Taking Headship by Force

This post examines a unique hybrid option for approaching the SMP/MMP.

Readership: Christian Men
Author’s Note: This post received some input from NovaSeeker.
Length: 2,500 words
Reading Time: 8.5 minutes

Introduction

Our exploration of the Christian Conundrum (2021 March 1) and several follow-up posts were intended to help us understand the current situation of the SMP/MMP. Based on Novaseeker’s post, Constructing a Framework of Options (2021 March 15), the available options for Christians in the dating/mating context essentially boil down to the following short list.

  1. Adaptation/Compromise/Capitulation to the new reality. This option involves various forms of personal accommodation or compromise to the standards imposed by the changed landscape. As Christians, we reflexively scoff at this, but the reality is that it is what most people do. This option is presumed to have less suffering up front, but perhaps much more later down the road of life.
  2. Strong Hand/Law of the Jungle – Ignoring the new reality because one has a strong enough “market” position to do so. This option offers success to only 30% of men, at most. Within this 30%, there are 10-20% who are naturals, and for them, there is very little suffering. The other 10-20% of men who are not naturals have to work to get into the game, and for them, there is just as much suffering as Option 1. For the remaining 70% of men who are not naturals and no amount of self-improvement can get them there, this option is a smorgasbord of suffering. Furthermore, this layout is highly unlikely to change as life progresses.
  3. Outlier/Single Tailored/Greener Pastures – This option is for those people who are charting a different course, intentionally going against the grain, neither accommodating/adapting to the new system, nor rising above it, but rather choosing a deliberately outlier path. Men who pursue this option may succeed at reaching their goals, or they may fail to reach any of their goals, depending on any number of factors. This option has a great deal of suffering, but there is also a sense of adventure and challenge which may make the suffering worthwhile.
  4. Charismatic Faith – The fourth option is to form connections with people through faith, and see where that might take you. It requires social dexterity, emotional vitality, charisma, and a certain level of spiritual maturity which is difficult and time consuming to obtain. Personally, I think this is the best option, but it is only available to a select few – much fewer than any of the above – and those who have this gift are not likely to be struggling through life in any of the ways that this blog has addressed.
Russian culture has a Power-Fear based ethical structure.

Jim’s Approach

Last month, fellow blogger Jim wrote a piece from the (partial) perspective of the first option, entitled Make women property again (2021 April 19), which is quite a good read. I presume it is written from the standpoint of a Christian who has lost all hope of availing any of the other three options. If you are a man in this situation, I strongly encourage you to go read Jim’s post in its entirety.

A lot of readers of this blog have the opinion that the first option is nothing other than abandoning one’s self to the cess pool of the culture’s promiscuity while hoping to find a gem in the mud puddle. But Jim’s post indicates that this is not entirely true, nor is it the overriding point. Furthermore, Jim’s post reveals that this course of action is much more difficult than what we might expect.  In fact, Jim’s approach is so difficult for the average man, that I’m tempted to place this approach into the second category – The Strong Hand/Law of the Jungle option.

For those readers who would rather not read Jim’s long post, Commenter Wulfgar Thundercock III summed up Jim’s stance in a comment.

“Nothing is going to fix marriage until things get bad enough that men go back to owning women, and women start being passed from father to husband without much regard for her feelings on the matter. Contraception, safe and reliable, has been available since some time in the Bronze Age. It isn’t contraceptives that is causing the problem. It is the high status of women with regards to men. Control women, and you will find that the problem mysteriously disappears, much like how women mysteriously started having b@st@rds in alleys when the Victorians tried to control men instead of women.

Until then, the only way to go about it for a Christian man is to keep f*ck!ng women until he can find one he can get to stick around. Any interpretation of Scripture that results in incels and whores is a bad interpretation. It will bear no fruit, and it is by the fruit that we shall know the true intent.”

Wulfgar further explains,

“The Jimian position is sort of a combination of Options 2, 3, & 4. We are trying to seed a new Christian civilization in the ashes of this Satanic civilization. We have the strong hand approach because we need to carve out our own little island of civilization from the filth surrounding us. We are outliers because we reject the current society and all of its precepts and priors. We come together in faith, that God might lead us from the ruins as he did Abraham, Moses, and Lot.

We want a new, Christian American civilization to carry on in the manner that the Christian civilizations of old did. America can’t really be saved, and it is too powerful right now to resist openly. As a result, we seek to influence and develop a new elite to replace the degenerates in power, and a faith and intellectual tradition that draws upon the old ways so that they can have the support to reign.”

If I’m interpreting this correctly, Jim and Wulfgar are essentially saying that Headship has to be taken by force – not by faith, not by some sort of agreement or compromise, and certainly not by chance. Those Commonalities of Successful Marriages which are hard to obtain in today’s culture must be leveraged into reality through the strong arm of masculine authority.

Theodore Roosevelt as a younger man.

Is this approach Biblical?

For most Christians, much of the talk/advice surrounding the mating process has revolved around a rules-based mentality (specifically, “Thou shalt not fornicate, commit adultery, etc.”), which I’ve shown to be lacking from Biblical and mystical viewpoints in a few posts. Jim makes the case that this interpretation is inadequate by arguing that the observance of these rules supports the cultural order, whereas the lack of observance of these rules is concomitant with chaos and a breakdown of society. If the society is already morally broken, then following the rules would essentially be supporting a broken system. (Again, I hope I’m interpreting this correctly.) There needs to be a concerted and determined effort to undermine the corrupt system. And yes, widespread fornication will eventually bring down the mightiest of empires. We’ve been watching this happen over the last few decades.

These words of Jesus seem to apply here.

12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.  13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.  14 And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.  15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
16 “But to what shall I liken this generation?  It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, 17 and saying:

‘We played the flute for you,
And you did not dance;
We mourned to you,
And you did not lament.’

18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’  19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’  But wisdom is justified by her children.”

Matthew 11:12-19 (NKJV)
The Ear of Malchus, by James Tissot, 1886-1894.

In Matthew 11:12, Jesus describes the type of people that enter the kingdom of heaven as “violent men.” He’s not talking about natural or physical violence specifically. He’s talking about a different kind of violence that comes from a holy desperation to follow Christ and kill sin no matter the cost. However, it is expected that this may sometimes be manifested in natural or physical violence against those who stand against God’s purposes, depending on the context.  The possibility of this kind of violence is revealed in Jesus’ words to his disciples shortly before His crucifixion.

35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”

So they said, “Nothing.”

36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.  37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’  For the things concerning Me have an end.”

38 So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”

And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Luke 22:35-38 (NKJV)

Given this admonition, it is easy to understand why Peter had the aggressive mindset to cut off Malchus’ ear when the Pharisees apprehended Jesus in the Garden of Gesthemane. But the idea is not just to kill for the sake of killing, but that killing those who stand in the way of God’s work may be necessary and justified.  Of course, I’m not advocating physical violence here, but only to make the point that men need to stop being wussified, get off their @$$es, and take some kind of action if they are serious about doing the Lord’s work and seeing their lives transform for the better.

Get Action!*

On that last point, I’ll share something I learned from reading Joshua 1 many years ago [emphasis mine].

Be strong and courageous, for you shall give this people possession of the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.  Only be strong and very courageous; be careful to do according to all the Law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may achieve success wherever you go.  This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will achieve success.  Have I not commanded you?  Be strong and courageous!  Do not be terrified nor dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.”

Joshua 1:6-9 (NASB)

Comprehensively, the lesson I took away from this passage is that there is an order to do things.

  1. Take action!  “Be strong and courageous!”
  2. Think about what you’re doing. Be mindful of the scriptures.
  3. Work out the issues that come up and don’t give up until you are successful.

The order matters!

A lot of guys sit around thinking about what to do, and they never find a “solution” that they believe is worth acting upon. They’re doing (2) first.

Other guys run around fighting fires, trying to patch up every little issue that comes up, and although they might hold the ship together, they never make any progress in the larger scheme of things. They’re doing (3) first.

Granted, a man who does (1) first is going to step into some sticky situations, maybe even sin, but that is to be expected. In fact, that may be the exact reason why God tells us three times in Joshua 1 to be strong and courageous!

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Excerpt from President Theodore Roosevelt’s speech, “Citizenship in a Republic”, Paris, 1910 April 23.

* “Get Action!” is a famous power quote from Theodore Roosevelt. In the current discussion, this phrase takes on new meaning.

Conclusions

Concerning the application of Jim’s approach, I see it like a unique combination of Options 1, 2, 3, and 4. To break it down…

  1. Jim’s approach would involve a considerable measure of Adaptation/Compromise, but not Capitulation (Option 1).
  2. To pull it off well, it would require an extremely Strong Hand in terms of confidence, character, and charisma, and a moderately Strong Hand in terms of resources (Option 2). Of course, men like this would be in the upper 20% of men.
  3. Taking this approach would definitely be striking one’s own path (Option 3).
  4. It would also be empowered by charismatic faith of the applied variety (as opposed to the Four Square variety) (Option 4).

To be more generous, perhaps Jim’s approach deserves a new hybrid category. I’ll call it “Infiltrate and Usurp Authority from the Gynapotheosis.

Jim is honest in his assessment of this scheme, in that it makes no practical sense from either a Christian or a pragmatic point of view. But in terms of having an innovative frame and an indomitable attitude, he’s definitely earned an A+.

I’m not sure what Jim’s approach would look like when played out in modern western society, but I’m guessing it would look a lot like what most top 20% men go through before they settle down, i.e. playing the field, lots of sex with different women, etc. So I’m guessing that Jim’s real distinction is maintaining frame, the “ownership” aspect, and enforcing Headship in a society that condemns it.

Taking on the issue of how to make Jim’s approach work in the current context is the whole enchilada, and that will be a hard nut to crack. It’s not clear where to begin, because there actually may not be a viable way beyond individual personalities who are already quite successful.

In any case, this is where the difficult work lies, and it’s why many of us — not just Jim — are avoidant of it.  It’s a tough nut.  It’s easier to say “This is what works in the ideal sense, and here is why it works” than it is to say, “Here is what works, in general, for most guys and is both fully Christian and fully successful in the temporal set up currently”. It remains to be seen whether Jim’s method is a real option for the average man, apart from outlier cases.

If change is ever to happen, it needs to rise above a threshold momentum, which is about 10% of a society wide scale. NovaSeeker has made the point that it has to be pressed forward by elite figures. Jim has a huge following. If he wants to see this approach grow into a movement, then he needs to get busy writing about it every day so that (elite) men can catch on. But unfortunately, Jim doesn’t usually teach or explain much about the rubber-meets-the-road details — which is what most men need to learn.

To any readers who are seriously considering experimenting with Jim’s Option, I say that it’s important that you go into it with firm conviction and with God’s purpose of Headship in mind. If you do not have a clear conviction and sense of inner peace with God about this, then I advise you to refrain until such a time that you are ready. Also, as a warning, you’ll be entering into the inner workings of a world of blood and honor.  There will be little grace and forgiveness from men, only from God.

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 Charisma, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Confidence, Courtship and Marriage, Cultural Differences, Culture Wars, Determination, Discipline, Game, Game Theory, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Introspection, Leadership, Male Power, Manosphere, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Perseverance, Power, Purpose, Running the Gauntlet, Sexual Authority, Stewardship, Strategy, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Taking Headship by Force

  1. cameron232 says:

    Some random thoughts/reaction.

    “By their fruits ye shall know them” is a reference to sin and where one’s heart is not reproductive success and cooperate-cooperate equilibrium.

    Modern man can’t create a religion, they have to develop organically. Jim realizes this. So lately he’s started replacing “Gnon” with “Jesus.” At least that’s how it seems to me. The religion he’s referencing developed organically – I don’t think he can modify it into the religion of cooperate-cooperate equilibrium. This may be why he doesn’t like Catholicism, BTW. He likes Anglicanism because it’s “Bible-based” and so easier to modify. It can be Protestant and Catholic at the same time as history has shown (those two wings have always been at war in the Church of England). Maybe his writing isn’t for the common believer – maybe it’s for influential non-believers. I have to give him an “A” for effort and originality.

    It’s true that women respect and are attracted to strength. I can confirm this in my marriage. Deti can confirm this too: Things got fixed when he genuinely stopped giving a sh_t and truly internalized (not just posturing) openness to catastrophic levels of violence (not physical violence). You have to be open to the possibility that sometimes your approach doesn’t work – internalize the fact that this is still better than the alternative.

    Yes, women’s control of their own sexuality should be strictly limited. I’m ok with some female choice the way it was often done in some parts of the (pre-Victorian) Anglo world – A woman has a limited “choice” of men from dad’s selected pool of a certain type of male (demonstrated faith and commitment) and subject to dad’s veto power. Woman’s “ownership” (not chattel ownership, “stewardship” if you want to sound polite) should transfer from father to husband. This is how some fundies still do it. Despite some failures that their detractors love to point out, they seem to have much better success rates than secularists and progressive Christians. And their failures are largely because they live in a society where they are surrounded by secularists and progressive Christians.

    As the Catechism of the Council of Trent states:

    “On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles:

    Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.

    To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.

    Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.”

    Mister Thundercock: He’s right about how women’s status relative to men changes things. And yet the pill and cheap rubbers on drugstore shelves, as well as cheap, (relatively) safe, ubiquitous abortion also changed things, even if contraceptive practices, herbs, abortion, whatever existed in the ancient world. It’s not an either/or. Filling your wife with your manchowder that isn’t neutralized by artificial hormones and abortion is an important part of making marriage great again.

    Man, I love lever action rifles – cool picture Jack!

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      “Deti can confirm this too: Things got fixed when he genuinely stopped giving a sh_t and truly internalized (not just posturing) openness to catastrophic levels of violence (not physical violence). You have to be open to the possibility that sometimes your approach doesn’t work – internalize the fact that this is still better than the alternative.”

      Yes.

      I had gotten to the point of, “I can’t and won’t take anymore. We’re doing it my way from here on out. I WILL get what I want and need from this marriage, and you WILL give it to me, or we’re over and done with. Either you change, right now, or we’ll see lawyers on the next business day and let them sort it out.”

      I was prepared for the possibility that she would dig her heels in and keep going down the same path. Had that happened, I’d be a divorced man today who would have finished paying alimony a few years ago, but still paying child support. I was ready to walk that all the way out.

      Do not say anything like that, or take action remotely resembling that, unless you are fully prepared to burn your marriage to the ground and sacrifice even your own children to the divorce meat grinder. Because there is a very real possibility that that is exactly what you’ll have to do.

      Married Red Pill subreddit had much the same approach, only without going Rambo like I did.

      “We don’t save marriages. We save men. If the marriage is saved in the process, so be it. If the marriage is sh_tcanned in the process, so be it. Maybe that marriage needed to get sh_tcanned.”

      “The stay plan is the go plan” (meaning he self improves no matter what else happens. If he has to leave the marriage to get it done, then that’s what he will do).

      It’s much better to start a marriage this way than it is to change the rules midstream. I did the latter. When you do that, you must take big risks – even your own children.

      If you start a marriage this way, you start from the premise.

      “I am in charge, we are doing it my way. You step into my frame. I am not coming into your life. You come into mine. I will not do things to fit into your life. You will do things to fit into mine. I do not accommodate you. You accommodate me. I do not come to you. You come to me.

      “If you don’t like this, that’s fine – the door’s over there. If you don’t want to live this way, that’s fine – there’s the door. If you change your mind, no one will make you stay. But for as long as you do stay, you belong to me, we do things my way, and we go where I decide we go. You’re here to help me accomplish my mission and vision. If this doesn’t work for you, you know where the door is.”

      Most men can’t do this. I couldn’t as a 28 year old newlywed. I didn’t approach relationships or marriage in anything like this way. To do this in a marriage, a man must:

      –have an abundance mentality. If this woman leaves, there will be another woman. If things don’t work out with this woman, they will work out with another woman. No oneitis.

      –be prepared to walk away, and then really do it if you have to, when the love is gone, and/or when the treatment is intolerable. Because you very well might have to do it.

      –be prepared to let her walk away, even help her walk away. Help her pack, get her an Uber or cab and pay for it, and get the separation/divorce process rolling. When I was going through this with Mrs. Deti, I told her if she intended to leave, I’d sign over her fully paid-for daily driver vehicle to her no questions asked, and I would pay for one-way airfare to wherever she wanted. After that, it would be total war. Everything else was staying at the house (THAT I PAID FOR), as would the kids and the marital assets, pending a possible divorce.

      –be fully prepared to go General Sherman scorched earth. Be fully prepared to leave the marriage behind, figuratively burning everything as you go. By that, I mean preparation for your entire life to be completely upended and to give up everything. Your life as you knew it is over. You’re going into uncharted territory with few assets and an uncertain future. Be prepared to sacrifice interpersonal relationships – even your relationships with your family of origin and your children. Be prepared to be pulled through a wringer in every way imaginable. You will likely get Zeroed Out, as Rollo once put it.

      It’s a lot easier to start a marriage this way than to implement all this 15 years in.

      Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        If I had done this with Mrs. Deti at the start of our relationship, before we got married, we wouldn’t have made it 3 months. We started in late summer. The relationship would have been over by the end of the calendar year. We would never in a million years have gotten married.

        I’ve looked back on it. Red Pill me back then wouldn’t have put up with 1/10th of the crap she dished out.

        Liked by 5 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        @Deti –

        “If I had done this with Mrs. Deti at the start of our relationship, before we got married, we wouldn’t have made it 3 months. We started in late summer. The relationship would have been over by the end of the calendar year. We would never in a million years have gotten married.

        I’ve looked back on it. Red Pill me back then wouldn’t have put up with 1/10th of the crap she dished out.”

        Ditto. We worked through what I call the addict’s cycle, normalcy, tension, conflict, reconciliation. Her drinking and drug use (which I didn’t know about) lay behind it. The days leading up to our wedding, I kept wondering to myself if I was making a mistake because of her drinking problem.

        Yes, I was making a mistake. Honestly, I think that the man I am now could have had a good marriage with her, if only we had survived the first three months.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    How can it be by force if your just being your natural aloofself!?Just be yourself like all good&polite peeps say!Plus its the women that crave leadership& purpose mission-driven men to look good in front of the decency police&the polite noble elites!?That is the redpill enigma that still has’nt been solved!?That was solved in ye old days that everybody supposedly loves!?The lawfirm of scott,GBFM&rollo is getting the distribution of the solution in a bottle for all the betas&chumps settled at this moment!
    P.S.The secret of GBFM’s greatness!?Give quality leadership to precious delicate feral women,benching at the gym while lusting after the women&don’t give or take a $hit at anytime!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Sorry to the decency police&little old lady elites for posting again!But this persumption of decency&its okay if I confess It’ll be alright is’nt true for the world those cops&elites supposedly love like their leaders!

    Like

  4. Red Pill Apostle says:

    “It’s true that women respect and are attracted to strength. I can confirm this in my marriage. Deti can confirm this too: Things got fixed when he genuinely stopped giving a sh_t and truly internalized (not just posturing) openness to catastrophic levels of violence (not physical violence). You have to be open to the possibility that sometimes your approach doesn’t work – internalize the fact that this is still better than the alternative.”

    You can add me to this list. It took having the nothing to lose attitude combined with the realization that she is nothing special, just another girl of which there are millions like her in the US, to finally start turning things around. The attitude shift on my part led to setting and enforcing expectations and this started with me really researching what biblical marriage is and recognizing and pointing out sin.

    Here was my foremost mistake 2 decades ago. I did not understand or internalize true headship. My understanding of scripture around marriage was severely lacking, falling more in line with churchianity messages I had heard, so I had no basis for recognizing marital sin. It took immense suffering for me to dig into scripture and when I did two things happed. I saw her worth in marriage as negative and let her know this in my own way which upset her to her core. Then I pointed out her sin of denying sex, telling her she was sinning against both God and me.

    That was the start of me forcibly taking headship and it had everything to do with comparing her to God’s standards. Don’t underestimate the power of God’s truth and the application of firm husbandry can do. Mrs. Apostle still has a rebellious, contentious heart in some areas that I am still working on, but the amount of change in 15 months is quite noticeable.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Quick follow up to my prior post because words on screens can be inadequate in setting expectations for what my approach looks like in real life. The blowback you will get as a man from my approach is going to be proportional to how engrained the rebellious, independent feminist streak is. In my case it was like standing on the beach as a cat 5 hurricane makes landfall. There were tantrums, gaslighting, arguing to hurt me instead of resolving an issue, yelling, using my young sons by degrading me in their eyes, ultimatums and all this from a good “Christian” wife that grew up in church. It takes a fearless declaration of and stubborn adherence to God’s truth to break this type of mindset along with emotional control and patient endurance.

      The good news is that it does not take any special gifts (appearance, money, power, status) to do this, just a belief that God’s ways are good and were given to us for our benefit. Note of wisdom on this approach, start when you are dating. She’ll either bail on you and you’ll have dodged a bullet, or the blowback will be a gentle summer shower instead of a hurricane. But 100% expect blowback because of Genesis 3.

      Liked by 7 people

      • thedeti says:

        I got something like this, but it was more like a severe thunderstorm. I never got any ultimatums, but I did get pushback.

        What was more subtle and more sinister was that as things reached a new normal and a new equilibrium, Mrs. D started looking for ways to top from the bottom. Keeping score. “If you get to do that, so do I.” “You’re not being fair.” Being sullen, quiet, letting her moods dictate life. It’s all extremely subtle manipulation. It’s how women do violence to people – manipulation, deception, mendacity, fraud, duplicity, telling half truths. It is psyops, plain and simple. It is psychological, mental, and emotional abuse, and women are exceedingly good at it.

        She still does this. To this very day.

        Liked by 9 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Deti – I’ve been wondering what the marital progression timeline is like after drawing the proverbial line in the sand. For me it’s been a little over a year. We’ve gone from clinically sexless to any time either of us wants to. I set the direction of household and I am the final say on matters. There are still issues of arguing at times, but with less frequency, and there are some things I’ve given direction on that she has refused to do (old habits and all). While things are improved he hardest part for me has been dealing with old hurts and frustrations. Do those subside with time?

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Apostle:

        I’m coming up on 10 years. I should discuss that with you privately.

        Jack: Send my email to RP Apostle, please.

        Liked by 4 people

      • feeriker says:

        “In my case it was like standing on the beach as a cat 5 hurricane makes landfall. There were tantrums, gaslighting, arguing to hurt me instead of resolving an issue, yelling, using my young sons by degrading me in their eyes, ultimatums and all this from a good “Christian” wife that grew up in church. It takes a fearless declaration of and stubborn adherence to God’s truth to break this type of mindset along with emotional control and patient endurance.”

        Again, what does it say about the state of the American “church” and the contents of it that it is breeding such women as its standard form of output?

        The hardest thing for me in the situation you describe, the response to her tantrums, sh!t testing, disrespect, and just plain Satanic evil that I would probably find almost impossible to control, would be to the urge to “push the nuclear detonator button,” telling her that she is “evil incarnate, behaving in every way as a servant of Satan and not as one reborn in Christ. Therefore, should you now choose to leave and destroy our marriage, you will do so as an unbeliever, removing from me any obligation to reconcile with you. Is this what you seek, to prove yourself an unbeliever, a servant of the Serpent, destroying and tearing asunder what God has joined?”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        I’ve noticed that whenever Satan tries to push women into sin, women have a propensity to wholeheartedly go along with it. They don’t want to resist evil influences. They don’t even try. In layman’s terms, this is called a lack of moral agency.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Feeriker – The church actually serves to muddy the waters and perpetuate the pattern since Eve first ate the fruit. Rarely ever is the sin against husbands straightforwardly admitted as rebellion. It is almost always wrapped in a biblical concept that is then made slightly askew. The easy ones to spot are the “I don’t submit because you don’t love me like the Bible says you should” hamsters, which highlights the lack of moral agency. The harder ones are those that use scripture and the soft manipulation that Deti pointed out to invert headship. This one looks more like, “I’m doing my best to be a submissive wife (confrontational encounter the opposite of meek submissive heart attitude), but know that when you are like this, it affects how I feel about our marriage (soft power manipulation). You are supposed to love me the way Jesus loved the church, and I don’t feel that way most of the time (reasonable sounding theological statement that twists scripture through the omission that God corrects those He loves).”

        It boils down to submission and obedience being linked but very different. She can be obedient to me, but not submissive because this is a heart attitude, but it is impossible to be submissive without being obedient. I’m at the mostly obedient but still working on the heart issue stage currently.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        I can tell RPA and I will have a barnburner of a conversation offlist.

        A man looking to gain submission can do it only one of two ways.

        1) She is super hard viscerally sexually attracted to him, so much that she can’t see straight. (Elspeth, Mychael, Liz)

        or

        2) “My way or the highway. We’re doing it my way or I am burning this all to the ground, forcing us all into poverty, divorcing you very publicly, and telling everyone we know just how much and how severely you’ve abused me in this marriage.” (80+ percent of all marriages)

        Most men can’t do (1), so that leaves (2). Any pastor, counselor or therapist, or Protestant “Family Ministry” will tell any woman that (2) is abusive. Under the Duluth wheel, that is “abuse”. Most of the women who comment here will be horrified that I wrote that and mortified that a man might actually say or even imply that to his wife. The womenfolk in the manosphere STILL cannot fathom this, cannot understand how men and women treat each other like this. (I have been painstakingly explaining it to the women over and over again for 10 years now and they still don’t get it and still won’t believe me.) But like it or not, (2) is the only way for a man to have any leverage in a marriage, most of the time.

        Most men will not do this because they’re under extreme pressure from everyone to “be nice, cave in, just do it her way, happy wife happy life, if you don’t do it her way you’re just mean and a bad husband”, etc. They don’t want to live with a pouty, sullen, sulking, “silent treatment” wife who has ramped up the superb!tch routine and won’t sleep with them for a while. They don’t want to deal, again, with her saying and acting out “NO SEX FOR YOU!!!” They don’t want to get family and friends and pastor in their faces, intermeddling and telling him that he’s being unreasonable. They don’t want to ruin their children’s lives.

        But I have to be ready to do all that if I have to. I am ready to do it. I don’t want to. But I’ll do it if I have to. And Mrs. Deti knows that.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Jack says:

        Deti wrote,

        “A man looking to gain submission can do it only one of two ways.
        1) She is super hard viscerally sexually attracted to him…
        or
        2) “My way or the highway.”

        This is basically the difference between what I call “Tingly Respect” (Deti’s first way), and (enforced) Headship (Deti’s second way).
        I discussed this before…

        Placing the Marriage Structures within the Archetypical Models

        More on Relational Archetypes


        An exerpt from the former.

        “…there is a small difference between Headship structure and the Tingly Respect model.

        In the Headship structure, the woman submits to the man’s authority out of reverence and obedience to God, and this requires her maturity, faith, and willingness to do so. It does not rely so much on the character of the man, but it does work to inspire the man to grow in faith and confidence.

        The success of the Headship structure depends on the wife’s willing submission. Properly understood, Headship is not predominantly a legalistic system of rules intended to control the wife nor to check the aspects of her worst nature, but it will tend to resort to these methods during rough times.

        In the Tingly Respect model, the woman is emotionally and viscerally swooned by the masculine authority of the man. It does not rely so much on her faith and willingness, but instead, tends to inspire her faith and willingness.

        The Tingly Respect model is less susceptible to the usual wifely indignation, because it appeals to her emotions, sates her natural hypergamic desires, and therefore relieves the wife from a heavy reliance on her willpower to be obedient.

        The Tingly Respect model works because a woman’s natural desires for a husband and to be ruled over (according to Genesis 3:16) is commonly expressed as a hypergamous desire for a top quality man. She intuitively perceives that such a man has the visceral power of authority over her desires, and he therefore rules over her.

        Therefore, the Tingly Respect model depends heavily on the man’s mastery of true masculine authority, characterized by Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status (AKA LAMPS or PSALM). It also requires the man to showcase his persona non gratis and his charismatic leadership, all of which attracts and inspires the wife’s affections and loyalty.

        In a Headship relationship, the wife has the upper hand in attracting her husband’s sexual interest, as long as she is willing to do so. As such, she has authority over his body (i.e. his sexual desire). In a Tingly Respect relationship, the husband is able to cause the wife to lose control over her sexual desire for him, such that she wants to make love to him on impulse and without prescient contemplation. This is why I called this the Tingly Respect model.”

        This post from Deep Strength is related.
        https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/marriage-structures/

        Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        RPA
        You would do very well to take detis marriage advice if any man knows how to keep a marriage going today its deti!I already told you that about a month ago remember?Hes the best of the best marriage advice men!No matter what any marriage coachs say!See if those marriage coachs could withstand one thunderstorm after another for this long like deti!In other words deti is the marriage doctor of the entire manosphere period!

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Red Pill Apostle:

        I responded briefly to your email. More to follow.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Deti – Normally I would write “if you only knew” but I get the feeling you have a little “been there, done that” in your past.

        “A man looking to gain submission can do it only one of two ways.

        1) She is super hard viscerally sexually attracted to him, so much that she can’t see straight. (Elspeth, Mychael, Liz) or

        2) “My way or the highway. We’re doing it my way or I am burning this all to the ground, forcing us all into poverty, divorcing you very publicly, and telling everyone we know just how much and how severely you’ve abused me in this marriage.” (80+ percent of all marriages)”

        Slight clarification on this. Option 1 is submission that comes naturally. The attraction makes falling in line with a husband’s direction and preferences (ie biblical headship) something that happens much more easily than on average. This is a gift from God and the workings of the Holy Spirit. The probability of divorce here is close to zero and the marriage is an absolute blessing for the husband. Option 2 is enforced obedience, with the wife’s heart likely still in rebellion and is the best most men can hope for outside of the Holy Spirit miraculously changing hearts. 2 is still much better for men than supplication and the high likelihood of divorce that comes with it.

        There is a reason that Titus 2:3-5

        3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

        exists. It is because men exercising deti’s option 2 in order to enforce their role as head of the family is the norm due to women’s natural rebellion against God’s authority structure. It’s not like we didn’t see the rebellion coming. We’ve known since Genesis 3. The instructions in Titus 2 are both a confirmation of how the curse plays out in marriages and one of the chief ways women are to combat the curse.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Deti, I agree that what you say is generally true. I do think that there’s some variation in personality among women that makes some difference. E.g. my guess from what’s been discussed here in Mychael may have a naturally submissive personality. Strictly speaking, AWALT isn’t true. I realize for most men for all practical purposes it is. Just as there aren’t enough Scotts to go around there’s not enough sweet, naturally submissive women to go around.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Deti – FYI your email reply has not come through yet.

        Like

  5. cameron232 says:

    I don’t know how huge a following Jim has. It seems that all neoreactionaries are a dark little corner of the internet. Moldbug/Yarvin seems slightly more mainstream – he gets linked from revolver.news now – I think Tucker has had the revolver.news guy on. I met the guy who shook the hand of Andy Griffith.

    Manosphere mainstream is honestly has more visibility in it’s message than neoreactionaries.

    Jim likes to reference Scott Alexander – in a rival viewpoint sort of way– he is much closer to mainstream than Jim but not exactly a household name.

    Like

  6. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Most redpill christians don’t think thats how their seen as non-polite& not decent!?You tell these bluepill chumps their fools for not beleiving in game?I wonder who is the real believers in decency!?Those who fight or say who cares I’m good?Nobody cares what the elite neighbors think when your gaming&lusting with boner-tests?False believers in truth is all over the manosphere like at jims&jacks!The new roissy&dal’s that failed to get the holy married game evolution started!

    Like

  7. Eric Francis Silk says:

    “Widespread fornication will eventually bring down the mightiest of empires”.

    Maybe our current empire needs to be brought down. It’s hard to look at the state of things and not come to that conclusion. There are no institutions left to conserve.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Yep. Collapse it all. This country, it’s “values,” etc are meaningless to me. Our system of government failed. Time for it to die.

      Liked by 5 people

      • feeriker says:

        “Time for it to die.”

        More accurately, time for us to kill it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “A republic, if you can keep it.”

        We couldn’t keep it. Not only could we not keep it, it’s dead, and we killed it.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cause of death:

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

        Liked by 6 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Even then it still failed early on (pre 1850s).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        A republic works when you have a virtuous elite, but never without one. A monarchy is more dependent on one man, but it incentivizes virtue. A republic incentivizes defection. You may not have a virtuous elite in a monarchy, but you are guaranteed not to have one in a republic. Every single time, the same thing happens. We didn’t outlast Rome or Greece, we just have better propaganda. Also, agreed with Feeriker. Let America die, let the blood spill, and let’s get to fixing all this.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      @thedeti

      “Shine, Perishing Republic”, as Robinson Jeffers titled one of his poems.

      “While this America settles in the mould of its vulgarity, heavily thickening to empire,
      And protest, only a bubble in the molten mass, pops and sighs out, and the mass hardens,

      I sadly smiling remember that the flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots to make earth.
      Out of the mother; and through the spring exultances, ripeness and decadence; and home to the mother.

      You making haste haste on decay: not blameworthy; life is good, be it stubbornly long or suddenly
      A mortal splendor: meteors are not needed less than mountains: shine, perishing republic.

      But for my children, I would have them keep their distance from the thickening center; corruption
      Never has been compulsory, when the cities lie at the monster’s feet there are left the mountains.

      And boys, be in nothing so moderate as in love of man, a clever servant, insufferable master.
      There is the trap that catches noblest spirits, that caught—they say—God, when he walked on earth.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      I’m starting to think the same way. So much so that I’m having a difficult time caring about what I see in the news anymore. On my boss’s radio show, I even asked after he talked about China surpassing the U.S., “Would it really be so bad if China was number one?”

      He proceeded to give me a bunch of scenarios about how China has a bad record when it comes to human rights…and as terrible as it sounded…it still didn’t bother me. Don’t get me wrong, I love being an American and I’m proud of a lot of it’s history, acknowledging we’ve had some blemishes along the way. But when those at the wheel don’t seem to have that pride…makes me all the more glad I have God as my salvation. Even if all the nations collapse and crumble, the Kingdom of Heaven will stand. And so long as I endeavor to do what’s good in God’s eyes, I’ll always have a place in it.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    ”Get p@ssy&be a short donged p@ssy gamer&not a alpha, long donged patriarchist”!?Theodore roosevelt said that?No wonder ole decent idealistic elite FDR started boinking his ugly cousin!Without his matriarchs permission in concern for the bluepill neighbors orgyist chump feelings!?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

    GNON means God of Nature Or Nature. For Christians it means Christ as Logos, where atheists understand it as the results of causal determinism. In both cases it is cause and effect, because Christians believe that God created the world in accordance with His will, and His laws are set so that Man can exist in His world. Atheists, on the other hand, still believe that the world is a logical place, built on rules, and that the Bible is the accumulated wisdom across multiple millenia of the societies that found what was effective and what was not, and made rules accordingly. GNON was an invention that the two groups used to communicate. Now that the primacy of Christianity exists in neoreaction, Christians no longer need to use GNON except as an intellectual exercise.

    Jim is an Anglican not because it is malleable, but because it is the form of Christianity best adapted to the Anglo peoples of the United States. I believe, but am not certain, that if he were the highest bishop of the American Anglican church, then he would seek reunification with the Orthodox Christian Church. My opinion is that Catholics have serious problems, like being a usurpation of kingly authority run by a bunch of buggers. Protestants are out of control sectarians that have degenerated into all sorts of insanity. The Orthodox Church’s reach and its success is proof of God’s favor and his intended design for the Church. My ideal would be an Anglican Orthodox Church in communion with Constantinople and Moscow.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      I can tell you all about Anglicanism because that’s my background (dad) and because I spent many years in two different continuing Anglican jurisdictions and countless hours defending the Anglican Catholic interpretation of Christianity. They’re hosed. Obviously the Church of England is far gone (and it’s not as bad as the Whiskey-palians (as my dad used to call them) which is now just a dating club for elderly, homosexual WASPs. The continuing Anglicans are hosed too. Endless squabbles over jurisdiction, divorced-remarried multiple times “bishops”, etc. Average age is 120 years old and they lost a significant fraction of their already tiny numbers to the ordinariate. I can also confirm from experience that the Anglicans who submitted to the “buggerers” (the Ordinariate) are way better than the Anglican Continuum. I managed to find one continuum priest who had enough balls to condemn contraception. If you don’t make babies you don’t’ have a Church. They won’t condemn divorce and remarriage because that’s what their bishops do. They won’t call either “intrinsically evil” because their bishops have not balls – not a one of them. You can still find Roman rite bishops with balls and some Eastern Rite too.

      When the most reactionary of their congregations are governed by liberal bishops (that’s one reason I got out) then they’re screwed.

      If Jim can make up a new Church of England and appoint himself archbishop well good for him. I wish him luck.

      The EO won’t take him though. They might allow him to be a “Western Rite” EO – their revenge on us for the Eastern Rites.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “They might allow him to be a “Western Rite” EO – their revenge on us for the Eastern Rites.”

        Heh. The WRs are tiny, not whole dioceses and churches as was done with the ERs. And it’s pretty much entirely from high church Protestants, not from Catholics. So very much not a parallel with the history of the ER.

        Probably the best WR parish I have come across is this one: https://www.stpatrickorthodox.org/ . They’re quite something. But it’s one parish. There is like one other WR parish in the entire DC metro region. Really the number of these guys is tiny. Most of the Anglicans that come into Orthodoxy, including clergy, simply become EO and don’t go in the WR.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Eric Francis Silk says:

    Among many other things I picked up from reading neoreactionary blog, one of them is an appreciation for Thomas Carlyle.

    Carlyle has a passage in his book Past And Present that explains quite well (in his unique style) the idea of fruitless branches needing to be cut off.
    It also explains why I’m not a conservative in politics, biblical interpretation, or anything else. The Conservatives who Carlyle addresses in the quoted passage have the fatal weakness of not understanding that what is dead must be cut off.

    “O my Conservative friends, who still specially name and struggle to approve yourselves ‘Conservative,’ would to Heaven I could persuade you of this world-old fact, than which Fate is not surer, That Truth and justice alone are capable of being ‘conserved’ and preserved! The thing which is unjust, which is not according to God’s Law, will you, in a God’s Universe, try to conserve that? It is so old, say you? Yes, and the hotter haste ought you, of all others, to be in to let it grow no older! If but the faintest whisper in your hearts intimate to you that it is not fair,–hasten, for the sake of Conservatism itself, to probe it rigorously, to cast it forth at once and forever if guilty. How will or can you preserve it, the thing that is not fair? ‘Impossibility’ a thousandfold is marked on that. And ye call yourselves Conservatives, Aristocracies:–ought not honour and nobleness of mind, if they had departed from all the Earth elsewhere, to find their last refuge with you? Ye unfortunate!

    The bough that is dead shall be cut away, for the sake of the tree itself. Old? Yes, it is too old. Many a weary winter has it swung and creaked there, and gnawed and fretted, with its dead wood, the organic substance and still living fibre of this good tree; many a long summer has its ugly naked brown defaced the fair green umbrage; every day it has done mischief, and that only: off with it, for the tree’s sake, if for nothing more; let the Conservatism that would preserve cut it away. Did no wood-forester apprise you that a dead bough with its dead root left sticking there is extraneous, poisonous; is as a dead iron spike, some horrid rusty ploughshare driven into the living substance;–nay is far worse; for in every windstorm (‘commercial crisis’ or the like), it frets and creaks, jolts itself to and fro, and cannot lie quiet as your dead iron spike would!”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. cameron232 says:

    Natural Law is good but revelation is not subordinate to Natural Law and revelation is not up to individual interpretation. None of these traditions Jim is trying to (re)claim are Gnon Christian traditions. We have lots of overlap in concern and about what needs to happen – no sense in being at each others’ throats.

    Like

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      Revalation is Natural Law. They are one and the same. Revalation just means that we don’t have to sort through the Natural Law by trial and error. Christ is the Logos, so His commands are in line with the Natural Law. He is the Creator, after all.

      Revalation is of course subject to interpretation. The result of each interpretation shows how close it is to the correct interpretation. Language is a messy and imprecise means of communication, especially from an infinite, omniscient perspective to a mortal, finite one. We find what the truth is by testing it, and living in accordance with the results. The current approach is failing, so it isn’t the truth and isn’t in line with the Will of God. If Christians had a thriving community with fruitful marriages you could argue that the current approach is acceptable, and I would agree with you. Suffering and oppression are external pressures, but its the internal pressures that are killing us. Therefore, we need to adjust what we are doing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        As far as I know, none of the traditions we are mentioning here see Natural Law as synonymous with revelation. None of them historically adhere to what you are describing. I share your concerns and 100% respect your right to interpret things the way you see fit – I just think you won’t be able to shoehorn that into Anglicanism, Catholicism or Orthodoxy. It would be called something else.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Natural law has always been a way to avoid discussing scripture and god (revelation).

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I can’t agree. Catholics have always discussed scripture and God – no problem with that. Orthodox too. It is more a reflection of the fact that the Church doesn’t see the scriptures as the entirety of the Faith.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

    The NRx position on women is that they are not adapted for life in anything more complicated than a primitive tribe and constant tribal warfare. They have primitive senses of manly status and are constantly in rebellion in order to find a strong man who will enforce her compliance. In order to live in a civilization more complex than a couple hundred people constantly at war, we need to rigorously enforce control over women, especially their sexuality. We have to allow men to suppress their rebellions, no matter how severe. We have to allow men to enforce their claim on women, and not let women constantly move from man to man.

    Every successful society and civilization for as long as we have history has followed these rules, and their falls were preceded by the violations of these rules. NRx seeks to reimpose these rules on society so that we can continue our civilization. We don’t want to adapt to women, we want to force women to comply on a civilization wide level. We who are strong will force compliance, and as we rise and our opponents fall, we will be the strong horse that others follow. We don’t want to find a way to survive in the current rules. We are reinstating the old rules, privately and by our own wills, and without the help of the larger society.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      Wulfgar,
      Thank you for clarifying. It seems that I was wrong in comparing Jim’s approach to Option 1. It’s not at all like Option 1. It could be a fifth option.

      Like

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        The Jimian position is sort of a combination of Options 2, 3, & 4. We are trying to seed a new Christian civilization in the ashes of this Satanic civilization. We have the strong hand approach because we need to carve out our own little island of civilization from the filth surrounding us. We are outliers because we reject the current society and all of its precepts and priors. We come together in faith, that God might lead us from the ruins as he did Abraham, Moses, and Lot.

        We want a new, Christian American civilization to carry on in the manner that the Christian civilizations of old did. America can’t really be saved, and it is too powerful right now to resist openly. As a result, we seek to influence and develop a new elite to replace the degenerates in power, and a faith and intellectual tradition that draws upon the old ways so that they can have the support to reign.

        Liked by 2 people

  13. Guys, guys! There’s nothing to worry about! All will be well again!

    A longtime Post subscriber in Virginia, one of my regular correspondents, had something to say about [Buzbee] in a recent email about the appointment: ‘Does she understand — really understand – that… the United States is on track to become functionally an authoritarian White Christian nationalist state in the very near future? And if the answer is ‘Yes,’ what is she prepared to do about it?”

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/05/cisfemale_takes_over_at_wapo_film_at_eleven.html

    Liked by 2 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Thats right HUNTER!The manospherian dream of countless scotts,GBFMs&rollos bitch-slapping sense into the decent elites is’nt that far off now!Not with the scott,GBFM&rollo lawfirm suing the republican-democrat oligarchy corp of SJWSinc.for a unlawful anti-competetive monoply against the pre-existing patriarchy&the Alpha-MGTOWS!

      Liked by 1 person

  14. lastmod says:

    Eh…who cares at this point professor.

    So I have to be at my new job on June 14th. That means in two weeks I have to get the rest of this place packed. Found a gorgeous two bedroom apartment in the ‘old town’ area of Pasadena. Deposit paid. First and last month rent up. Key fees. Paid extra to have off street parking on the property (LA people and their parking).

    And now the truth I have always known. Had my face evaluated. Now I know the “Age Pill” is brutal, but they wanted shots of when I was younger………. yeah. Now I am a 2 out of 10. Kind of knew that in my prime, a 4 out of 10.

    This person does not know me. Just wanted many photos of specific angles and the like. No apologies. No encouragement. Just told the truth I have always known.

    I suppose I should be sad and call the assessment bunk. I should talk about when I was 23 and I was nailing perfect 10’s or whatever… But I can’t even say that. There is nothing to say.

    Going to the Southland will have a huge benefit. Just disappearing into an even larger metropolitan area. Fading into it. Blending into the whole mish-mash and finally knowing where my looks genuinely are. Really no worries that I am going to be chatted up, or have to worry about “if” a when I do talk to a woman if she may be giving IOI’s, I could at least honestly say before… “I never noticed them if a woman was giving them.”

    Well now I know that the reason is because “she was never giving them, and that’s why you never noticed them!”

    A weight has been lifted actually. At least I know.

    As for headship, I have it in my work, backed up by a job description, and title. That works well in the world I live in and have to deal with.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. info says:

    Jim’s approach doesn’t take into account a hostile state and culture that will intervene to attempt to stop as well as defectors that as a result of genuine tyranny which utilize hostile forces to crack down.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      Yes, it does, that is why it is so difficult. Anyone with a successful marriage is in rebellion against the American state. The point is that you engage in that rebellion as quietly as possible, but that it is necessary to rebel against the state if you want to have children. You have to make the choice to fight or not, but those who do not fight will be winnowed out.

      Liked by 3 people

  16. cameron232 says:

    OT: Men’s preference ratio for slimmer women over chubby women is 3.4. Women’s preference ratio for taller men over shorter men is 14.3.

    Yes, women are much more demanding. Note of course that you can’t do anything about your height but you can do something about your weight.

    So shocked they initiate 80% of divorces.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-short-mans-burden/

    Also black and Hispanic men DO like ‘em “thick.” Where’s Oscar?

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      From comments there:

      “Using a student sample (N = 650), we show that women are not only more selective, but also more consistent, than men, in their partner height preferences. Women prefer, on average, a larger height difference between themselves and their partner (i.e. males being much taller than themselves) than men do. This effect is even more pronounced when examining satisfaction with actual partner height: women are most satisfied when their partner was 21 cm taller, whereas men are most satisfied when they were 8 cm taller than their partner.”

      21 cm is ~ 8 ½ inches.

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020

      [Jack: The full paper can be downloaded here.]
      Women want taller men more than men want shorter women

      Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      Women are more demanding for obvious reasons: fewer bites at the apple, so each bite counts for a lot more. So they strongly tend to want to optimize, whereas men are happy to satisfice, all things held equal. Women can also get away with having that approach because of differences in libido/desire/sexual “need”, which all skew towards empowering the woman as chooser/determiner.

      As a short guy myself (5’6″), I have experienced this first hand, but I also know that I had more GFs when I was growing up than my taller friends (other than the one who was a natural). All it means is that the pool is smaller — there is a certain percentage of women who will not consider you, solely due to your height, no matter what else you have going for you, period. And that’s the case in any group. So you learn that the pool is smaller, and you also learn to expect a lot of rejection and move on, because you will find girls who won’t reject for height. In a way, it was like learning Game before there was a such a thing as Game, which is why I am not hostile to some of the core ideas in Game, probably — as a shorter guy, if I didn’t approach, and if I cared a lot about rejection, I would have ended up an incel. But, as it was, I ended up having more GFs and dates than taller guys did, because they would tend to approach a girl, get reflected, and then fall back and not approach. As a shorter guy I had learned fairly early that I could not do that, because my pool was too small.

      And there is no “rhyme or reason” as to which girls will reject based on height and which ones won’t, other than the basic truth that women who are 7+ will not be with a man of my height unless he has a LOT going on in other areas — well, well above average in other areas (physique, musculature, persona, money, social status, fame, power, etc) — because she doesn’t have to do so. One thing that is also true is that a woman’s own height is useless as a predictor. In many cases, the shortest women will prefer the tallest men very strongly (which defies “logic”, but this isn’t a logical thing, it’s a visceral one). And the women who were my height or even an inch taller would be unfussed. Sometimes. Sometimes it was vice versa. So I learned not to target women by height (other than women who are model tall), because it’s a poor proxy for whether she is height-determinant or not: the only way you know is by interacting and seeing how she reacts.

      The other point is that Scott’s approach of waiting for IOIs doesn’t work as well for shorter men. The problem isn’t that you don’t get them, it’s that you get far fewer of them, and often they are not from women you are attracted to. If you want to be with a woman you are attracted to at this height, you have to be more pro-active, and you have to pursue a bit. Or, you can be with a less attractive woman, if that’s what you want. But that’s what you will certainly get if you take the passive approach as a shorter man.

      I don’t actually hold the height preference against women — it’s quite understandable in biological terms. And it’s useful that they have such a preference from a rhetorical perspective, because as a shorter man who has been at the sharp end of women’s height-based rejection quite a bit over decades, it’s super-easy to shut women down, literally cold, when they start the typical whining about men’s preferences, and be completely credible about it. It mean shut them down. They have nothing to say, because they know it’s true. Oh well.

      Liked by 4 people

      • There’s a bit video floating around from the 90’s where they line up a bunch of guys and have the women pick out someone to date (while behind a two-way mirror). None of the women would date the short man (5′ or 5′ 2″, I think) no matter how smart, kind or rich he was made out to be. And these were NOT teen beauty queens making the choices.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        The height thing to women is as the “boner” thing to men.

        Men just have to have sexual attraction to the women they associate with. It just has to be there, otherwise we’re not even getting out of the starting gate. You’re asking too much if you want me to compromise on that and get with a woman I just can’t get it up for. I can’t do it. I’ve tried on occasion. Can’t do it. Just doesn’t work.

        So I kind of understand the height thing for women. For a solid majority of women, the man’s got to be taller. It’s just a nonnegotiable for a lot of women, and after being around the ‘sphere, I understand why.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        “If I didn’t approach, and if I cared a lot about rejection, I would have ended up an incel.”

        I don’t believe that somehow – at least “incel” in the strict sense. There are girls that would have married you – they just wouldn’t be attractive enough – that’s my guess. No I’m not saying you’re too picky. I know you’ve said this before – it’s hard for a man to force himself to be attracted to a woman he’s not attracted to. Your celibacy would have been, strictly speaking, voluntary – I don’t think people should marry others they’re not attracted to – not nowadays anyway.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        “I don’t believe that somehow – at least “incel” in the strict sense. There are girls that would have married you – they just wouldn’t be attractive enough – that’s my guess.”

        That’s 90% of incels. They could have women, too, but the ones who are available to them are not attractive to them. There is some small number that absolutely no woman would have, but that’s a tiny number, and much smaller than the number of incels.

        I would say there are three groups among single men who are incels:

        “Nadir incels” — no woman at all will have them.

        “Normal incels” — no woman who is attractive at all to them will have them.

        “Volcels” — some attractive women would have them, but they avoid for other reasons (religious reasons, avoidant personality, etc).

        I wouldn’t have been a “nadir incel” had I not approached, but I would have been a “normal incel”.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      Cameron, thanks for sharing this. It is interesting.

      Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      Not thick….but mostly now just plain FAT

      Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        You are so right,mod!How long can this last now that the wheels are starting to realy come off the wests car?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      Is there a study that shows the difference between women who “say” they prefer taller men, but really don’t date tall guys, or the guys they prefer?

      lol, because it reminds me of the many Kevin Samuels debates where women will call into the show and “say” they want a man who makes 6-figures and all that…but they’ve actually already given themselves to Pookie and Ray-Ray who can scrounge enough to buy a Big Mac between, thus becoming single-mothers or run through so many times.

      lol, and yes, I’m asking because as a tall guy…I swear, i never effing knew my height was something that worked in my favor. If the women around me were attracted to me because I was taller than most, either I was too dumb to see it or they were too shy/nervous to act on it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I never effing knew my height was something that worked in my favor. If the women around me were attracted to me because I was taller than most, either I was too dumb to see it or they were too shy/nervous to act on it.”

        That’s not exactly how height works for men. There’s a lot of nuance to it from what I can see.

        Height first works as a threshold, cost of admission test. “He must be taller than me.” This is by far the most common requirement, even if women never say it. Almost all women want a man taller than she is. “He must be at least 6 feet.” Height in these instances isn’t an attractant, it’s the minimum entry requirement. “You must be at least this tall to ride this ride.” Like that.

        If you’re in that tall guy sweet spot, which is around 6 feet to 6’3″, now height is an attractant. Now height will be used with other attractive features. But if you’re a tall guy and have no other attractants, well, you’re gonna have a hard time. Tall is necessary, but not sufficient.

        Height works against you if you’re like 6’5″ and up. That gets to be viewed as freakishly tall. Advantage: Women 6 feet and up could gravitate to supertall men.

        Women over 6 feet will often compromise on height because they have to. I once dated a 6’2″ former professional volleyball player. I’m 5’11”, I juuust missed the magic 6 feet mark. She played in the European leagues, had been on college scholarship, the whole bit. She often said she’d date shorter men simply because they were available and taller men were not. It didn’t last, of course, but she was open to dating shorter men simply because getting to date men was more important to her than holding out for a taller man. If she chose the latter, her dating opportunities would have been severely limited.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        @Deti: “But if you’re a tall guy and have no other attractants, well, you’re gonna have a hard time.”

        hahaha! I think that’s the realization that burns in my chest when I hear women talk about liking taller guys (I’m 6’3). It’s like when i was a kid, part of a class, and they’d be like, “If only we had someone who was good at geography to represent us in the school’s Geography Bee.” I’d raise my hand and they knew I was the best (having traveled around in a military family) but would tacitly be like, “No. Not you, Rock. Let’s see if there’s somebody else.”

        lolol, it’s okay. at least i have my smile.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Height first works as a threshold, cost of admission test. “He must be taller than me.” This is by far the most common requirement, even if women never say it. Almost all women want a man taller than she is. “He must be at least 6 feet”. Height in these instances isn’t an attractant, it’s the minimum entry requirement. “You must be at least this tall to ride this ride.” Like that.

        If you’re in that tall guy sweet spot, which is around 6 feet to 6’3″, now height is an attractant. Now height will be used with other attractive features.

        That’s correct. This is why I was able to do “better” with women than many (not all, lol) of the guys I knew who were taller than me. They didn’t have the “height exclusion” against them, but they could have various other things against them (personality, face, fitness, humor, social skills, mastery, etc, etc). The key difference between them and someone like me is that out of a room of 100 women, only roughly 50 or so, give or take, were in my “potential pool”. 100 were in their potential pool. But … by having more other things in my favor, I could do better in my pool of 50 women than some of them could in their pool of 100 women. All guys need to have some of those other things going for them, whether they are taller or shorter, in any case. If you are short, you need some more of them going for you, because your pool is smaller and … here is the critical thing … it’s a pool that taller men are also competing in, too! So you need to outcompete them also in your smaller pool — you just need to be more competitive, generally, in order to be successful.

        Plus with guys who are shorter than average height, how much shorter than average you are matters. Average height in the US for white guys is 5’9″ (https://www.medicinenet.com/height_men/article.htm). Even guys at that height get some height-related exclusions (the magic number here is 6’0″ in order to avoid any exclusion based on height), but every inch you go lower the harder it gets. So at my height, it’s pretty challenging in that the more attractive girls are just completely off the table for you unless you have very outlierish characteristics in other areas (are actually famous, and very wealthy and so on).

        Guys who are just below that (say 5’8″) still do okay, but do get a good amount of height exclusion as you get to the prettier girls. I have known quite a few guys like this who have consistently dated 6s with perhaps the occasional 7. But generally not a steady diet of 7s, and 8+ is off the table (again, unless they have outlierish other characteristics).

        In my height (5’6″), if you really push it in terms of looksmaxing, style and so on, and you have good social skills, you can date mostly 6s. You will have a very hard time dating 7s at all, or anything higher than that, unless you have outlierish other characteristics. And the thing at this height is that if you take your foot off the gas when it comes to maxing what you do have, you fall like a stone — that is, you don’t fall from 6s to 5s, you fall from 6s to 4s and lower in terms of women who are willing to date you. You can’t be a “normal” guy at this height unless you’re interested in below average girls, or being celibate. You have to work it.

        As you get lower than my height, it gets really bleak for straight men. I have spoken with a number of guys over the years (in course of giving advice to shorter men) who are in the 5’4″ and 5’3″ range — and, really, these guys were incels. Even objectively unattractive women were not interested in them due to their size (again, barring other outlierish characeristics). No real answers for men in that range, but I will say this — quite a few of these guys today seem to be opting to become transgenders. Probably they realize that they can do better as a fake woman, sexually, than they can as straight men, and with all the propaganda today that is pro-LGBT I can understand how that could happen — as straight men, they’re pretty much SOL. In the past, these guys would have been priests or monks or something, but today … not a good life in a world where sex is pretty much at the top of the list in social importance in a very flagrant and open way.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “…by having more other things in my favor, I could do better in my pool of 50 women than some of them could in their pool of 100 women.

        I want to explore the concept of “doing better in the smaller pool”. This is important for a lot of men who get down into intersexual dynamics.

        I was in a similar boat as you, but my flaw was and is baldness. I started going bald at 17. I spent the 7 years of college and grad school going from Norwood 2 to 4. By age 25, I was at Norwood 5. Now, baldness is different from height in that it starts to matter less the older you get. But – and here’s the kicker – when you start receding and losing your hair in high school, it’s really bad. It’s terrible to be in college, 20, 21, and be noticeably thinning out on top when most men your age have really good thick hair. It’s terrible for your self esteem, your social life, and your confidence. It really is – because you stand out so much and because it makes you look 10 years older than you are.

        The only thing I did right was avoid creative combing. I did just about everything else wrong.

        How do you deal with this? How do I wish I’d been coached on how to deal with it?

        1) Accept that this is how it is. You’re balding, going bald. There’s nothing you can do about it. Just own it, shave it or cut it very short, and just let it go. You are not a top 20% man. You’re just not, at least not right now. You’re a 6 at best. Yes, that stings. Put some Bactine on it, shake it off, and get moving again. That’s life. That’s YOUR life. You are genetically predestined to get great tans on your head.

        2) Accept that being young and bald means your dating pool is limited. Right out of the gate, your pool is limited to around 40% of all women in your age cohort. By that, I mean you are just out of the running for at least 60% of all women in your age cohort. You’re young and bald, so for that majority, you’re a no go from the get go. Yes, that stings again. Keep that Bactine handy. It gets better, I promise.

        When you write off the 60% that’s already written you off, you can concentrate on the 40% that hasn’t written you off. You can become a big fish in that little pond if you max other things. And if you’re a big fish, the women in your little pool will really like you. So the moral of that story is: don’t even think about the 60% that’s eliminated you. Don’t even try. Don’t even go there. Don’t waste your time and don’t get needlessly frustrated. Find your pool, stay in it, and work within it.

        Many times, I made that exact mistake. I tried to jump out of my little pool and swim with some of my follicularly gifted friends. I got plucked out of the big pool pretty fast. If I had stayed in my little pool, I would not have wasted time and effort on women who would never consider me. That, right there, was a source of great frustration and pain for me. But it didn’t have to be. It was, because I would not accept that I couldn’t swim in the 60% pool. I would not accept that 8s and 9s were not in my wheelhouse. I couldn’t accept that the one 8 I did snag was a complete and total fluke, and was completely out of the ordinary for me. Never happened before or since.

        Look: This isn’t fair. It’s just how it is. This is how it is when you have a glaring physical flaw as a young man.

        3) Accept that it’s going to be this way for quite a while – at least until you’re 30, and probably beyond. Small pool for you until your 30s. Just how it is. You are not going to slay 8s, 9s and 10s. Not happening. You are not taking home a different girl from the frat house party every other weekend. Not happening. You can, however, date 5s and 6s who may want casual sex, sometimes, but who will more likely expect more from you.

        4) Pitfall: Even the women in your 40% pool will be like the 60% pool. Remember the women in your 40% pool can swim in the 60% pool too. They’re dating you, and the men above you. (And make no mistake: they are above you. They are objectively more sexually attractive and appealing than you are. They just are. They don’t have your flaw. That puts them above you. I told you to keep the Bactine on hand.)

        So women in your pool have an advantage. They can and will demand more from you than they will from the guys in the 60%. To them, you’re not Fun Casual Date Guy. You’re Nice Steady Relationship Guy. You’re not Alpha McGorgeous. They see you as Billy Beta. And they’ll work on shoehorning you into the Billy Beta role.

        They’ll demand that you go all in on commitment. They’ll run intersexual dynamics power plays on you. They’ll hold out on physical involvement, they’ll demand drinks and dinners. Alpha gets the fun; Billy has to wine and dine and work for it.

        The way you have to deal with that is you go really slowly with them and keep them at arms length. Go slowly. Spin plates. Do things to distinguish yourself in the 40% pool. Nobody gets your exclusive commitment until she’s shown she won’t play games. This is where the “you step into my frame” and “you come to me, I don’t come to you” is crucial. If you’re a 40% guy you must adopt that attitude. Because even a 5 will absolutely steamroll you, if you allow it.

        You must not compromise on “I’m the man, I’m running the show. It’s fine if you don’t like it, there’s the door.” You must set the terms. You must remember that there are still more in the 40%. And yeah, some will walk away, because they think they can control you and find out they can’t and they’ll move to other targets. But some of those women will be attracted to it and will start working for it. And there will be a few women with whom you can have relationships on your terms. (Now you can put the Bactine away.)

        The thing is that you’ll have to wait longer and select from a much smaller pool. Because even in the 40% pool, a big number of those women will not go for “He’s in charge. I’ll submit. I’ll step into his frame” with you. This is to be expected in today’s market – why should they submit to a 40% pool man when maybe they can do better? Some women will look at it that way. But some women will not – they’ll see they’ve got a pretty good deal. However, you have to preserve that dynamic through the entire relationship. You don’t ever get to let up. You have to keep that going, forever.

        Such is the life of an early baldy in the late 20th- early 21st century. Hope this helps.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        The last thing I want to say is that if you’re in the 40% pool, you still have to adopt the mindset of “I set the terms, you step into my frame, you come to me. If you can’t or won’t do that, no relationship.”

        Yes, you’ll be eliminating a lot of regular 40% swimmers. Just remember: You either do it that way, or you end up a guy married 15 years at your wit’s end with your marriage, your financial well being, and the well being of your children hanging off a cliff by their fingernails.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        No intention of doucheiness here. So glad my first and only (teenage) girlfriend worked out. This is a lot of complex crap to navigate. And I’m freaking incompetent with wymenz.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Cameron:

        maybe the TLDR for a premature balding man is: Even if you’re negotiating from what you think is a worse position, it’s better to stay single and not date, than it is to do it her way and step into her frame.

        I’m a lawyer, and one of the things we do is a lot of mediation. When you go to a mediation you list out the things you must have and the things you can compromise on. Well, you are losing when you start giving up things you must have. So you don’t do it.

        When it gets down to what we in the biz call “nut cuttin’ time”, you hold out for what you must have. If you can’t get what you must have, you walk away. No Deal. You physically walk away. You get up and you walk away from the table and out of the room. We all give each other a day or three to think about it.

        Very often, when you do that, you find out that, hey, the other side does want to keep talking. They’ve found it in their hearts (and checkbooks) to give you what you need, so we can make a deal that everyone’s more or less happy with. It’s to everyone’s advantage to make the deal.

        So it is with girls. Hold out for what you must have. Susie Snowflake, it’s now nut cuttin’ time. You come to me. You step into my frame. Must haves, baby, or No Deal. No? OK. I’m done. It was fun, but No Deal. Sometimes, Susie doesn’t come back. No Deal. And if it really is No Deal, that’s fine, but you have to make that stick and not compromise one inch on it.

        But sometimes she does come back. And a Deal is made, and everyone’s happy. But you must hold up your end of the bargain and diligently make her hold up her end. You remind her of the deal, that that’s how it is, you’re not changing it, and she is expected to uphold it.

        Does that help?

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah I understand deti. I think that displays the strength that they respect.

        Liked by 2 people

  17. cameron232 says:

    More.

    “Relatedly, a study about height and human mate choice found that, on average, the shortest man a woman would date is 5 feet 9 inches tall.”

    One of my sons has pituitary issues – we’re putting him on growth hormone.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201909/5-reasons-why-women-and-men-care-about-height

    Like

    • lastmod says:

      Cameron, may I ask why? I mean…..if god wants him to be a certain height, then that is what god wants! Shouldn’t you boy and your and your wife be content of howe god made and wants him to be? Shouldn’t he be using his height (or lack of it per say) as a gift to show and demonstrate god’s love and amazing creation?

      Not trying to be a jerk…….but isn’t this almost like getting cosemetic surgurey, or some similar thing?

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Lastmod, the main concern is that he has almost no pituitary function which has other consequences. There a few risks with doctor supervised hormones. And he is self concious about his height. And, no, I don’t teach him about game or women’s height preferences. How you were picked on in boarding school. Boys can be brutal.

        Like

      • Yes, you were trying to be a jerk, but you actually overshot into a$$hole territory.

        Guess what, a$$hole, if God really wants him to be short the hormones won’t work. Will that make you happy?

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        had lots of fruitful and trustful conversation with lastmod lately – nothing he has said has offended me in any way.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Also to be clear Jason he has bone density issues that might be helped. And we talked to him about what he wanted to do about all this. He is 13 and shorter than his 9 year old brother with 0 signs of puberty.

        I would love him immeasurably no matter how it turns out. He is a sweet boy – still gives his dad kisses on the cheek. But I understand his desire to grow up.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Since male sexual authority, and by extension, Headship, is so strongly dependent on height, maybe we could take back the Patriarchy within a generation by giving adolescent Christian men growth hormones! 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  18. lastmod says:

    Nova,

    But you didn’t waste YOUR time if a woman rejected you (for your height or any other reason). She wasn’t interested? You moved on. You kept trying with other girls. That isn’t “game” that is just persistence and determination. I know “game” NOW (or of late) claims that is “game” because they again added “its a numbers thing, keep trying, and when you have success, see…you have game!”

    I personally believe Scott’s take on all of this is good start for younger men especially then and now.

    No, I don’t believe “well, here is the solution, do it this way all the time or you’re a beta cuck who puts women on a pedestal” type of thing.

    Sure, there are situations when a girl may not like a guy at first……….keeps seeing him around, small talk, and then SHE decides (not the guy) to give the IOI or IOI’s as a go ahead. Yeah, she could be just wanting “right now” instead of a long term….she may just want someone to pay for a movie or date out…..who knows….and sometimes, yeah it could be something or even (dare I say it) the dirtiest of all words. Love.

    She might just actually like the guy after a bit.

    I don’t know…….but in reality, I believe Scott is on to something here that can be used as that general map-point or starting point. All the tools in the world won’t help you if she “just isn’t into you”

    and again, most of you believe and give women agency with “she can’t help who she falls for” she has ZERO responsibilty in this, its some biological thing……….so game is moot. Since she can’t help who she falls for….men don’t need to do anything right?

    Down the rabbitt hole here, and into theorhetical situations no one has the answer to. But I have a hunch. People are people. Complex, situational, rational, sometimes crazy, sometimes content. Sometimes driven half-mad and other times……..they “just are” which makes putting people into boxes, models, personality types really silly, and impossible. Sure…..a baseline, but the problem with humans here is that once somebody is labeled a way or as a “type” no one will ever let them change, even if they want to

    Like

    • Novaseeker says:

      But you didn’t waste YOUR time if a woman rejected you (for your height or any other reason). She wasn’t interested? You moved on. You kept trying with other girls. That isn’t “game” that is just persistence and determination. I know “game” NOW (or of late) claims that is “game” because they again added “its a numbers thing, keep trying, and when you have success, see…you have game!”

      Approaching is always a numbers game, Jason. Anyone who suggests otherwise is lying.

      As far as I read it, the Game guys always taught that you need “outcome independence” and you need to approach a lot of women. You wouldn’t need outcome independence if you were always successful in your approaches. If you’re doing the approaching, it’s always a numbers game. Even my “natural” friend in college, who got laid like tile, got rejected, sometimes with a lot of fanfare, quite often. He also approached a lot, and got laid a lot, by attractive girls, too. Always numbers when you are approaching without a clear IOI.

      Scott’s approach doesn’t work for someone like me, but my approach worked for someone like me just fine. I think that means that there are more approaches than Scott’s that work, if you are not Scott (like most of us).

      And I was not “running Game” or anything like it, at the time. I was just approaching, because without approaching I would have been an incel, plain and simple. I wasn’t “running Game” because there was no Game at the time, but I was making approaches.

      Liked by 3 people

      • lastmod says:

        Nova,

        “outcome independence” is another invented term in the past ten years or so by these hucksters to mean the same thing as something else, but different through a red-pill-lense on the fourth year of the third month of the second fitness test by the second date and the third IOI…..

        Or something like that. Super easy!

        Well, you wouldn’t want to approach if you were batting .600 and you’re 32 years old either. Approaching is now always a numbers game. The goalposts change by the week here.

        Scott’s approach WORKS for ALL men in general for the fact of if a woman isn’t responding to your “foolproof” advances or isn’t giving you IOI’s back from said advances or initially. Time to move on. Don’t waste your time. Sound advice. Too many men in their younger years get heartstruck or stuck on a gal they are never going to get. Too many men waste abysmal time on a gal who “just-wants-to-be-friends” and about half of todays young men will be placed in that with zero chance of moving out.

        Sure, its cool to have a circle or know women as friends. Co-workers. General friednship in a sense does happen today….as it should……but a man thrown into this “friend zone”
        you know “lab partner in biology class wants to be sex-partner” kind of thing WON”T happen. Too many men waste time here. Leave. No IOI’s? Drop it. So many Incels suffer from “Oneitis” (stuck on the one gal from high school, college, ro someone they met when they got on their own). Wasting time.

        Leave. Now Scott may have had options with the “next one” and even if you don’t. His advice here is pushing over the 50% mark.

        You all talk of spinning plates, dating here, seeing several women at the same time….you are more like Scott than you care to admit. 50% of the young / er male population doesn’t even have THAT today.

        His advice is fine. Men should at least listen to it. They have so little time anyway……before the few things they MAY have looks wise (a nice head of hair) are going to fade faster than they think….and women place a HUGE ammount on looks today. Way more in my time.

        What worked in 1992 doesn’t today unless you are Scott or one of you guys evidently. Just so outta touch.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Scott’s approach WORKS for ALL men in general for the fact of if a woman isn’t responding to your “foolproof” advances or isn’t giving you IOI’s back from said advances or initially. Time to move on. Don’t waste your time. Sound advice. Too many men in their younger years get heartstruck or stuck on a gal they are never going to get. Too many men waste abysmal time on a gal who “just-wants-to-be-friends” and about half of todays young men will be placed in that with zero chance of moving out.

        But that isn’t what his advice is, at least as I understood it.

        As I understood it, the advice was wait for a woman to show you a clear IOI, and if she doesn’t, don’t bother approaching. Well, Jason, for someone like me that would have meant rather unattractive women. Women I really had no interest in dating or being in a relationship with. So not interesting to me, and I would wager not interesting to many men, either. If you get IOIs from women you find attractive enough to date, Scott’s advice makes sense … otherwise, you’re stuck with women you don’t find attractive, which, again at least for me, wasn’t interesting to me for dating at all.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      Jason: The reason approaching is always a numbers game is because

      1) “Game” and routine approaching is for the vast majority of men who don’t get IOIs all the time. Guys like Nova and me. Most men. I wasn’t very smart about girls, but I did notice that my mere existence was not generating much female interest. So, I went up to girls and talked to them. Uncomfortably and awkwardly, and not well at all most of the time, but I still did it.

      2) You get rejected most of the time. The rest of the time, you talk and it fizzles out. You talk and you date and it fizzles out. You talk, date for a while, and she meets someone better. You talk, date for a long while, and it doesn’t work out for one reason or another. Every time that happens, the process begins again and you go back out there. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      This was what was originally called “spinning plates” until the subreddits started messing with its definition. Spinning plates was originally dating a few women (a main one and at least one you see once in a while), working on a few women (fishing from OLD, talking/texting/in the process of moving to “dating” maybe), constant approach (to get more plates to spin) and if you can swing it, a f__kbuddy/booty call (when you need the itch scratched).

      You don’t commit. You don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Women leave. Women break up with you. Women disappear. She’s revealed herself as a b!tch or mentally ill or having a character defect. You don’t like her as much as you thought. Things don’t work out. Things run their course.

      Most men were encouraged to do that. Why? Because when you’re a young man and have no commitments, you are learning about women, what they are, what they do, how they act, how they think and feel, etc. You need to get a lot of experience with a lot of different women so you don’t pedestalize them or supplicate to them. You need to learn that women are not special, they can be replaced, they come and go.

      You need to learn to spot women’s b!tchiness. You can spot personality disorders and character defects. You learn to figure out when a woman is lying to you. You learn to figure out who you can trust and who you cannot trust.

      You need to learn that women are not complex or mystical. You need to see, through experience and trial/error, that women are simple to understand and really quite predictable once you get the basics down and you see patterns emerge. You need to learn how to take rejection. The worst that happens is they tell you “not interested”. OK, good to know now. She laughs at you or sneers at you or nukes you. Ok, she’s a b!tch, bullet dodged.

      You learn your leagues – the women attracted to you, the women you are attracted to who will date you, and the women you are attracted to who will not date you because they can do better than you.

      A really long expose of why dating for young men is a numbers game.

      Liked by 2 people

  19. lastmod says:

    Lastmod, the main concern is that he has almost no pituitary function which has other consequences. There a few risks with doctor supervised hormones. And he is self concious about his height. And, no, I don’t teach him about game or women’s height preferences. How you were picked on in boarding school. Boys can be brutal

    Agreed. Just throwing a perspective out there, “contraian” if you will. Wasn’t trying to be a jerk. Thanks for your solid reply 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  20. lastmod says:

    Deti…..

    Agree in theory I suppose. Spinning plates….. again making women into an inanimate object that you conquest, meet, stimuli, response instead of thinking you are talking to a another human being.

    Most men don’t have the skill or TIME to do this, and the ones who do…well, sometimes they don’t have anything better to do.

    You guys get IOI’s all the time. Probably more than most men, even at your respected ages.

    “You need to learn that women are not complex or mystical.”

    I flat out disagree with this. Game, Frame, this model, that model, this situation, that level, this N count, what SMV number she is or isn’t. Feminism, all these variables HAVE made women “complex or mystical” to most chumps and betas you all claim to love and want to help. Really. It has.

    When I was about forty and stumbling on to this ‘sphere (ten years ago) I honestly believe that in some areas because of following the “models” and and trying to understand that women are not complex or mystical….well, it made them more so.

    I can’t blame it fully on that. It was pretty much a closed deal and shop for me even back then. A little too late.

    IF I had to do it over again, I would have just followed Scott’s advice had it been around or something like. Just talk to her, get practice……no interest? No insults. No snappy “negs” nor any puffing up of myself…. just, “Ehh, tough breaks….. So what!”

    That was already crippled by the time I hit my forties…hence why I do “agree” in general with his sentiments: “If it doesn’t happen by a certain age, it’s probably not going to…… even with all the game, models, practice, techniques and advice.”

    What makes this advice less bitter or painful is that it’s from a guy who is “up there” with women and who is also a family man. He honestly does have the answer of what to do going forward with your life, but yet, he doesn’t pretend like he does. Nor does he “lie” about how “easy” it is to move up into the top 10-20% and give outliers as the norm. Men in my situation honestly take it as just some refreshing “truth”.

    It’s not blackpill, its just “a season ending, and that part of it is over… Well, you didn’t make the cut.”

    “There’s still a few seasons left in your life…. somehow YOU will have to figure it out.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Joe2 says:

      “That was already crippled by the time I hit my forties…hence why I do “agree” in general with his sentiments “if it doesn’t happen by a certain age, probably not going to….”

      There is always hope and to give up may be an error. Think of Grover Cleveland. He got married on June 2, 1886 when he was 49 years old to Frances Folsom, a beautiful young woman of 21, an age difference of 28 years. He entered the White House a bachelor and left a married man with two children!

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        Yeah…..he also was President of the United States…..you know some serious status, even back then the USA not the premier “world power” but rising fast and it had massive potentials for growth and was experiencing that in the post-civil war era / centennial

        Scott is “in general” speaking. I trust him not because he is a ladies man, or was……or is now. I trust him for the fact that that he is in a practice of sorts that helps / counsels men for the most part. We can lambast the profession all we want, however I would wager he has a TON more experience in clinical hours, testing, measurement, helps and some general theories in and of the filed / discipline in general.

        Sometimes the best answer indeed is just “the truth”

        A man carrying a v-card, in his thirties, has never had a date…or a girlfriend. Has a job, maybe even a college education or skills in the trades and does it well. Maybe he is a serious christian, swallowed the lie about “being holy before god” and “waiting” and well….now…..suddenly being told a mish-maas of topics, theories, levels, greek terms, pill clorors, a nuance of “new” terms (spinning plates) for example and told “there are no women worth marrying left / tons of great women out there / wait, someone ELSES daughter he should marry between the ages of 18-25 with no tattos, and, and, and….but not MY daughter. That’s creepy”

        He also sees many men who are indeed saved, claiming of the faith and tradition….but yet didn’t follow the “rules” he is now told he “must” follow as a believer, or its “over”

        Scott lays it out from his own observations, experience, and life and study that “yeah, if a man reaches a certain age and ‘meet cute’ has not happened. Probably not going to”

        And this age can be debated. Probably for most….about 30. Like regular IQ your social IQ probably doesn’t grow too much after the age of 25. You are going to tell a man with retarded social skills, clueless on many matters in this area to just “read this podcast, read this book, go to Poland and meet a virginal girl, learn Polish, get a really, really good job, become this provider and she will just follow you….but all that is OUT the door unless she has a “visceral’ look from day one ……..or it will fail AWALT.

        No, you are going to tell him the truth. Scott claims he “doesn’t have the solution” for or what to “do” with men like this. He has mentioned over and over, it breaks his heart over this. He said it in a way that that doesn’t insult a man like this, not “put him down” as a beta, pedestalizing, or even putting down his looks. It just is.

        If a man (and these are no longer outliers…its a growing segment that can’t be ignored anymore) is indeed like this…after the tears at home, cursing his life / existence. Wishing things were different. Hating himself and everyone now………

        The “truth” is refreshing. Sure, he could meet someone. He SHOULD do the best he can with career, goals, keeping himself up the best he can. Trying to improve. But taking a man like this and “promising” with jesus, and all these “tools” he will be fine….and if it fails “you are a quitter, loser, supplicating cuck” and all the other insults pile on.

        The truth Scott mentioned is refreshing. Burden lifting. And I agree in principle with this. More here should.

        Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      The best you can do mod is help yourself in this life!IOIS coming your way or not!Hence why I would never tell a man to be read&study any book&it will instantly make you sexy,wealthy or healthy!Hence why I like scott he has admitted he dos’nt know what to tell any man to do!Nobody does!If anybody dos’nt want to do anything likre women who refuse to accept short men,they will be left to the wolves no matter how many people try to help them in the end!Life is hard in some way for everyone.

      Like

  21. Rock Kitaro says:

    Not gonna lie, at first, I really didn’t understand the notion of “violent men” entering the kingdom of heaven of Matthew 11. Even if that’s one way to look at it, the word “violence” seems far removed from the kind of people Jesus describes in the Beatitudes (Matt 5). Also, there’s no need for us to be “violent” in that regard since the believer (a practicing Christian) already has Jesus who conquered “death” and “sin” for us.

    But after reading all of chapter 11 and the corresponding chapter in Luke, I got a clearer picture of what Jesus meant. It’s an expression of how difficult it is to enter the kingdom and only the relentless ones pursuing it will enter, i.e., how badly they want it.

    When it comes to society at large, it’s reminds me of what my boss said on a recent radio show. He was quoting someone when he said, “Bad things happen when good people do nothing.” and I said, “I disagree with that boss. I think bad things happen because bad people do bad things.”

    The tacit call for good people to rise up in order to exact change… Technically, it’s correct, but sorry, on society as a whole I think it’s pointless. I think either hits a dead end or begins another cycle of the chance that they do win, only for things to reverse course after a generation or two.

    Jesus foretold how things will get worse before his coming. As Pastor John MacArthur noted in a recent video, “We as faithful Christians don’t win down here.” We don’t. And that’s okay. While others are getting their “rewards” here on earth, we’re storing up our treasures in heaven. (Matt 6:19-21)

    We do what we can, most definitely… But the only ones we can control is ourselves. And when we get married, as husbands, we’re responsible for our households. Not the rest of a wicked and twisted society at large.

    I dunno… Part of me feels like a coward for saying all this. As if I should be out on the corners preaching or organizing my own church group.

    Liked by 2 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      What about ”violent women”, rock?Are they saved?You ever been to st.estephs unknownmisandry site?That is the true redpill ”good, noble” people don’t want men to know about!Also you could start the rock church, rock!All redpillers would contribute to the offering plate!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      I agree.

      In Eastern Orthodoxy the ones who are considered to be “taking the Kingdom of God by force” are monks like the ones on Mount Athos who are storming heaven by dedicating their entire energy and lifework to praying to God for themselves and for the entire Church and world. Not cultural fights.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Joe2 says:

      As Pastor John MacArthur noted in a recent video, “We as faithful Christians don’t win down here.” We don’t. And that’s okay. While others are getting their “rewards” here on earth, we’re storing up our treasures in heaven. (Matt 6:19-21)

      But John MacArthur did quite well for himself down here on earth in a wicked and twisted society. Writer (written or edited more than 150 books, broadcaster, pastor, seminary, and college chancellor, married four children, net worth $14 million and the list goes on. It seems to me that he is a “winner” down here on earth and has treasures in heaven, too. He has the best of both possible worlds. For the rest of us, it’s a different story.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        I agree to an extent on that one. There’s a video of him on Youtube saying it and when he did…i immediately thought this was a matter of perspective. To me, he is winning, with the stats that you provided. But maybe to him, he hasn’t won with what he truly wants to do? It’s the same with Jesus Christ. He came to sacrifice his life and die for our sins, so in that sense, he did win…but when it comes to getting most or all of Israel to accept him as the Son of God and repent, he didn’t win?

        And you’re right. For the rest of us, it is a different story. But even there, it’s a matter of perspective. To someone looking at my life and what I’ve been able to accomplish, they’d probably say I’m winning. But with what I set out to do, the goals I had for myself in my twenties and still do have, just not with the same priority or intensity…I haven’t won.

        And reading the Bible brings comfort and alleviates the pain of failure. Because to a secular person, they’d say I’m just using the Bible and my beliefs as an excuse for that failure. Trying to explain that the Bible and faith actually freed me from worldly expectations, like what a “real man” is supposed to do, or “climbing that corporate ladder” in a job I dislike only because it pays more, as well as the depression from failing to meet those expectation…that’s a difficult one to convey.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. redpillboomer says:

    A little off the topic above, but definitely too good to pass up. Remember the mostly now thirty something ladies I did the educational program with a few years ago; and all their attention/validation social media posts? One, I think she’s 38 or 39 now, just posted on FB that she’s holding a Revagination Party on 6/26, 9PM CDT to 3AM! Not quite sure what a Revagination Party is, but it doesn’t take too much stretch of imagination to figure it out. I believe it’s Revagination because she swore off sex for a year and the year is coming to an end. I think I’ve seen it all now! Lol Just when I think these supposedly intelligent women I did the program with (remember, education program–pretty demanding, many of these girls have Masters Degrees) can’t THOT it up any more than they’re doing, they surprise me by taking it to a whole new level! You can’t make this sh*t up!

    Liked by 3 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      Just to show you gents that I wasn’t kidding about this stuff, here’s her post on FB when her aunt and uncle apparently weighed in on the matter with a comment in her ‘Revagination Party’ post….Here’s her reply to her relative’s comments: “(Uncle’s name) I’m not embarrassed. I’m proud of my commitment to honor myself & my values – I believe that as women we get reduced to sexual objects the majority of the time!! By being celibate and not interested in attracting men for an entire year, I have taken myself out of that misogynistic system as best as possible, and I think that’s something worth celebrating!! If you and Aunt (name) don’t agree, that’s totally fine with me. I still love y’all and I’ll see ya in Utah for Uncle (name) birthday!!!

      Liked by 1 person

  23. lastmod says:

    Kentucky Headhunter said:

    “Yes, you were trying to be a jerk, but you actually overshot into a$$hole territory.
    Guess what, a$$hole, if God really wants him to be short the hormones won’t work. Will that make you happy?”

    If you see Cameron’s response. He took it me at my word and did give an answer.

    I also have never wished any sadness, harm, or hurt on any man here, or his children. I know firsthand about decisions having to be made with and about an older sibling. If the hormones don’t work……. I don’t think Cameron would take that stance.

    What would make me happy is you getting on your knees and admitting that “you love me, and can’t live another day without me.”

    That is not going to happen either. I have an excuse at my age for some of my behavior that may seem “assh0lish” to you. I am socially stunted and frankly no matter what I do can improve this.

    David DeAngelo back in 2000 said to me (during the boot camp I paid too much for), “You’re a loser and you creep women out.” I asked him “how?” or for “examples”, and he said he “just knew.”

    And well…. you do too! 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  24. lastmod says:

    Nova stated:

    “But that isn’t what his advice is, at least as I understood it.”

    His advice was, “Not getting an IOI? Move on.

    His advice was, “If you don’t have this by a certain age, you probably will never get this.”

    His advice was not wasting your or her time. Women are pretty blatant about letting a guy know he can approach. Seen this a billion times since puberty. I know what they look like and are. I think that is because I have always seen women giving them to someone else (friend, co-worker, watching the scene in a night club from behind a bar).

    Most women do this, and the ones who don’t your approach will quickly let you know that its okay or not. For real.

    Scott’s advice stands. I have talked to women, got nuked more times than i care to admit…… and frankly it gets to a point it IS a waste of time. She likes you or doesn’t after 2.5 seconds or whatever. They run everything now. Marriages and dating are determined by this. You all are above average in looks now or in your prime to get this. Most men are not, and you’re still behaving that average guy just has to have frame, confidence and the like. It’s not like this at all today.

    “Oh you’re getting dates? Congrats. You passed the looks test. You’re in!”
    or
    “You’re not? Oh well… tough breaks. We’ll lie to you about what you have to do.

    You were fortunate enough to have the skills needed to at least approach and get an IOI to proceed. Good for you. Must be nice.

    Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “She likes you or doesn’t after 2.5 seconds or whatever. They run everything now. Marriages and dating are determined by this.”

      The tide seems to be turning somewhat on women in terms of ‘running everything.’ Maybe they did a few years back, but they seem to be having an increasingly difficult time ‘running everything’ in the ‘dating and mating’ world. Marriage rates are plummeting, Stacy seems to be increasingly finding difficulty ‘sticking the landing’ with Mr. Beta bucks deluxe. I’ve noticed an increasing number of thirty something women on video clips complaining about the ‘dating app’ scene. The ‘80% of the men’ we talk about all time that can’t get any action or very little, seem to be wising up that it is a losing proposition for them in the ‘dating app world’ and are gradually leaving it altogether. The women seem to be increasingly complaining about the top 10-20%, the Chad’s and Tyrone’s, just ‘hitting it and quitting it’ and not serious about any sort of long term relationship with them. Maybe the under 25 year old females still ‘run everything’ so to speak inside of the hook-up culture (Netflix and chill), but the late twenty somethings and definitely the thirty somethings seem to be losing some of their leverage in the ‘dating and mating’ game these days. Their cry’s of how ‘unfair it’s getting’ seem to be on the rise.

      Like

      • lastmod says:

        the 30 something women want you RPB, they want Scott. They want high value men. They don’t want anyone else. That’s on them. They wouldn’t even date me…..even if I approached. None of this is changing

        Like

  25. lastmod says:

    “I set the terms, you step into my frame, you come to me. If you can’t or won’t do that, no relationship.”

    No man says this or does this. They perform. They “make her laugh”. They do what she says and wants……… Come on men, we’re not that dumb here.

    If lastmod tells this to a girl….. She’ll say F-you and leave. But if Scott, or Deti, or you, or Jack, or DS says this, then it’s “Tee Tee…. Ummm… Okay!”

    Like

  26. lastmod says:

    exactly

    Liked by 5 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      Good one lastmod, thanks for sharing this! And yes, this guy hits on a big Red Flag that most men, me included (well, pre-RP me at least) miss quite easily: “The ‘Vision Board’ girl thing.” The vision board doesn’t have to be an actual VB, but something akin to it; and he’s correct, it’s in their speech/language where it shows up. Could be a phrase, a Meme on their social media, the contents of one of their blog posts or video clips…wherever they end up putting it out there for public consumption. When I think on the younger women that I personally know that I’ve talked about on my previous posts here, off the top of my head, everyone of them has something akin to a “VB” thing going on…EVERY one of them! Novaseeker or Jack, care to elaborate? Maybe enlighten a bit? Interesting point/topic lastmod has presented with this clip, or at least I think it is potentially insightful for men navigating the SMP/MMP these days.

      Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        Here’s an example of ‘Vision Board language’ without the Vision Board itself. Saw this post on Facebook, thought it was a good example of the lingo: “This ♊️ Gemini 💃 is Summertime ready! Are you?
        I AM free, fabulous, fierce, fantastic, five-star, fearless, first-class, fine, far out, fit, ferocious, first-rate, freaky, fresh, fly, phenomenal as fπck at fifty-plus (yes I AM 5-0+++ years young)👸 Queen!🥂 👑 Perfectly Imperfect
        Living & loving the best of my life for the rest of my life!
        Adventures & opportunities await..”

        All she needs is the board and the pics cut out from magazines to put on it.

        Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Pretty good lastmod. The idea of willing the universe to give you what you want sounds like a form of witchcraft.

      Years ago a woman in my family decided out of nowhere that she wanted to go to Juliard to become a world class musician. She had never even touched an instrument – none of us are musical. A male relative simply asked her what she planned to do to get to that goal. She threw a fit because he had injected realism into her world – you can’t get something through merely wanting it. She told him it was the meanest thing anyone had ever said to her.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. Joe2 says:

    thedeti stated:

    “But sometimes she does come back, and a Deal is made, and everyone’s happy. But you must hold up your end of the bargain and diligently make her hold up her end. You remind her of the deal, that that’s how it is, you’re not changing it, and she is expected to uphold it.

    Does that help?”

    This sounds good in theory, but in practice it has deficiencies in relationships with girls. As a lawyer you know when a deal is made, a settlement agreement is written which states the obligations and the parties sign the agreement. This is done because the parties can forget and / or may have misunderstood what was being offered. A written document prevents such potential problems and also can be used as the basis for a remedy if a party should fail to comply.

    But we can’t give a girl a document to sign and even if she should verbally agree to the bargain, she could always change her mind later on and there is no way to make her hold up her end of the bargain, other than expressing your expectations.

    Like

  28. thedeti says:

    A lot of what I have said is not getting through.

    People: OF COURSE a man does not say to a woman “You step into my frame, you come to me“. You don’t use the words; you internalize, use, and project the attitude and mental state. You don’t say this. You do it, live it, and project it. The way you do, live, and project it is by building yourself up, making a life for yourself, realizing your value, and not putting up with BS.

    You test her. We always talk about women sh!t testing us. Well, you test her. You see if she will step into your frame and do what you want her to do. There are lots of ways to do that. Whoever you attract, you test her. Repeatedly. You see if she’ll do what you want and need. A woman does not tell you who she is. She will ALWAYS SHOW you who she is. Testing her is pass/fail. She either makes it or she doesn’t.

    OF COURSE you do not get down to decision time and tell her “it’s nut cuttin’ time” and “Deal or No Deal” and sit down at a negotiating table to hammer out relationship terms and then present her with a settlement agreement. (Though you might do a prenup, which I’d recommend. Usually they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on, but you might get lucky if you ever have to use it.) OF COURSE it doesn’t work that way. Mediation is a metaphor. You’re not spelling this out for her. You’ve gotten to this point with her by testing her and you are continuing to test her. Nut cuttin’ time is a test – will she submit or not?

    Of course you’re not continually negotiating and verbally reminding her during the marriage. That’s where Married Red Pill stuff comes in. Dread. withdraw affection, time. Tighten control. Change how you live. If it gets down to the wire, then, yeah, the marriage is at an end with all the pain and problems that will cause. You weigh the pros and cons. If it’s that bad, and she’s that intractable, well, you’re going to war. War is a last resort instrument of persuasion and policy. Mediation failed. Pressure failed. Sanctions failed. Taking away money failed. Exerting more control failed. Fine. You or she or both of you have declared war. Go to war, and the chips will fall where they may. You tried. You failed. She failed. It’s war time. Sometimes you gotta put up your dukes and fight, and this might be one of those times.

    Set up the hoops you want and make her jump through them. Or she fails, or refuses. Either way, you have your answer, and you know what kind of woman you’re dealing with. You don’t tell her the hoops are there. You just present the situation to her and see how she responds.

    She will not tell you “I am sh!t testing you right now. She will not say “This is a Sh!t Test of this relationship”. OF COURSE NOT. She’s setting up hoops for you to see what you’ll do. So what you do is you walk around her hoops or take them down and then set your own hoops up. “Cupcake, I don’t accept your narrative, so I’m substituting my own.” (No you’re not saying that, you’re projecting it.) It takes a certain mind set and attitude frame to do that. That’s what red pill has been about.

    The problem I had was not setting up the hoops, giving her repeated chances after failure, putting up with her failures, and then jumping through my hoops AND hers. No. That comes from scarcity mentality and fear and not understanding where the power lies and not understanding how women work. The way it’s supposed to work is if she fails too many tests, she’s gone. And you have to have an abundance mentality and realize that it’s better to be alone than be with a woman who can’t pass the tests. Hell, maybe you need to be alone, to refocus, to do other things, whatever. I should have spent MUCH more time without a woman in my life. Maybe the answer is that for a long time, it’s no woman at all. I did so many things wrong. Dammit, I am trying to get young men who might be reading this to see how it works so they don’t make the same mistakes I did.

    If you are a young man out of school/training and getting started in today’s SMP/RMP, or any time, really, the very last thing you should be doing is looking for a wife. What you should be doing is letting women who want to be wives look for you. If and when you find one, you test her to see if she qualifies.

    I know Scott and Mychael, Liz and Mike, and Elspeth and SAM exist on a different plane. They either get this stuff or got really lucky and never had to endure any of this. Well, for the rest of us peons, this is our lives.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      My initial reaction to Joe’s comment was yes they can pass your tests and change but the tests (we do things my way) will screen out a lot of the bad options. Nothing is 100%.

      The letting her look for you strategy worked for me.

      Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      Good luck with that! No man does this. None.

      Like

  29. lastmod says:

    If you see the “Live, Love, Laugh” sticker or decal on gal’s car. Well, you just know she’s usually above average pretty or cute. Liberal. Lives that Marilyn Monroe quote, “If you can’t handle me at my worst, you can’t have me at my best” type of nonsense.

    Christian gals are no better. “Jesus, coffee, hustle, repete!” or “Warning, this beautiful woman of God is protected by Jesus, the men in her church, and a father who owns a gun” and “Make sure he loves you for your faith, not how he made you” or “She is single not because God made her to be, but because a mighty man of God can’t match her greatness!”

    Yeah…… So any of these collages, meme’s and “inspirational quotes”.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Pingback: Avoiding the Broken Window Effect | Σ Frame

  31. Pingback: Elements of Emotional and Personal Maturity | Σ Frame

  32. Pingback: Elements of Spiritual Maturity | 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