:

    So, based on Scott’s, Cameron’s, Liz’s, Mine and Cameron’s folks, we have a consensus. I’ll add my dad and stepmom to that as well.

    Women are capable of loving a man through difficult times of transition and stress. Good, loving marriages may not be the norm for a significant number of people, but it’s not exceedingly rare.

    Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      Only if she values him aka her alpha ideal

      The Girls stood by me when the money bet was me dying, so I get what you are coming from

      But I was also near on dead in some hospital bed while my ex wife was f#caked on pills and being a whore

      Liked by 4 people

  18. feeriker says:

    The older, divorced women I see. I think they want love. To be loved by a man.

    Yes, that’s true. But how many of them are capable of loving a man in return (or, given women’s limited abilities to love a man, at least respect him, which is much more important to him)? Not very many. As is so typical, they take, but will give nothing in return. Men sense this innately (at least men of value do), which is why these women remain unattached. The only thing men want from them is unattached sex because men know better than to expect anything else of any value from them.

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Farm Boy says:

    So, based on Scott’s, Cameron’s, Liz’s, Mine and Cameron’s folks, we have a consensus.

    My Mom also. Maybe there is a pattern here.

    Also, who is not super-straight?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Also, who is not super-straight?

      Well that’s the other thing the list has in common, now, isn’t it. Kind of gets back to a recent post or two around here ….

      Liked by 3 people

  20. Farm Boy says:

    It is OK to admit that you are super-straight. It is part of the LBQT+ community now. That is what the “plus” does for us

    Liked by 4 people

  21. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    EVERYBODY
    You know the sgt.pibbs lonely hearts radio show with rollo fell through!But theres good news!!!
    I&gregoire are about to start the ”geisha-centered sexual ethics” radio show for allda modern ladies that feel like a maid getting low-pay, instead of a geisha getting the big money!First guest?Beth moore!!

    Like

  22. Farm Boy says:

    Let’s face it. When you are part of the LBGTQ+ community, you get victimhood status. That is worth gold.

    What are we going to do with it?

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Sharkly says:

    Jesus said, speaking of our times:
    Matthew 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

    If things become more transactional it is because “love” is mostly extinguished from our wicked world. Real “love” is loyal, sacrificial, longsuffering, idealistic, and yet has conditions & expectations, just like God’s love clearly does. Eros is not Agape, nor does Eros as frequently foster Agape like it used to between people of goodwill and good character. Once upon a time Eros attracted people together, and Agape held them together. But the Agape is rare these days, and the churches preach a false gospel of being a selfish “Taker”, especially to women, because they are the weaker vessel/target. If a wife treats her husband with Agape, most men will respond with Agape, just by nature. That is why the easiest way to disrupt the loving unity is to teach easily deceived women to return evil for good, and that is why that has become the mission of our false churches which are synagogues of Satan.

    Men’s nature, although quite fallen, is still more gloriously righteous, and less easily led astray. Women have all shown themselves to be defilers of men. To return to God we must repent of our iniquity, repent of giving women the worth-ship to be hearkened to instead of God. And return to God’s holy patriarchy by taking away women’s defiling say in all matters that were once governed by patriarchs, as it is God’s holy will.

    May all praise ascend upwards to our eternal Father through His matchless Son, as fathers and sons who are their earthly image, and so share in their glory, are reverenced as the only image of God, which God permits, to the glory of God, who made us gods after His own likeness.

    John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
    The “Law” said:
    Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

    1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      No one disagrees with this. However, in our society, there will never be a return to patriarchy and setting women straight, unless our society collapses and a foreign force introduces a strict culture (the change will not come from within).

      Look at Europe. The former bastion of Christianity is now a hyper majority secular society.

      Believers are a remnant of our society

      Liked by 1 person

  24. Pingback: The Cross of Our Age | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: The Kardashian Fantasy | Σ Frame

  26. Pingback: The Rupture of the MMP | Σ Frame

  27. Pingback: The Recipe for a Meet Cute | Σ Frame

  28. Pingback: The Advent of Polysexuality | Σ Frame

  29. Pingback: The Influence of Culturally Imposed Sexuality on Women | Σ Frame

  30. Pingback: The Influence of Pornography and OnlyFans on Women | 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