Men’s Fantasy of Emotional Intimacy

Is it just a solipsistic fantasy, or is this how God intends for men to “love their wives”?

Readership: Men; Women who desire to be truly loved by a man;
Reader’s Note: This is part 5 of a series on masculinity.
Length: 3,300 words
Reading Time: 11 minutes

“Men understand instinctively that depth of emotion does not always mean outward expression of it giving into its basest impulses. The aesthetic reasons for restraint are elevating to the human condition.”

A comment from Scott Klajic.

Introduction

Our discussion last week of whether men need talk therapy? (2021 June 16) turned up many important points. Scott wisely noted that when a woman (or collectively “women”) say they want a man to be vulnerable and talk about his feelings, they are speaking in code. Scott offered a filter to aid us in translating from femtalk.

“I want a [super-hot sexy man] to talk about his feelings, [as long as what he is saying makes me feel good about myself but I don’t want any negative, icky stuff or pain, or fear, or needs or anxieties because this makes me see him as weak and he will fall apart under pressure when the barbarians are at the gate].”

Rontomlinson2 noted that the reason women assume that men need to talk about their feelings is because women need to talk about their feelings, and because they are solipsistic and prone to psychological projection, they assume that men do too.

Not only do women carry this expectation, but it is also something that men expect too! So we might call this a mutually double-blind trap.

Rock Kitaro described this particular mindset that is common to men — a deep seated notion that women are to be depended on to be loyal and nurturing. [Emphasis mine]

“From my own personal experience… I really don’t have a problem being open, straight-forward, and honest to my girlfriend about my feelings, regardless of how vulnerable, emotional or weak it makes me look. And I think the reason why is because I set that baseline before we even committed ourselves to each other. I don’t run “game” or pretend to be someone I’m not when it comes to someone I’m genuinely falling for.

In fact, the reason why I’ve probably fallen for her is BECAUSE I can be myself around her. The moment I start having to watch what I say around my girlfriend (or anyone), is the moment I’ve decided I don’t want you in my life.

Yeah, she’s capable of bringing it up and using it against me… lololol, but to be honest, I kinda prefer it. Especially sooner than later in the relationship. Because I don’t have many buttons. And if I give her access to those internal nuclear codes and she starts firing them off in retaliation or just to see what I do… well, my longest relationship is three months. I always tell my family, if my girlfriend makes it past six months, that’s how you’ll know she’s the one.”

There is one takeaway from the discussion that bears emphasizing – whether it is wise or even realistic for a man to “open up” to a woman. The overall consensus here is that it is not. This post will recount several statements from commenters to this end, and why it is important to escape this tempting trap of expectation.

Can you trust her with your heart???

Men’s Fundamental Fantasy of Love

We could easily dismiss Rock’s stance as a Blue Pill mindset, however, this expectation is not something that originates from Blue Pill indoctrination. Yes, it is taught by and learned from the culture, but this notion appeals to something deeper in the heart of man that desires and expects this level of intimacy from a woman.

Red Pill Apostle described this when he wrote,

“I fell completely for Mrs. A because of how honest I could be with Mrs. A prior to marriage. We talked and shared about deep personal aspects of life. Then we got married, the license was signed and the power structure changed. Then the curse of Genesis 3 came out in full force. I’m not going to suggest that this will happen to you, but I would certainly be vigilant. You might even want to skip the marriage license part (if your state laws create an environment where the strategy could be successful) just to keep the power balanced.”

The reason that men fall for women with whom they can be honest is because this is an expression of Heart Trust. When a man is able to open up and talk freely about his thoughts feelings, desires, dreams, and fears, it is deeply humbling. This combination of Heart Trust and humility is the basic recipe for “falling in love”.

Jack said this Heart Trust, humility, and “love” was the main thing he wanted most out of marriage.

“Rock, I used to have the very same mindset as you when I was younger, and I had that habit of interaction with my first wife. While we were dating, we talked about everything! She was delighted when I teased her. She always agreed with me whenever I said something serious, and she laughed at everything I said in jest. This comfort, intimacy, and honesty was a major reason why I chose to marry her over others I knew.”

Scott also shares this sentiment.

“When I was very young, probably around 12, I started to feel this overwhelming urge to connect with one, and just one girl in a way that would transcend either of our “looks” or whatever physical preferences or desires we had. I wrote about this in the post, How I discovered that I wanted to be married (2020 April 27).

Of course, I could not articulate it then. I was 12.

I can’t recall seeing any particular movie, or hearing any specifically romantic story that planted this in my head. I remember the feeling starting before all that. I remember feeling like there was some other half of me that was missing, and that when we found each other, we would just know. There would be an attraction there like two powerful magnets that cannot resist the pull towards each other.

Regardless, one thing I believed for many years — decades really — was that if I could learn how to express this in a clear and unambiguous, courageous way, “women” would FINALLY understand that there are men out there who aren’t just sexual predators and who are capable of great depths of love and devotion.

This doesn’t sound like Blue Pill indoctrination. It’s more of a deep desire in a man’s soul.

Scott’s Mission to Make Men Know

As a psychologist, Scott has recognized this fundamental fantasy of men, and has taken it upon himself to help men jump over the hurdle of this crippling desire. He wrote this a month ago. [Emphasis his]

“Now, at this later stage in my life, having the experience, the education/vocabulary, the courage, and the opportunity to explain, in great, flowery detail to [quite a few] specific women what the internal processes of a man who is falling in love involves, I have come to this deeply painful conclusion.

The problem isn’t that they don’t understand these things (including the sentiment Cameron is describing, and you are trying to reiterate). It’s that they don’t particularly value that kind of depth (or care), and unless you are bringing something else to the table (like whatever it is they have a raw attraction to at that particular moment in her life), you might as well just move on. If I can’t describe it and the light goes off in one single woman and she says to herself, “Oh, NOW I get it. His love is so deep that it will NEVER run dry… if I would just give him a chance.”, then it is not because they don’t understand.

It is one of the biggest lies we have been sold. Namely, that men are barbaric, sex-crazed, selfish creatures of opportunity, and women are deeply feeling, sophisticated diviners of true love. Cue eye roll.

Men are the true romantics, and always have been.

My job, if I ever get a chance to do it on a grander scale, is to help men understand that, and be OK with it.”

Men fall in love when they’re able to talk to a woman honestly and be warmly received by her.

Honesty in Dating doesn’t translate to Honesty in Marriage

As we have found, unfortunately, honesty in dating appears to be a unique and fragile paradigm that does not continue to flourish and grow after marriage, but instead becomes an Achilles’ heel to the marital harmony.

Jack continues on with a heart wrenching tale of how marriage destroyed the Heart Trust, humility, and honesty that he most desired.

“That all changed after we married. As soon as the honeymoon was over, she didn’t want to hear anything I said. She tuned out of common exchanges. If I spoke my mind about something serious or talked about my feelings (!!!) she immediately went to Defcon 5. By that I mean, she would get nuclear angry, storm about the house, declare she wanted a divorce, pack a suitcase, and leave the house for several days.

During marital counseling, the counselor told her that our former habit of communication was important, it worked well for us, brought us together into marriage, and that she needed to continue talking with me like that if she wanted the marriage to continue smoothly. She was flagrantly indignant about this advice, partly because she knew it was true I suppose, and partly because she hated it. She chose divorce rather than to resume communicating properly. I eventually came to learn that, apparently, when she had maintained this kind of communication while we were dating, she wasn’t as honest as she had let on.”

RedPillApostle had this to say about how the game changes after marriage [edited for clarity].

“Rock – I’ll put some personal specifics to highlight what Nova wrote, because it is true.”

  • Dating conversations – Being open, honest, joking, and non-judgmental indicates a presumption of trust.
  • Married conversations – Being open and honest will get manipulative “if you really love me…” type statements. Joking around will get you kicked or pinched under the table because she thinks her choice of a man cannot embarrass her.
  • Dating view of me – She let me be myself, and we enjoyed our time together.
  • Married view of me – I got told I’m not like her dad and real men do it “this” way. I got lambasted more than a few times like this.

“Once you are legally hitched to a girl, who you are is a reflection of how good a man she could get. It is SO true that she will use all her soft manipulative power to try to make you into the man that makes her look best. She will not care what you actually want unless what you want matches up with what she wants already. Who you really are can be fine as a boyfriend because you are not fully committed. Once the rings are on the fingers, your meaning to her changes. You become her status symbol and anything you do that causes her to perceive you as lowering the status in her mind will be met with resistance, manipulation and cajoling (nagging) to get you to keep her appearances up.

By the very fact that you are on this site reading, you have knowledge that many of us here did not have while dating. Use it wisely.”

A man’s reward for talking honestly to his wife.

Jack’s Testimony

Jack continued with a frightening testimony that recast the intransigence of women as a herd to be a female conspiracy.

“After I had this experience with my first wife, I talked it over with my dad. He told me he experienced the same thing in his marriage to my mother, and this was one of the biggest disappointments he had, not only about marriage, but in his life.

For some time after this, I had the hope that I might make a dent in this family curse. I started to talk about this with my family members from time to time, trying to get it out in the open. Soon I began to recognize a pattern in my family. Whenever I brought it up, all the men knew exactly what I was talking about and jumped on board, but all the women became indignant and walked out of the room with a huff. My sister was the only woman in my family who was willing to admit it was true, but she would only admit this to me in private, and she would not go into the topic any further than a simple agreement. But even so, I did learn something about the women’s perspective from talking with her. All the women talk rather freely amongst themselves, but they’ll never tell the men anything that is going on. They’ll have a caucus, make decisions, and carry out those decisions among themselves, and they intentionally keep the men in the dark as much as possible. For example, when my sisters and female cousins started to be sexually active, my mother and aunts gave them lots of “instructions”, and kept it all a secret from the men, as if it were none of their business. If there was ever an abortion in the family, I never knew about it. When one of my aunts had an affair and was socking money away in preparation for a divorce, all the women knew all about it, but all the men remained clueless until she breeched the subject – after she had already arranged everything with a lawyer.

I experienced more of the same with my current wife, but it’s not as bad because I was already aware of this, and I had already learned to be less trusting of women.

Now I know this is not just a curse on my family, it is the Curse of Eve.”

NovaSeeker’s Response

Novaseeker responded to Rock’s comment with an explanation of the female nature.

“I know that this [level of men’s trust and honesty with women] is what the culture peddles, and I also know that it “feels” more comfortable for us, as men, to be like that. But it isn’t wise. Women are not men. They catalog everything we say or do that shows any sort of vulnerability or weakness away in their brains and later on that information and knowledge is deployed against you in some way. It often doesn’t happen immediately, and in the context of a BF/GF relationship with a woman who is not naturally toxic/BPD/etc. it can seem to work ok. But when the marriage comes into force, the entire power dynamic is forcibly shifted, and you will eventually have all of that info come back and be used against you, either openly or covertly, in how she decides to “manage” you.

It bears repeating.

Women are the weaker sex physically, and they therefore feel both existentially vulnerable in ways that we generally do not, as well as innately justified in using anything that can be used against us in ways that are beneficial to them — precisely because they feel we have a leg up on them anyway. When you feed women information verbally or through your actions that reveals weakness or vulnerability, you can fully expect that it will be deployed against you in some way by her for her advantage, because she will eventually find herself in a situation of conflict with you, where she is looking around for things she can use to her advantage to “win” the conflict. It really is that simple. Women do not see vulnerability in us as being cute or endearing or humanizing or any of the other claptrap that the culture tells us, or that women tell themselves and spout to us and each other. Women despise weakness and vulnerability of any kind in men, despite how they may openly mouth otherwise, and even think that they themselves believe otherwise — deep down, they despise it, especially in a man they are connected with/dependent on. It will eventually be used against you at a time when she feels the need to reach for tools to use against you in a conflict with you. Sucks, but it’s just how women work.

Note that this doesn’t mean you have to be an unfeeling ass, or that you have to pretend with yourself that you don’t have weaknesses. It isn’t a lot of mumbo-jumbo, we know we all have our weaknesses, we aren’t that stupid. The key is that you do not show these to women. The person you share them with are close male friends who can help you with them, and can empathize with you to some degree because if they are really close friends with you they won’t react in the “one upmanship” way of exploiting your weaknesses and vulnerabilities, like a male stranger will. This is why we don’t share our weaknesses and vulnerabilities with male strangers — they also use that information against us, generally, typically to assert hierarchical dominance over you at the moment you disclose the weakness or vulnerability (Christian pastors love to do this to men, for example). And it’s also why it’s critical to have actual male friends — something fewer and fewer of us have, which tends to make men reliant on women in this area, which leads to the problems I outlined above.”

Conclusions

The Bible requires that husbands should love their wives (Ephesians 5:25-33). As men, we are rather well versed in couching this commandment in terms of personal commitment, discipline, sacrifice, and “tough love”, as described in 1st Corinthians 13. However, are we not allowed any element of genuine emotional love for a woman that comes of honesty, humility, and Heart Trust? It seems that it would be much easier for men to follow this commandment, and follow it more deeply and more genuinely, if a woman allowed a man to “open up” his Heart Trust and honestly communicate his thoughts and feelings without any fear of backlash. But in reality, because of women’s weaknesses for self-centered solipsism, dominance, and control, men are practically forbidden from experiencing this depth of joy in loving a woman.

If marriage is in your future, full biblical patriarchy is the only solution to this and you better be tough and determined as hәll in today’s world to enforce it.

However, the emotional health and vitality of men are not entirely held at the behest of women in this regard. Rontomlinson2 spelled out some options.

“A man isn’t required to talk to his wife or even to a friend about his feelings, he can…”

  1. Consciously examine them for himself.
  2. Talk to God about them, in prayer. (Such prayers are rapidly answered, in my experience.)
  3. Talk to other men about it.
  4. Put them on hold while he gets the job done, whatever it is.

“Thus he has options. Whereas I don’t think women do. Strictly speaking they don’t have feelings: feelings have them. The moment one actually feels a feeling, it dissipates. So my personal motto is that feelings are for feeling, not for talking about. (Being fairly introverted, I’ve had a lot of practice!)

However, it can be great fun to pretend to agonise about them, sometimes.”

Questions for Discussion

  1. Is men’s desire for honesty and openness with their wives just a quirky conceited fantasy, or is this how God intends for men to “love their wives”?
  2. Do women know that men fall for women with whom they can be humble and honest, and use this to control and manipulate men?
  3. Is it possible for a man to experience a deep, emotionally humbling love for a woman without taking the risk of “opening up” to her in the manner described here?
  4. Is it worth trying to educate women that their husbands will love them more deeply and more genuinely if they would allow him to “open up” his Heart Trust and humility, and honestly communicate his thoughts and feelings without any backlash?

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 Attraction, Authenticity, Boundaries, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Desire, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline, Female Power, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Introspection, Joy, Love, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Personal Presentation, Power, Purpose, Questions from Readers, Relationships, Self-Concept, Solipsism, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

273 Responses to Men’s Fantasy of Emotional Intimacy

  1. I strongly believe it is a fantasy and should be dispelled. Women are not very capable of being honest (there’s always the other half of a truth hidden elsewhere) and openness. They will not repay in kind.
    (This is for the women to answer.)
    Do I love Mrs CoRP? Yes but with every manipulation attempt, every controllable emotional outburst, every fist landing on my chest, every kick of our fridge door, every throw of an item out of anger, every scream and every indignant offer of an excuse of a mistake / wrongdoing, this love dissipates. The possibility of a deep, emotionally humbling love for Mrs CoRP (or really any woman for that matter) is close to zero, much less being 100% honest and open in our conversations / sharing.
    Educating (young) Christian women should primarily be to respect / fear their husbands (or fathers if they are not married). Teaching them how to love should be secondary. Given that “she’s just a woman”, her nature will not change and therefore, there are risks even if a husband were to share honestly and openly to his “educated” wife.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      every fist landing on my chest, every kick of our fridge door, every throw of an item out of anger, every scream and every indignant offer of an excuse of a mistake / wrongdoing,

      No. NO NO NO. You have GOT to shut that down RIGHT NOW.

      Mrs. deti was the same way. Ten years ago I decided I was done with that. She was either going to get that under control or I was leaving I am NOT going to put up with physical violence. She pounded her fists on my chest once. I told her straight up “you ever put your hands on me like that again, we’re done, and I’m pressing criminal charges. I will also take our 5 year old son and keep you as far away from him as I possibly can, because if you hit me, what will you do to a 5 year old boy?”

      She needs to get this under control. She is a menace to herself, to you, to your marriage, and to your child. Your child is in danger. You have a duty to protect that child from any and all harm – even if that harm comes from his mother.

      Liked by 9 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Damn right,deti!Women will murder&destroy everything that gets in their path if someone dos’nt stop them!How you think I know that?Personal experience with blood&neighbor -related gyno-wackos who were backed up by gyno-groverlers like the government&local church!
        Don’t ever listen to either gynos!The wackos or grovelers unless you’re willing to trust them with your very life&any other living creature she wants to use as a effigy of you,right!?

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Typed this, then reread it and toned it down a bit.

        I had a friend I carpooled with who had this problem. Wife shoved him against the wall or something. Wife kicked him in the shin. Mother in law said “men are only good for a paycheck.”

        Another guy (an older one) I carpooled with. Wife poured an entire cup of icewater on his head because he was snoring. Would literally boot her @ss out the front door in her little cute nitegown – wouldn’t even give her clothes or time to change.

        “But you’ll go to jail.” Oh well. Better to have your dignity. “But you’ll lose your career.” You already lost your family. F_ck your career. If you have a wife who hits you, dumps icewater on you when you’re sleeping, you don’t have a functioning family and why would you want to risk it again on another woman. A man only needs a career to support a family. Careers suck -the only reason to put up with one is to have a family. You don’t have a family if you’re with a psycho b_tch like that. A woman who hits her husband like described– pours icewater on his head in an act of total disrespect – worthless, irredeemable pile of crap – zero value as a wife. Would be worth the jail time. Three hots and a cot and would be doing useful work picking up trash on the side of the road – more useful than my “career” anyway.

        She either immediately shapes up or your relationship (mercifully) is over.

        Or, more realistically, leave so you don’t go to jail. She burned the family to the ground not you. Her fault if your children don’t have a father – you’re clean.

        If I’m promoting abuse well what can I say – total bullsh_t. Physically put her back in her place or leave – I can’t think of a third way. If you can think of one that doesn’t involve faggoty crap like “love and patience” im all ears. I guess Detis way of verbally threating to burn it all down (and meaning it – cause women can smell a bluff) is the only other way I can think of.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Thanks. Whenever she gets into that mood (to rage), I’ll carry my son away to another room or some distance away from her. It’s to avoid harm being inflicted on anyone of us (Mrs CoRP) included but also some space and time to cool things down.

        It’s just that I cannot bear to issue the threat (press criminal charges). She’s my next-of-kin. I’m committed to her in marriage; it’s till death do us part. I’ve never mentioned the D word even in the heat of the moment. I don’t want my son to deal with parents who are separated. I don’t want Satan to win.

        Like

    • whiteguy1 says:

      Brother, this is not normal, good, or healthy! I hope you are talking to a pro, (or call Scott) when it escalates to physical violence this is bad! I know, I was there. Please talk to someone in meat space about this ASAP!
      Not to tell you what to do, but do you want your kids (if you got any) to think being physical is how adults solve problems?

      That’s one of the reasons I am moving forward with the divorce instead of trying to reconcile, she wouldn’t stop hitting me, even after I set a firm boundary in both word and deed.
      I didn’t want my girls to think that it’s ‘normal’ for adults to solve issues that way. I NEVER want to see one of my kids show up at a family function with a black eye.
      Praying for your family brother!

      Liked by 7 people

      • whiteguy1 says:

        When I say I know; I mean I know.
        During our marriage Crazy: (most of these happened with the pre-teen/teens in the house)
        Kicked me in the face, giving me a bloody lip when she was drunk and out of control
        Punched me in the chest when she was angry (too numerous to count)
        Sat/leaned on the bedroom door not allowing me to leave when she was raging
        hit me in the head when I stepped out of the shower, naked, 3 days post-op, and then ‘helped’ me into my sling by jerking on the strap (peck tendon repair) She’s an RN, no kidding!
        Thrown hot coffee at me
        Chased me out of the house at 5am in her underwear to hit me, as I was going to the gym
        Thrown all sorts of things at me
        Spent 6 hrs yelling at me, less than 24hrs after having my achilles repaired, while I was laying in bed (that sent my youngest over the edge, she starting self-harming after this!)
        Chased me out of the grocery store parking lot almost running someone off the road (I was going home)
        If ANY of these things seem remotely close to what you have experienced, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE talk to someone. You are not alone, and it can get better.

        Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Huh? That’s the worse relationship ive ever heard of. She’s a complete lunatic. How can it get any better unless you mean you divorce her or she passes away from natural causes.

        This whole thing of men being abused – had no idea – yeah I had heard of it but apparenlty its more widespread than I used to think it was.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        It’s incredibly widespread. I know many people, including family members, who were physically assaulted by their wives.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Thank you for your prayer. I’ve been talking to at three counsellors for the past year. It isn’t working because (a) I want to assess the direction they could go if I meet them with Mrs CoRP (i.e., the classic marriage counselling tactic of pushing all blame on the husband) and (b) I haven’t figured out a way to get her involved in these counselling sessions. There’s no one else (in meat space) I can talk to because I’ve not met my male friends for a while. Admittedly, it is a struggle and tests my ability to adapt and be resourceful in navigating this marriage “minefield” of mine.

        I don’t want my son to learn how my wife deals with her sometimes uncontrollable rage. Carrying him away would minimise the chances of him witnessing Mrs CoRP’s rage.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      CORP – You are well on your way to being apathetic about Mrs. C’s very existence (ask me how I know). Her nature will always be there and it is her job to fight it. This is why in Titus 2 Paul says older women need to teach younger women to love their husbands. It seemed like a strange verse to me until I had been married a while and saw what an unchecked woman’s “love” was really like. As a Christian husband, lI want to continue to encourage you to correct Mrs. C’s behavior, which would be you washing her in the word, to protect her from herself. She’s just a woman, and as such she needs you for this. God knows, which is why he tells us to do it.

      Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        It is not too much to ask that a woman comform her conduct to the law. It’s illegal to batter another human. She CANNOT put her hands on someone, especially not her husband. A hundred years ago, a woman did that, a husband gave her the back of his hand – and not one cop, pastor, priest, white knight, or government official said anything about it.

        It is not too much to ask that a wife control her anger and rage. She can feel it all she wants. What she cannot do is take it out on other people, home appliances, dinnerware, small household goods, or home fixtures.

        She needs to pray. She needs to talk to someone. She needs to go off by herself until she’s fit for human interaction. Any of those, or something else. But she does NOT get to vomitpuke her rage on anyone and anything in her general vicinity. If CORP or I did that, someone would call the cops. But if a woman does that, oh, no big, she’s just being a woman, she has a right to do this, she can feel however she wants….

        No. NO NO NO. You women need to handle your sh!t and get it under control. YOU do it. It’s no one else’s responsibility. YOU do it. This attitude of “women have an inalienable right to do, be, and say anything they want anytime they want anywhere they want with or to anyone they want” needs to die the violent, painful death it deserves.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle – I recognise that correcting her would be… a lifelong endeavour. I’ve slowly reconciled this reality, i.e., it’s my lot in life. Perhaps this is really a way of God sharpening my faith. I just hope that when I really do get round to washing her in the Word, her hunger would still be there.

        This is where I take umbrage at how older Christian women in our church have been derelict in their duty. Or even that the men standing in the pulpit has never once reminded wives about their duties (Ephs 5). It goes a very long way but none of these are happening.

        Like

    • “Do I love Mrs CoRP? Yes but with every manipulation attempt, every controllable emotional outburst, every fist landing on my chest, every kick of our fridge door, every throw of an item out of anger, every scream and every indignant offer of an excuse of a mistake / wrongdoing, this love dissipates.”

      You love this person? FFS, why???

      Liked by 5 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      CORP – After reading replies to you and whiteguy1’s account of matrimonial bliss, I’d suggest beginning to gather evidence. Audio and video evidence of her outbursts, abuse and destruction of property won’t be bad to have. While you may say you still love Mrs. C you have to plan for the downside with your child in mind. While the ideal is both parents in a stable marriage, if/when that breaks your kid needs your presence as a father much more than her presence as a mother.

      Mrs. A comes from a Christian family and for all appearances looks like a good Christian girl. That has not stopped her over the years from pitching a fit when I did not cave to her demands and then asking, “Why are we still together?” I have heard that one dozens of times. She has also “informed” me, in the most non-threatening way possible of course, that the courts almost always give custody to the mother. She has pulled my sons into our arguments to use them against me by telling a 4 and 6 year old why daddy is bad. Trying to explain to my little guys that mommy is sinful, like we all are, and that I will never leave them or not love them, was heart wrenching. Thinking about those incidents is bad for me physically, still. This is what women will do to manipulate and get their way and they will come up with inane rationalizations to justify their behavior.

      CORP, this is your future. Start documenting her behavior now. I hope you never need it, but I have a feeling you will be happy you have it.

      Liked by 6 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Why are we still together?” Been asking that one myself, Mrs. A. You want to take care of fixing that? Because we can, anytime you want.

        She has also “informed” me, in the most non-threatening way possible of course, that the courts almost always give custody to the mother. Want to test that out? Is that something you want to have a court battle over? The next time you say that, it better be with divorce papers in hand, because if you don’t present them to me, I’ll go get them myself and present them to you.

        telling a 4 and 6 year old why daddy is bad. You are abusing our sons. That is child abuse. Don’t ever do that again. You ever disrespect me to the kids again, we’re done.

        Liked by 2 people

      • whiteguy1 says:

        YES! Start documenting this, keep a journal, DON’T let her see it.

        This has saved my bacon on a number of occasions during this divorce process, it has probably kept me out of jail as well as prevented her attorney from pursuing a restraining order against me.

        Even if you don’t wind up going down the path of divorce it will help you set better boundaries and actually SEE what is going on in your home once you get out of the moment of ‘crazy temper tantrum by an adult living under your roof’!

        Liked by 4 people

      • Thanks. I’ll see if I can find a way because I am worried that flashing the phone while she goes on a rage may provoke her to more anger. Moreover, I have to keep my son away from the “epicentre” of the rage.

        Honestly, I don’t want our marriage to go that way (i.e., for me to turn the audio and video evidence over) if I can help it. Maybe I’m being a coward but I really want my son to grow up in an intact family and I want to honour my vow.

        Like

    • @ Choking

      E-mail me if you think need some help. You have my e-mail or you can send me a message through my blog contact form.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    The true redpill rides again!Heres a question for all the so-called traditional women in general out there who supposedly love boys&men!
    Is genesis39:1-23 true?Why did potiphars traditional wife go after ”handsome&well-built” joseph?Was it her husbands fault or gods?I wonder who this comment is aimed at?Maybe someone who said ”misogyny is the historic church”&then blamed adam for eves sin,even though god blamed adams sin on ”loving”his traditional wife too much! Asshole I’am huh,that work on your husband&men in general?A real TRADITIONAL TRUE ROMANTIC man who tells the truth is more like it!
    Think I’m going to let more INFILTRATORS stop MEN from advancing true patriarchy?As rob fedders&al bundy use to say NO’MAAM!I don’t back down to any man or woman!
    Why you think I have survived this long in this sphere&this life,naturaly aloof thats why!?
    Jesse powell loves obeying women since he was in high-school!
    He thought him &the thinking housewife was going to neuter the MANosphere?
    It did’nt work did it?
    If you want differential treatment as a domestic angel- goddess he gives it by the truckload!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. cameron232 says:

    “Men are the true romantics.”

    Rollo has always tied this to his “men love idealistically, women love opportunistically” slogan and to men’s burden of performance. I’ve fought this conclusion in my head but in the end I think he’s right (with some qualifications).

    Men (the ones capable of romantic love) love a woman (I mean “feelings” love) based on feminine beauty, both physical and personality-beauty. So yeah, men “objectify” women but the woman herself is the object of that love, even if it’s based largely on the physical.

    Women can love men this way too but that sort of love is reserved for the minority of men to whom they feel visceral attraction. They don’t and can’t “objectify” most men in the same way.

    For those men who don’t generate strong visceral attraction, they are loved (if they’re loved at all) for the opportunity they represent. This is because women just need more “stuff” (money, protection, provisioning, help with children you’re genetically tied to) from us than we do from them. So yes, a woman’s love is opportunistic (when directed towards most men).

    So Rollo’s right with the following caveats:

    Some men aren’t capable of romantic love: dark triads, sociopaths, sub-clinical psychopaths, emotionally broken men, etc. Scott’s talking about normal men.

    Women are capable of loving idealistically, it’s just reserved for a minority of men, those to whom they feel strong visceral attraction. If you’re an alpha (in her eyes) then the burden of performance ain’t the same.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Cameron –
      “Women are capable of loving idealistically, it’s just reserved for a minority of men, those to whom they feel strong visceral attraction. If you’re an alpha (in her eyes) then the burden of performance ain’t the same.”

      I was with you up until that last sentence and then it clicked for me. The last sentence is actually evidence that women can not love idealistically. Idealistic love is not performance based. It does not revolve about how the other person makes you feel. I don’t love my sons because of what they do for me and I’d bet you don’t love your kids for what they do for you. You love them. No because. No qualifier.

      Being alpha in a woman’s eyes does not mean she loves idealistically. It means she loves opportunistically but all performance requirements have been met. Her love is still based on the relative position of him as alpha.

      I see this aligning well with the comparison Paul gives in the Bible of husband/wife and Christ/church. As the church we say we love Jesus with a natural tendency to look at what He has done for us in paying the penalty of our sin, which indicates our performance based love for Him. And we tend to love Him very little, even with the great sacrifice for us. While I would not posit to know the mind of God, I would suggest that there is evidence that He just loves us as His children/church/bride without any burden of performance on our part.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Cameron, RPA,
        You need to define what you mean by idealistic love. Is it Rollo’s definition? Or something based on fantasy? Or agape love (1 Corinthians 13)? Or unconditional love?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        RPA this is exactly right. The template love ideal is Christs love for us. Married couples SHOULD try to emulate it towards each other. This means loving the person regardless of how they behave (or what they do for us). I find this kind of love to be very costly, but as I have aged, I don’t care what it costs. I go to bed at night knowing that I loved the way I supposed to.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        And by “costly” mean, it very often is not returned or appreciated. It sometimes makes me look like a fool to the world and other men. I don’t care.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Jack – I am working on the fly here so bear with me but I think I have the beginnings of a framework for what I mean by idealistic love.

        Idealistic love boils down to possession. I love my boys as I love myself, because they are part of me. They are mine. A man loves a wife for the same reason, she is his. He chooses her to become part of himself. Hence, the command to love your wife like you own body. Similarly, I see God loving us because we are His. We see this in Christ’s sacrifice for us simply because we are God’s kids. He possesses us.

        If you examine the love of the possessed for the possessor, then you see the characteristics associated with conditional love start to emerge. Children with their professions of faux hate when you don’t do what they want. Women with their well documented hypergamy. All of us who fall so short of being worthy of God’s love for us.

        Build on this please. I would expect nothing less from a man who confidently refers to himself in the third person in his own article!

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @ Jack and RPA, I think since it’s Rollo’s phrase I’ll use Rollo’s definition. I think he means men want to be loved in a way that’s disconnected from what he calls the burden of performance. This is a form of projection I suppose since the man loves that way – his romantic love for a woman isn’t tied to the burden of performance – so he wants her to love him this way. His love is based on her feminine beauty and his visceral attraction to it, at least largely so, and not to the burden of performance. This doesn’t seem all that different from what Scott has described: a man marries hoping his bride will stay the same forever. A woman marries seeing the potential: his ex’s evaluation of him as “a good start.”

        The closest women come to loving this way is when they love an alpha man. When they love a beta man such love is often dependent on the burden of performance. I don’t entirely agree that alpha men have to perform – I think there’s evidence alpha men can be (romantically) loved without such a burden. So yeah, women can love alpha men “idealistically” without the same burden of performance a beta male has.

        I understand that agape is the Christian ideal – I’m talking about human psychology not how things are supposed to be done. By “idealistically” I don’t mean agape.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      Rollo’s essay in which he describes how “men love idealistically”, and “women love opportunistically” is here.
      https://therationalmale.com/2015/01/05/the-love-experience/
      These aphorisms beg the questions, “What is the ideal?” and “What is the opportunity?” and “What motivations do men and women have for loving in this manner?” I’m sure we each have our own understanding of this, and we could come up with lists of what men and women find attractive, but this wouldn’t quite cut it, because love is much more than mere attraction. I’ve browsed through Rollo’s posts, but I can’t find anywhere he offers concise definitions of what it means to “love idealistically” or “love opportunistically”, neither does he offer direct answers to my questions above. (Rollo is a great impressionist.) But the fact that we all understand what he’s talking about, even though it is so ambiguous, suggests that these ideas speak of mythical notions that all men and all women seem to have, respectively, but are not very well aware of. I think it may help our understanding if I drew up a comparison of different definitions/expressions of love, and contrast how they are different for men and women. Of course, this is the makings of a separate post.

      Liked by 4 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Whose this for?BibicalMANOWAR,AUTHENTIC,BALANCED,COUNTER CULTURAL,…to the glory of GOD! People supposedly demand real men&male thoughts then say ”bad person,not a gentleman!This is real-life!I&others at dal’ knew most women come to male spaces to get verbaly spanked&we just witnessed it again yesterday!
        Also scott I have beleived men are on there own for years!But most women always SLUT-test(Thats what a $hit-test realy is!) MEN with good words like GOD,COMMITMENT,CHRISTIAN,COUNTER- CULTURAL but they don’t work on a MAN who has been tested through constant fighting for all these years!She wanted to beleive most MEN are despearate for girly attention,right?Well I have never been without girly attention!Its not worth that much anyway!Salvation&your own male code of HONOR is worth more than all the female attention&the world ever could be!Just sayin.😎😉Now male&female goddess worshippers see why you should not beleive everything you hear on tv news&churchian bulletin boards?

        Liked by 1 person

  4. cameron232 says:

    “That all changed after we married. As soon as the honeymoon was over, ……..”

    I had wanted to comment on this quote by Jack and others’ similar story of women changing as soon as they put a ring on it.

    It seems this is another way in which men are incentivized to break the rules and sin. If you live together in an unmarried state for a long time, I think it’s less likely she will do this. Yeah, I know she still could when you put a ring on it but I suspect if you’re living in a marriage like situation (without the legal part and the ceremony/religious aspect) then that sort of thing is more likely to come out since a lot of the “you’re marred” part is occurring in her eyes.

    Like

  5. Scott says:

    It’s actually a little worse.

    If I had a time machine, and could go back to speak to my 16 year old self (the year I had my first serious girlfriend) I MIGHT give that young version the following advice:

    16 year old self, here’s the deal. I know what you want. You want passion AND permanency. You want to fall in love with, and be fallen for by a girl who will feel this crazy, head over heals infatuated with you (and you her) and you want that feeling to last forever, as if you are the only two people on earth. You want to be able to take out the garbage and be outside for 18 seconds and have her squeal like a crazy love sick girlfriend jumping up and down with excitement because you made it back from the dumpster. However, with the benefit of being 33 years ahead of you, I can tell you this. It is a trade off. You have to decide which do you want more? Passion –OR– permanence.

    If you want permanence, you may find someone with whom, after a while the passion part will die off, but you can tolerate each other and build a life together. MAYBE. But the probability that the crazy swinging from the chandelier sex, the love notes, the sweet terms of endearment the sexting (you’ll have to wait for that one) will end. You will settle into a groove of sex maybe twice a month. It will be OK, but it won’t knock your socks off anymore. You will want that kind of love life, you will ask for it, beg for it, ‘communicate your needs’ about it, but it will never return.

    If you want passion, and are willing to exchange it for relationships with an expiration date, you are in a much better position, in these times, and with what you have to offer to make that work (your overall attraction level to women is decent). You will need to resolve to make some hard choices. Go ahead and indulge yourself in the silly notion of ‘falling in love’ but be ready to drop it when the time comes. I reckon the timeframe on most of those will range from 3 months to 2 years on the long end. But the moment you notice that the answer is ‘no’ and those ‘nos’ are becoming more and more frequent, (and by definition sexually frustrating) drop it and get a new girlfriend. You can even be honest if you want from the very start, so you are not being a player or a cad. Just say right from the beginning that you are willing to go for this romantic ride until it becomes such hard work that the juice is not worth the squeeze. I’m not sure how that would work, I never tried it. I went into every LTR with good intentions, but here I am, on the back side of serial monogamy whether I wanted to or not. I am married now for 14 plus years, but what is in my past is a string of relationships that I tried to make work (ie — reinvigorate the passion) for WAY past the expiration date.

    This Truth is as hard for me to say to you as it is for you to hear. I am sorry.

    What would prevent me from having that talk is my religious convictions.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      To clarify a little on my theoretical conversation with young self:

      If you chose the first path (permanence, with little to no passion) understand that in the coming decades, husbands and fathers receive basically no aggregate upside. No respect. Constant reminders from the pastor, the TV, the culture that husbands are stupid dolts who never listen and cannot work a dishwasher. Constant fear of being divorced and losing everything (with the whole world blaming you). And you will have had one, and only one period of intense romantic passion in your life.

      If you chose the second path (passion with expiration date) every time you reach the end and conclude that it is time to move on, ripping the band off will hurt. No matter how much you try to protect yourself. You will love and be attached to every one of them, and this will retard your ability to connect/bond with the next one.

      Take your pick

      Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      It is a trade off. You have to decide which do you want more? Passion –OR– permanence.

      Or, rarely, you can get both, as you did with Mychael, SAM did with Elspeth, and Mike did with Liz.

      Most men have to choose one or the other.

      The women who need to read here, don’t – it’s the women who (claim to) have it all who read here. I’ve discovered that the Manosphere Ladies Auxiliary is composed almost entirely of women with husbands who are 90%+ perfect for them, by their accounts. Some people tell me this is because when women talk publicly about their husbands, they build them up and will never ever say anything negative about them, and make them look better and more capable and more attractive than they really are, if they are satisfied with their men and their marriages.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        I’ve discovered that the Manosphere Ladies Auxiliary is composed almost entirely of women with husbands who are 90%+ perfect for them, by their accounts. Some people tell me this is because when women talk publicly about their husbands, they build them up and will never ever say anything negative about them, and make them look better and more capable and more attractive than they really are, if they are satisfied with their men and their marriages.

        It has always seemed kind of disloyal to me to criticize one’s husband. I’ve noticed this about the sphere, too. Sometimes I wonder what brings women in. In my case I saw a writeup CH did on Petraeus, was quite angry about it, then read some more and stayed. It was more the military connection (and the fact I have sons). I’ve been on debate sites for years, typically they are comprised almost entirely of men so the sphere wasn’t much different.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        Ahhh… One of my favorite CH posts.
        https://heartiste.org/2012/11/15/petraeus-and-the-infidelity-risk-curve/
        A must read for those new to the sphere.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Sometimes I wonder what brings women in.

        In a few cases, like that Femininebutnotfeminist former blogger, it was a genuine desire to self improve and attract a Christian man for marriage.

        In some cases, like yours, it’s genuine curiosity, about what men are gathering together to talk about, and to learn.

        In most cases, it’s women trying to police men – to make sure the men aren’t saying or doing things they “shouldn’t” do; finding out what men are criticizing women about; to squelch and quash that criticism; and to influence and eventually take over male spaces.

        It’s women getting faux offended when a man they’re not sexually attracted to says or does something women don’t like. It’s women being shocked, shocked I tell you, that men are talking about women in ways women don’t like.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Liz says:

        Thanks for the link Jack.
        The article remains every bit as unfair and insulting to Petraeus’ wife as I remember.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Liz,
        I don’t see CH’s post on Petraeus as fair or unfair. I just see it as, 2 + 2 = 4, and “that’s how the cookie crumbles”!

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I was a reader since pretty much the beginning at Lawrence Auster’s View from the Right blog which dealt with uber-controversial topics such as race and crime, IQ etc. Nevertheless, one of his most controversial posts (in terms of the pushback he got from readers) was when he did a post about how frumpy Petreaus’ wife was in the context of Petreaus’ cheating on her. It was interesting to hear the female comments: “my husband has been a reader and valued contributor here for years but……”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Liz says:

        Cameron, Petraeus’ wife did not live a life that made her deserve public ridicule. She is not a public figure, unlike her husband. It was a gross public shaming tactic she did not deserve. If the sexes were reversed in a different dynamic, it would be just as gross in my estimation. The Cosmo does similar it is just as repellant.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Holy cow – I feel so guilty for LMAO at Heariste’s post.

        “……if his only alternative was Miss Massachusetts 1687.”

        “….depressing sight of the Michelin Ma’am“

        @liz, I get it that she shouldn’t have been publicly humiliated – but dang she looks bad. She is telling the whole world her husband is a beta simp and not worth looking decent for by letting herself go like that, no? I think you and I had a discussion where you had a pretty low opinion of the motives and love of fat wives, if I recall.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        He’s correct that almost anyone can stay thin except a small fraction of the population with an actual medical condition. When women are looking to monkey branch to a new guy, either a particular guy or in the abstract sense of wanting another man – they magically find the power to put down that bowl of ice cream and lose weight. Hypergamy is suddenly motivating.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Petraeus’ wife did not live a life that made her deserve public ridicule. She is not a public figure, unlike her husband. It was a gross public shaming tactic she did not deserve. If the sexes were reversed in a different dynamic, it would be just as gross in my estimation. The Cosmo does similar it is just as repellant.

        I don’t know if you’re talking about the Heartiste piece on l’affaire Petraeus; or Larry Auster’s discussion. There wasn’t any shaming here. There was observation and explanation.

        –David Petraeus is slim and in shape. His wife Holly was overweight and without much care for her physical appearance. She was, well…. frumpy. She’s the definition of the frump wife. That’s just a fact.

        -Paula Broadwell was objectively more attractive than Holly by every metric. Hard cold facts.

        -when a powerful man is married to a Holly and gets around a Paula, attraction will happen. Sometimes, sex will happen. Again – facts. Hard cold facts. Just the way it is.

        -women have no trouble at all raking unattractive men over the coals for being unattractive. Here – people were observing, objectively, that Holly had let herself go. Hard cold facts – just the way it is. No one was raking Holly over the coals. No one shamed Holly. No one ridiculed Holly.

        -She is married to a public figure. As such, her life is or could be a matter of public interest. When her public figure husband did things that pulled his private life into the spotlight, well, then her life gets put under the microscope. Oh well. She chose to marry an up and coming man. You don’t get all the perks of being married to top brass military/senior national security officer; then complain that the consequences bite you on the ass. You take the bad with the good – which is what Holly Petraeus had to do.

        Women get judged on their appearances. They just do. Hell, women are more vicious and ruthless judges of other women than men are. Women are brutal and merciless when assessing other women, and much more so than men ever are. We just decide who we want to sleep with and who we don’t. You guys rip each other to shreds.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Transformed housewife or whatever she calls herself posted something recently about wives getting fat being analogous to husbands laying on the couch all the time and not going to work – that one made the ladies on social media real happy.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Another thing:

        What people were really mad about with Heartiste and Auster is that they actually said what everyone KNEW to be true –

        that Petraeus had an affair with a good looking middle aged woman because she was attractive

        that the mistress was objectively more attractive than Holly in every conceivable metric;

        that Holly had let herself go; and

        that it was kind of understandable you might have an affair if you’re married to a woman who has let herself go and if you have the opportunity

        People were not mad that these things are true. They were mad that men were saying these things, publicly.

        No one disagrees with the Red Pill. They just hate it when you talk about Red Pill.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        There wasn’t any shaming here.
        Hm…
        “Petraeus’s potato sack poster wife for Puritan living”
        “Miss Massachusetts 1687″

        If the above isn’t shaming, I’m curious what actual shaming language would look like?
        Her personal character cannot be disparaged with the exception of letting herself “go” at about 60 years of age.
        I know nothing about Petraeus. Well, that’s not true but it’s kind of irrelevant either way to the discussion. I don’t know Holly personally but I know enough from the fact she spent over 30 years as a military wife a person in command to have a rough approximation of what her life was like. They probably saw each other a grand total of 6 months in the previous five years.
        We’re not going to agree on this.
        (and yes I keep myself very well maintained…stilll don’t expect to compete with a 30 something at 60, especially one deployed with my spouse for months. I trust Mike, but can’t imagine how humiliating this must have been for Mrs Petraus)

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Liz

        You’re right. We won’t agree on this.

        What you’re mad about is men saying these things publicly. What you’re mad about is that the men’s locker room door has been thrown wide open for all the world to see….

        BECAUSE WOMEN DEMANDED THAT IT BE OPENED.

        Ladies: Do not demand to see things and then complain you’re seeing them. Do not demand to be part of the conversation and then complain about the tone or content.

        Do not demand to see what goes on in the men’s locker room and then complain you’re seeing what goes on in the men’s locker room.

        Hell – we men don’t have a choice but to say these things publicly. We don’t have any private male spaces anymore, because women demanded full access to all of them. We can’t even put our jockstraps and gym shorts on in private.

        The complaint here is not that men think these things – the complaint is that you are hearing men “talk” about this stuff in public.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        What you’re mad about is men saying these things publicly. What you’re mad about is that the men’s locker room door has been thrown wide open for all the world to see….

        I’d be as angry with this public excoriation of a good person who served his marriage well if the sexes were reversed.
        You are wrong.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        This is how we men talk about women in the men’s locker room. This is how we men talk about and discuss women amongst ourselves. I had dozens of small talk conversations about this kind of stuff with other guys all the time out of women’s eye and earshot – this chick is hot, that girl’s a dog, the other one’s got huge t!ts, the other one’s got a great a$$…. We’d especially rag on unattractive girls in much less florid and eloquent language than Heartiste used.

        If you don’t want to hear what men are talking about, then don’t demand to be part of the conversation.

        (And we were actually nicer than the girls were…. we made sure the girls didn’t hear us. We didn’t make fun of them in public – we just didn’t ask them out. We also didn’t point and snicker like the girls did. We didn’t make catty b!tchy remarks, we didn’t get passive aggressive, we didn’t aggressively exclude girls, and we didn’t play “mean boys”. Yeah, we outgrew the “cooties” thing in junior high.)

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I’d be as angry with this public excoriation of a good person who served his marriage well if the sexes were reversed.
        You are wrong.

        It wasn’t a public excoriation. It was a set of observations that Holly Petraeus wasn’t an attractive woman and had let herself go and that probably contributed to the general’s dalliance with Paula Broadwell who was objectively more attractive than Holly was.

        It was men, saying what everyone knew to be true.

        No one said Holly Petraeus was a bad woman. No one said she did not serve her marriage well. No one excused the general’s actions – only explained them. It was pointed out that she was not a very attractive woman.

        Men are nicer and more diplomatic about these observations than women are – I would not have liked to have seen what treatment honest women would have subjected Holly Petraeus to.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Heartiste is kinda known for that sort of language – his blog is read by virtually no one – I guess I can’t imagine that being the public humiliation part. The main public humiliation for her was her husband having an affair with a much more attractive and younger woman and the whole world hearing about it because he’s famous.

        Like

      • whiteguy1 says:

        Liz, just a quick reminder:
        Married men aren’t really temped by ‘younger/hotter/tighter’ when they’ve already got that hot 19/20/21 yr old at home waiting for them (and yes I’m looking at you). If their wife even puts forth a little effort to keep looking good for their man, the ‘wife googles’ amp this up by at least 30X. I’m serious

        If Mike glances at you out of the corner of his eye at home and he still has visions of you 30+ yrs prior, NO WOMAN will be able to compete with that, seriously.

        I guarantee that if the wife keeps the ‘wife goggles’ cleaned and polished, her husband will always compare this years current model to his wife of all those decades ago, and in an idealized fashion to boot! They are like a time machine, with a major thumb on the scale. That’s how powerful wife goggles are.

        The reason I know this is that Crazy used to accuse me constantly of ‘the wandering eye’ and always wanting to step out. I just couldn’t see what she was talking about, every time I looked at her I saw the woman I married 15yrs prior never seeing any of the flaws…

        Until the day she slapped the wife goggles off my face and stepped on them one morning, and I truly saw what she was.

        A mean, crazy, fat, entitled and selfish woman. That transformation happened in the span of about 1hr. It took me almost a year to process that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @whiteguy

        I think men are wired to seek out variety and so I don’t agree that men with attractive wives (whether they’re young or old) are free from temptation. I think the degree of this temptation varies from man to man and I think all men have the ability to not act on it and bear the responsibility when they do.

        I think “wife goggles” is a real thing (for decent, loving men) but I don’t think we should fool ourselves about men’s nature any more than we should fool ourselves about female nature. Respectfully.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        his blog is read by virtually no one – I guess I can’t imagine that being the public humiliation part.

        I read up a great deal on the subject at the time, and CH’s blog was linked to in several of the military forums I frequented (as well as a political debate forum). It was popular.
        The topic here is basically asserting a man wants the type of wife Mrs Petraeus was. She served her husband faithfully for, at the time, around four decades. I think there are far more deserving women to pick for ridicule.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Could be. Heartiste’s gig is being a nihilistic prick – it’s not like I’d expect him to consider those sorts of things.

        I wasn’t sure if the humiliation you were referring to was directed towards CH for writing that or at Petraeus for what he did. Petraeus is the one who ultimately humiliated her. I don’t think CH is wrong in some of what he writes – I wouldn’t expect him to be nuanced or sensitive I guess. Yeah, there’s a fairly large internet audience for douchebag commentary.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “It was popular.”

        Interesting. I assume these dark corners of the internet aren’t read by many.

        He started posting radioactive and nihilistic content on race etc. and that’s when his blog got nuked I think.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        @ Liz:

        Way back when I had a blog on blogger, I can’t even remember what it was called back then, but the focus was on Biblical Womanhood (obey your husband, take care of your home, keep yourself up, etc). I went off script in 2008 and wrote a couple of scathing diatribes against the Tea Party wanting the government to “Get your hands off my Social security!” and Sarah Palin parading her pregnant teenage daughter onto the national stage.

        Some dude (I can’t remember the name of that site either) linked both of those posts on a list he called “Linkage is good for you”. That is how I found the sphere, found the commentary fascinating, and just kind of stuck around.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Interesting. I assume these dark corners of the internet aren’t read by many.

        The article was popular. I hadn’t heard of CH before that. Nor the sphere, for that matter….had a poster on a debate forum who was very insightful and a lot of what he posted sounded like it came from the sphere, but that forum disappeared before I started posting so I never got to ask him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        CH (formerly Roissy in DC) was generally condemned on the sites I read – condemned ofor “enjoy the decline” nihilism and sexual hedonism.

        “Sarah Palin parading her pregnant teenage daughter onto the national stage.”

        And giving her kids goofball first names.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Some dude (I can’t remember the name of that site either) linked both of those posts on a list he called “Linkage is good for you”.

        Back when you were known as “[Yourfirstname]breathinggrace”.

        It was Matt Forney, then blogging under the pseudonym Ferdinand Bardamu, on his old site In Mala Fide.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        Back when you were known as “[Yourfirstname]breathinggrace”.

        It was Matt Forney, then blogging under the pseudonym Ferdinand Bardamu, on his old site In Mala Fide.

        Yes. That was my screen name and yep, it was In Mala Fide. I couldn’t remember any of that, but you did. Seems like a lifetime ago. I was like Alice through the looking glass.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Eric Francis Silk says:

    They say that the relationship between husband and wife is like the relationship between God and us.

    Well… We know considerably less about God’s mind/heart than God knows about our minds/hearts.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Right.

      When a man has problems, fears, anxieties, despair, depression, etc., he’s to go to God with it. He’s to go to other men with it (iron sharpening iron). Men are iron; women are cheesecloth, or in some cases Brillo pads. Cheesecloth does not sharpen iron. Brillo pads do not sharpen iron; they’re just abrasive irritants.

      Children go to parents, usually Mom, with problems.

      Wife goes to husband with problems.

      Husband goes to God with problems.

      Children respect/submit to parents; wife respects/submits to husband; husband respects/submits to God.

      God loves husband; husband loves wife, wife loves children.

      Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        I don’t think this is true for the totality of the marriage. I mean, the assertion that a husband can never show any vulnerability to his wife. I actually think that’s an extreme burden to place on a husband, because I believe it is the desire of a man’s heart to be loved on the basis of intimate knowledge. I believe men need that more than women do even though women give lip service to it. And I say that even though my husband has several male friends. What follows is a singular anecdote, but I think it is instructive.

        M husband was in many ways a hard man for the first, I don’t know, 15 years(?) of our marriage. That does not mean he was not affectionate. He was. It doesn’t mean we never had fun. We did and do. He refuses to live a life void of fun. Of course, his idea of fun is more risky than mine (for example). It doesn’t mean he was emotionally abusive. He wasn’t. But he was emotionally guarded in that he didn’t show vulnerability. Ever, but I didn’t really notice that and couldn’t articulate it as being distant, because I didn’t feel as if there was a distance between us. That’s probably because I was raised with the stiff upper lip ethos, so I was fine with him keeping his emotions inside. I was that way most of the time as well.

        But there was a point in our marriage when it became clear that we were getting to that place that Proverbs 31 describes: ‘The heart of her husband safely trusts in her”. And when that time came, I didn’t see it as something that diminished SAM in my eyes. I welcomed it. It wasn’t like he became some simpering wimp. His sharing his apprehensions and showing some vulnerability was not the beginning of the end of our marriage.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Elspeth – I like your posts. I like your insights. I like your eternal optimism that other marriages can be as far out on the bell curve as yours is. What you need to realize is the reality that many women, Mrs. A included, when faced with her husband being open about his fears, his doubts, his desires react very poorly. Shaming. Manipulation. Anger. These are the responses many of us get from our wives. It only takes so long before a man, me included, realizes that the burden of not opening up to his wife is less than the burden of opening up to her.

        Part of the burden is not having someone to ease the load at times. Part of the burden is knowing that the girl you have chosen as your one and only, the person who your heart should be safe with does not have the same capacity for depth of intimacy. So we assess our relationship in the world we actually live in, determine the pleasantries, some fun times in each other’s company, enough physical intimacy to satisfy the itch and common goals are enough to continue to build a life that is better than most. But get to the point where you can trust your wife with your heart when she’s been so reckless over the years? It’s a long shot that is probably not going to work out well. This is why Proverbs 31 says, ” A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.”

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        E, it’s entirely a function of your sexual attraction to SAM. If you weren’t so hard attracted to him, you’d never put up with any displays of weakness or vulnerability from him.

        There’s a difference between vulnerability and weakness.

        There’s also a difference between a man’s desire for love and his desire for respect.

        And yet another difference between a woman knowing a man intimately; and a woman seeing a man at his worst when he’s down, down on his luck, knocked down, wounded and weak.

        It is NOT the “desire of a man’s heart to be loved on the basis of intimate knowledge”. That’s love he gets from Mom. It IS the desire of a man’s heart that his wife respect him on the basis of recognition of his abilities, strengths, and position.

        A woman is fine seeing a man’s vulnerability, IF AND ONLY IF:

        1) she is very sexually attracted to him, so hard sexually attracted to him she can’t even see straight (like you, and Liz, and Mychael)

        2) those vulnerabilities do not affect her personally, threaten her home or children, or threaten to put her in the poorhouse

        3) Those vulnerabilities are temporary and resolve on their own with no action or intervention from her.

        She is NOT EVER fine seeing him weak, or wounded, or down and out, or down on his luck.

        Knowing a man intimately is a woman knowing her man’s likes, dislikes, personality, foibles, quirks, idiosyncracies, routines, and the way he lives his life day in day out.

        A woman does NOT want to know intimately a man’s wounds, weaknesses, injuries, hurts, pains, failures, setbacks, mistakes, screwups, and struggles. Or, if she knows them, she wants to just know of them, and know that he’s taking care of them on his own with no help from her, and that those things will not affect her, her kids, or her access to resources. She needs to make sure that no matter what, the resource flow to her and her kids continues uninterrupted. No matter what else is going on with him, he needs to make damn sure she’s getting what she needs. Doesn’t matter if he’s hurt, in pain, dealing with wounds, or whatever – the money needs to keep flowing, or else she’s OUT.

        So, no, a man does not “desire to be loved on the basis of intimate knowledge”. He desires to be RESPECTED based on her knowledge of his abilities, strengths, and position. You admit that i’m right based on your saying this:

        His sharing his apprehensions and showing some vulnerability was not the beginning of the end of our marriage.

        Right…. Because it was just some “apprehension”. It was just SOME vulnerability. And he waited until you were FIFTEEN YEARS IN before you EVER saw ANY of it. Good God, If I have to wait 15 years before I can let my guard down with someone, there’s no point in any of it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        You know, E, I like you. I really do. But you just don’t understand any of this. You just don’t. You seem to think that EVERY marriage is like yours, or can be like yours. And they can’t. They just can’t. Because most women are not hard sexually attracted to their husbands like you are to yours, like Mychael is to Scott, and like Liz is to Mike. They’re just not, and they won’t ever be.

        Your marriage is like it is, every part of it, from the ground up, because of your hard, visceral sexual attraction to SAM. If that weren’t there, it’d be more like most manosphere men’s marriages.

        Something that just isn’t getting through to you, even after all this time, is that most men do not inspire those kinds of feelings in their wives. They just don’t. They never did. They don’t inspire those kinds of feelings in ANY women. They just don’t.

        And because they don’t, they can’t be vulnerable. They definitely cannot show weakness.

        What also factors into this is the women’s/wives’ character flaws. Those have been described here at extreme length and excruciating detail. Because of those flaws, those women are damaged if not completely broken. this also prevents men from showing vulnerability. A damaged or broken woman cannot handle vulnerability or weakness in men. She can’t countenance damage or breakage in others – because she herself is damaged and broken. She needs him to be strong because she can’t do it- things in her are damaged and broken. Plus, she sees a man vulnerable or wounded, alarm bells go off in her head –

        “he can’t take care of me! he can’t help me! He’s gonna get killed ! He’s gonna get me killed! He’s gonna get our kids killed! We’re gonna lose everything! We’re gonna end up in the poorhouse!! OH MY GOD!!! GET ME AWAY FROM HIM!!”

        That’s the dynamic.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        I should not have said wives’ character flaws.

        They’re actually character defects. They’re actually serious things very wrong with most of these women. Flaws can be addressed and dealt with because everyone has flaws. But character defects cause serious intractable problems in marriages. Most of the wives referred to in the manosphere are DEFECTIVE. They’re broken. They’re damaged, some quite severely.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        But he was emotionally guarded in that he didn’t show vulnerability. Ever, but I didn’t really notice that and couldn’t articulate it as being distant, because I didn’t feel as if there was a distance between us. That’s probably because I was raised with the stiff upper lip ethos, so I was fine with him keeping his emotions inside.

        OF COURSE you didn’t notice any distance. Of course you didn’t notice that he wasn’t being vulnerable. It’s because you are extremely sexually attracted to SAM and you were from the very first time you ever saw him. It’s not because of “stiff upper lip” or your upbringing or anything other than very hard visceral sexual attraction.

        EVERYTHING about a woman’s relationship to a man is totally and completely dependent on how sexually attracted she is to him. EVERYTHING.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        Right…. Because it was just some “apprehension”. It was just SOME vulnerability. And he waited until you were FIFTEEN YEARS IN before you EVER saw ANY of it. Good God, If I have to wait 15 years before I can let my guard down with someone, there’s no point in any of it.

        But the thing is, deti, is that it was a conscious withholding. It was a factor of how the men in his family were raised: “Your wife doesn’t need to know all your business.” That’s verbatim what their father taught them, among other things, LOL. It wasn’t about not trusting me. It was about not giving any woman that kind of power in your life.

        Truth be told, I think it probably served our marriage well that it took so long for him to decide he didn’t want to do marriage that way. Any sooner, and I would have been far too immature to appreciate the gift that it is to have a husband who trusts me. 22 year old me may have wielded that vulnerability as a weapon. Maybe not, but it could have happened. 35-ish year old me was a much more mature woman who had a deeper appreciation of what marriage is all about.

        If there are women 35+ who are Christians and don’t get it yet, I find that terribly disheartening.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        E:

        Thanks for your 6/24/2021, 6:36 am comment. Every word of it buttresses my points.

        –DO NOT show vulnerability to a wife, especially early on, because she’s too immature to handle it.

        It wasn’t about not trusting me. It was about not giving any woman that kind of power in your life. (If it wasn’t about giving any woman that kind of power in your life, then it WAS about not trusting you – because you’re a woman.) That second sentence is straight up Red Pill 101 and supports everything we’re talking about here.

        22 year old me may have wielded that vulnerability as a weapon. Maybe not, but it could have happened.

        EXACTLY. Which is why you don’t show vulnerability.

        You have yet to say that SAM has ever shown you weakness. Again – vulnerability is NOT the same thing as weakness. Wounds. Mistakes. Setbacks. Struggles. Errors. Injuries. Ever seen those? I can tell you right now – a husband puts his marriage in jeopardy by showing any of those to a wife.

        If there are women 35+ who are Christians and don’t get it yet, I find that terribly disheartening.

        Oh, my sweet summer child…..

        You’ve been reading on this thread, so you fully understand that MOST 35+ Christian women don’t get this at all – mostly because everyone in the Church tells these women they can do and be and say anything they want and men just have to put up with it.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Right on cue with the discussion here, Mrs. A gave a partial truth that fits right in line with what Deti has written. For those who don’t know, we are just shy of 2 decades being married so it’s not like we aren’t familiar with each other at this point, I am Mrs. A’s N=1 and we wed in our early 20s so many of the red flags don’t apply to us, yet ….

        Minor work issues came up earlier today and the line of conversation from Mrs. A came across as digging for reassurance that this would not impact her lifestyle. This evening after the boys were asleep I told her I thought her questions were self serving and gently discussed how if bad things happen professionally we adjust and role with it. The sign that progress is being made with her falling in line is that she did not get emotional or argue and she admitted that concern for her own well being was a factor in driving her line of discussion. We had a good conversation around the topic and had I not been reading the comments here today it may not have happened.

        It goes to show that unless your wife has the same view of you that Elspeth has of SAM, you tread very lightly and with great wisdom around true vulnerability and openness with your wife. Years ago I would have missed the solipsism in Mrs. A’s morning conversation and I doubt she would have admitted it later in the day and it would have been an instance of marital discord …. baby steps.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        RPA, one quality my wife has is she has approximately zero anxiety. Her lack of worry can frustrate me in that it can manifest in frivolous spending (on the kids, not on herself) but the thing is she always assumes everything will be fine. I think women’s anxiety and tendency to be neurotic fuels a lot of the problems described on this site. They have strong emotional reactions when they don’t feel secure – like you’re describing with your wife – “how will his work impact MY lifestyle.” My wife would rather see me happy – she knows I hate my job and has sometimes encouraged me to quit knowing I will likely get a lower paying job.

        Unfortunately I don’t know how to coach young men on how to select for this quality – it’s just her personality – she doesn’t worry and has no anxiety. The only thing I can think of is that she had a very modest upbringing with a lot of financial instability so she doesn’t expect much. IDK, marry a poor girl?
        But really I think it’s mostly just her innate personality.

        Liked by 4 people

  7. Larry G says:

    Grim reading. gentlemen.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. rontomlinson2 says:

    Grim indeed!

    For intimacy to be possible it is vital for men in this day and age to figure out for themselves and among themselves what standards of behaviour to expect from their wives and children. Knowledge of the law may be helpful in that regard.

    But, having explained everything to ourselves and decided rationally what these standards are, when it comes to imposing them the means are very different:

    https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2017/12/28/kiss-me-kate-or-the-taming-of-the-shrew/

    I think to be capable of these sorts of actions a man needs to be not just tough but in the right relationship with God. Otherwise he may not have the required emotional literacy. His courage may fail. His affection may fail. He may even have to start talking about his feelings to her as she does to him:

    ‘My tongue will tell the anger of my heart,
    Or else my heart, concealing it, will break’ — Taming of the Shrew, Act 4 Scene 3.

    (Apologies I just had to throw that quote in somewhere.)

    The rejoinder, ‘Well, I shouldn’t have to put myself at legal and physical risk. She should simply live up to the law’ is very reasonable and indeed a man ought to put his mission first.

    But let’s be clear what it amounts to: shuffling off responsibility onto the State for our women. Police, health professionals, social workers and other women can do the job. However this would be a sad outcome, I think, for everyone.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. feeriker says:

    Inre General Petraeus, it might very well not merely have been an issue of his wife letting herself go, physically. It might also have been a “dead bedroom” situation along with that.

    I’ve known many men (myself among them) who can abide the wife packing on some extra pounds. But when things in the bedroom shut down, THAT’S when things become intolerable. Having a distraction like Paula Broadwell was for Petraeus wouldn’t probably be much of a distraction if wifey was still regularly putting out. When she stops doing that, the “Other Woman” (a.k.a. “the Cleanup Woman”) steps in. I actually had a married coworker years ago who was “getting it on the side” from a woman who was orders of magnitude less physically attractive and fatter than his own overweight wife. I actually asked him point-blank one day “why?” His answer: the “side squeeze” puts out, regularly and enthusiastically, whereas the wife won’t.

    Yes, ladies, an active sex life is very, VERY important to your husband.

    Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Yes, this is possible. Some women don’t want to have sex because they are unattractive and as I think Deep Strength has argued female sexuality is self-focused and narcissistic to some extent.

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        Some women don’t want to have sex because they are unattractive

        There are some men who apparently have a psychosexual fetish for “fat, unattractive” women. I’ve always been curious as to what the root cause of that is.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “There are some men who apparently have a psychosexual fetish for “fat, unattractive” women. I’ve always been curious as to what the root cause of that is.”

        I have a possible explanation. Fat unattractive women are less popular, more emotionally needy, and more starved for sexual attention and love, and therefore tend to be more humble, passionate, and appreciative when attention is given. I think some men are drawn to such needy women simply because these women are lower maintenance (no fitness tests), more ready, more agreeable, more submissive, and more grateful. So basically, it is an easy power trip for the man. Of course, in these times, even the most unattractive women have a sense of entitlement, so there are diminishing rewards from taking this approach.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        There are some men who apparently have a psychosexual fetish for “fat, unattractive” women. I’ve always been curious as to what the root cause of that is.

        –low self esteem, low self respect

        –mommy issues

        –needing mommy comfort

        –mate guarding (“if she’s fat/ugly, no other men will want her, so I get her all to myself”)

        –less sexual/relationship effort – no other man wants her, you’re her best option. You don’t have to work to keep her because, well, where’s she gonna go? No other man will take her.

        Liked by 1 person

    • elspeth says:

      This is true. I stayed heavier than I should have been for longer than I should have after the births of all five of our kids (usually about 2 years). My husband’s had wife goggles 2 inches thick, it seemed like. But that was because our intimate life never slowed down much.

      female sexuality is self-focused and narcissistic to some extent.

      I’m not sure if female desire is all that self-focused and narcissistic. I know, for example, that I have always been keenly aware that since SAM is over 40, regular sex is a key component of his prostate health. Particularly for my husband due to our ethnicity. While I am generally open and eager for intimacy 90% of the time, like every other human being I have occasions when sleep would be preferred. However, it’s to his advantage (both of ours really for a bunch of reasons), that I push the sleep aside for a little while longer.

      You could interpret that as my thinking, “I don’t want him to get sick or die so he can keep taking care of me?” That would certainly be narcissistic and self-focused but I just love him and want him to be healthy and happy.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I have to go back and review what Deep Strength wrote but from memory it’s something like a woman doesn’t want to do it if she thinks she’s ugly, fat, unattractive, etc. I think this is commonly true – part of a woman being in the mood is her feeling “sexy.” There’s not much equivalent for men – men are up for sex whether or not they feel good about themselves, think they look good. And I don’t think this is all explained away by higher male sex drive.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2021/02/10/womens-sexual-desire-is-narcissistic/

        Here’s the post. He doesn’t make this specific point but it could be added to his list I guess.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      Yep

      The “letting herself go” part is WAY less of a problem than “not being available” part to a man who is devoted to and adores his wife.

      I think I’m going to take a stab at why sex is so important to men, even (if not especially) to older men who have been married to the same woman for a long time. And hint: it’s not self-ingratiating physical pleasure seeking like pretty much all women believe.

      I’ll try to do a video, which I haven’t done in a while.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Liz says:

      feeriker,
      Mrs Petraeus was lucky if she saw her husband six months out of the previous five years. He was deployed for years and years. This isn’t a normal situation. The military doesn’t have airlift for conjugal visits. It’s not a reasonable metric. Normally I would agree with you.

      Liked by 4 people

      • feeriker says:

        The military doesn’t have airlift for conjugal visits.

        No, they don’t. They actually talked about launching something close to it back in the 90s by allowing family members to fly Space A on AMC flights to non-combat zones so that those deployed for 6-months-plus could get some “visitation time” with loved ones. In the end Congress, scumbags that they are, put so many conditions and restrictions on the proposed program that it defeated the purpose of it and it never got off the ground. Troop morale? Who gives a damn about that? Certainly not Congress.

        If that program had existed and I had been able to avail myself of it back in the day, my first marriage might have been salvageable in the long term.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        If that program had existed and I had been able to avail myself of it back in the day, my first marriage might have been salvageable in the long term.

        In Petraeus’ case, he was deployed in Afghanistan for months/years with a female autobiographer who visited his tent on a near daily basis and accompanied him everywhere. She took the place of the wife, who had no option to be anywhere near him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        Holly was the daughter of the commandant of the military academy Petraeus attended. They got together when he was a cadet. It has been a long long journey. A proof of Holly’s fidelity and discretion exhibit A: She has offered no public statements on the topic. She hasn’t written a book (there is no doubt at the time the NYT or Washpo offered her millions for her story, which would have to be the right story of course). And she didn’t divorce him and take at least half, which would have been easy. She is just not the right person to ridicule. Per “locker rooms”, I’m the daughter of a fighter pilot, I’m married to a fighter pilot…I’m not unaccustomed to bawdy talk (all before wokerism was a thing). No one talks about their grandmother in the locker room. This woman was a grandmother. That argument is simply absurd.
        Okay, done on the subject
        -Liz out

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Been around fighter pilots since 1996 Liz. They dont have cool call signs like in Top Gun they have call signs like “Glans” and “Chester” as in “…penis” and “the molester” (real life dudes I know). They make jokes about guys named “Buster Hymen.”

        This is very Heartiste argument but he would say she humiliated him by letting herself go so bad marking him as a beta simp. That’s not Christian but these people aren’t Christian.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Yeah…callsigns are like the first troll job.
        If your last name is Meer your callsign will be Paps (unless and until you humiliate yourself with something that can’t be unseen, in which case it is worse. Of course with the new climate things are different, like “sperm” wouldn’t be approved, or “SDA”, for shaved dog’s ass, which was a real callsign). At any rate, per your point I too have made the argument women should stay in shape for their men. If you look around, it’s kind of obvious why women in their 20s and 30s are massively obese, and lazy. I’m not talking about a woman who isn’t massively obese and served her husband well for almost 4 decades, and is now a grandmother.
        Next: Imagine and alternate reality where Holly made public statements that were indiscrete about her husband, took advantage of her status after the incident and divorced him taking half his 4 star retirement every month, got a book and movie deal with Netflix and did a Vogue photo shoot of her “remade revenge selfie”.
        THEN she would be worthy of extreme ridicule. No matter how hot Vogue could photoshop her (and they made Bruce look good in a dress, it’s possible).

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        If your last name is Bates your call signs will be Master.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. Larry G says:

    Correct me if I’m a bit off base here but it seems to me that this feminist driven self-focus and the issues it creates is mainly a liberal western “progressive” culture affliction. My Mrs. of 28 years has lived here in the US for a bit over 20 years, ample time to adopt the western female attitudes and mind-set, yet she has not. In those 20 years she has come to despise the females who do not revere and respect their husbands, and she is unable to understand the reasons; I am at a loss for an explanation as well.

    Liked by 6 people

  11. lastmod says:

    “EVERYTHING about a woman’s relationship to a man is totally and completely dependent on how sexually attracted she is to him. EVERYTHING.”

    Met many a co-worker from India when I was at IBM. Arranged marriages most of then had. Young (my age, at the time late 20’s) and the older men…..forties and fifties. This is still the norm for many parts of the world. Met many a young couple while living in India who had arranged marriages. Seemed to be working. Unless they were all acting.

    This extreme stance you take Deti on this matter will……again….doom most men to have terrible marriages, or never be married. No man in here is a Hollywood actor or J Crew model…….

    I think marriage is based a bit more than just the sex act

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      @Lastmod (and Elspeth since she “liked” this comment) , I think Deti’s point (made in his usual very direct style!) is that in a context where romantic love is the basis of mate selection, women’s visceral attraction to a man has a great deal to do with how happy the marriage will be for him (i.e. how he will be treated). Saying the woman’s visceral romantic attraction (i.e. sexual attracation) matters a lot isn’t the same as saying marriage is just the sex act -that’s a very different argument. Note that what Deti is saying isn’t really different from what Scott is says (and I think you trust Scott).

      Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      This extreme stance you take Deti on this matter will……again….doom most men to have terrible marriages, or never be married. No man in here is a Hollywood actor or J Crew model

      It’s not “my” stance. It’s women’s stance. All I’m doing is reporting conditions on the ground. All I’m doing is providing accurate assessments and reports of observable reality.

      It’s not my fault women can’t be attracted to most men. It’s not my fault most men are doomed to have terrible marriages. It’s not my fault the SMP looks as it does. It’s not my fault women can’t compromise and pick one man and be reasonably content with him.

      It’s not my fault.

      It’s women’s fault. They’re the ones who wanted it this way. Women are the ones who wanted their sexual and economic “freedom” to do what they want where and when they want with whomever they want. They’re the ones who stomped their feet and screamed until white knights and beta male politicians caved and gave them what they wanted. They’re the ones who ruin their own bonding ability. They’re the ones who can’t restrain themselves.

      It’s not my fault. Don’t shout at me. I didn’t cause any of this. I’m just reporting on it. And I also have to live with it and in it.

      Thanks, women. Thanks, white knights. Thanks, beta male politicians.

      Liked by 3 people

  12. lastmod says:

    OT…..but…a condition of my promotion was: I am taking three weeks off in 2022 to vacation in England again (no Wales this time, sorry mom). They told me to submit it as soon as I got dates planned. I submitted it two days ago, it was just approved today. Way happy! Super happy! It’s a year off (June 2022) but so excited to go to a place where I “belong” or “should have been born into”

    Already booked the hotel in London!!!

    As you all were!!!

    Liked by 6 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Extremely happy for you sir! And a bit jealous. Would like to see York, Sherwood Forest and the Lake District. Snowdonia too but that Wales.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Ame – This article is a good find. The comments are a tutorial on Red Pill truth.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        yes, i thought so, too.

        the article was posted yesterday, and there are almost 500 comments already.

        i saw it linked on fb, and the comments were interesting on the one who linked it were interesting … most of the men saying the same things written out here … lots of women being, well, what’s written about women out here, too.

        Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      Good article! Got me to thinking about my marriage (a good one), and a couple others that I’m familiar with that seem to be working out pretty well in this day and age of no-fault divorce. Why? I mean I could list out the reasons given by a few of the good marital relations studies that I’m aware of; however, it really comes down to the marriages that work over the long haul get close to the Biblical model for marriage, wittingly or unwittingly.

      Just today I met the wife of a guy I ride motorcycles with in a biker club that I’m a member in. Our riding club had breakfast together before heading out for a Saturday ride, and she was riding with her husband on the back of his bike. I had a chance to converse with his wife at the table, get to know her a bit during breakfast, and subtly ask her some questions using my red pill lense.

      Here’s what I found out in my subtle probing conversation with her. She’s 44 (he’s 46), they got married when she was 19, he was 21, and they have two children 18 and 17 years old. Btw, for 44 she was still good looking for her age, weight was under control, she was big chested, knowing how to display her assets attractively without looking like a slore. She could carry a conversation very well in a slightly edgy way, but still remain quite feminine. She was clearly devoted to her husband and family. So, married for 25 years, for an enlisted military couple that’s really good, when the average marriage nowadays lasts what, eight years or something like it? I don’t think they are Christian, but I could be wrong. What stood out to me was she clearly respected him, still admired him and I got the idea, still DESIRED him. She wasn’t a doormat by any stretch of the imagination, but intelligent, witty, clearly a woman who could stand on her own two feet and play the role of ‘mama bear’ for the family when she had too.

      For a good portion of the ride, I rode behind her and her husband in the bike formation. All the non-verbal cues, aka body language during the ride she displayed with him, backed up everything I saw at breakfast table–genuine respect and admiration for her husband, even submissiveness if you will.

      What I took away from the whole thing today, the point I guess I’m trying to make, there it was right before my eyes, what we talk about in the Manosphere, and more importantly, what the Bible teaches–the right relationship between the man and the woman. He loves her and she respects him. Voila! Ephesians 5:33 “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” Workability. A more than likely secular marriage working well because it aligned with Biblical principles for relationship between a man and a woman. How quaint.

      That article we read posted by Ame about the women of today, by and large they’re not doing ANY of the things I saw that woman doing today; hence it’s not working for them, and it’s not going to, no matter how hard they try. It can’t work for them because what they’re doing, and what they’re being taught, is totally out of alignment to the way God designed men and women’s relationships to work. Until women (and men too, but the article focused on ladies side of today’s marital conundrum), figure this out, and somehow, by some MIRACLE (and it appears it will have to be a miracle of Biblical proportions) they’re going to keep failing in the MMP (Marital Market Place). Articles like this are just going to increasingly show up as this decade moves along. I’m afraid the Millennial women are going to end up being re-dubbed, “Generation Spinster,” aka the more trendy euphemism, wine and cat ladies.

      Prayerfully, the Gen Z women will take note and NOT go down the same path as their carousel riding older sisters, but I’m not holding my breath on that one happening, not in this culture we’ve got now. I’m not sure what it’s going to take to turn this ridiculous sh*t show around short of a severe economic downturn or a Revival from heaven above; certainly not the little church revivals going on in a church here or there, but something like the Great Awakenings of the 1700 and 1800s.

      Is my cynicism showing through clearly enough yet? Lol

      Liked by 3 people

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      Nice! I stopped everything to read that article. It was actually quite painful to read, actually. The so-called “solution”…I have no hope of it ever getting better.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        Rock, I think it’s painful, too.

        I’m always so disheartened when i see these things, read them, experience them. i was with a group of christians when a young woman stated she was a GDI. when asked what that meant, she said, “g*d Damned Independent Woman.” this was stated in the context of dating and wanting to get married someday. i.was.shocked. and no one said anything to her. i had just met her, but there were a few who knew her quite well and boasted about how involved she is in their church and ministry. they all laughed at her comment.

        in what universe does she think that makes her attractive to a real christian man? and what has happened to men that there are some who would be attracted to that?

        if i ever heard either of my daughters (now 23 and 21) say something like that, they’d never hear the end of it.

        i don’t think men want a woman who can’t think for herself or perform basic functions. it’s not that we can’t and shouldn’t be independent in some ways … but that attitude of spitting in the face of men that she doesn’t need him so he best not expect her to … that’s wrong on every level, including biblical.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Ame,that’s an ugly low value woman. She could be the most physically beautiful woman in the world she’s still ugly and unmarriageable

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ame says:

        I agree, Cameron. It immediately changed my perception of not only her but also those who like her.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I got grief for saying this at Dalrock but given the choice I’d rather be married to a physically unattractive woman who’s a sweetheart than I would a hot babe who’s a witch – yeah i know super beta.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        We can maximize our physical beauty easier than we can our heart- beauty, and often, if the heart is willing, a good man can improve a woman’s physical beauty.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Ed Hurst says:

    I’m familiar with the complaints of men married to typical American women (or worse). I’ve counseled dozens in a pastoral role. At the same time, my wife is nothing like that. My wife knows everything about me, and remains devoted to me. The romantic ideal works just fine in my marriage. Our trust in each other is off the charts. And I maintain that it’s a miracle of God. Maybe I can’t formulate it for everyone’s satisfaction, but I know that having started on a foundation of radical faith in my youth was how I got into this situation, and that same faith keeps it working.

    Liked by 6 people

  14. Elspeth says:

    You have yet to say that SAM has ever shown you weakness. Again – vulnerability is NOT the same thing as weakness. Wounds. Mistakes. Setbacks. Struggles. Errors. Injuries. Ever seen those? I can tell you right now – a husband puts his marriage in jeopardy by showing any of those to a wife

    I have seen my husband in some very vulnerable moments. I have seen his flaws, faults, and foibles up close. You keep mentioning weakness as if that is the dividing line.

    It is possible i have seen weakness in him and didn’t recognize it as such. I am utterly incapable of associating SAM with weakness. Who he is and weakness are mutually exclusive.

    But I know him, and intimately so.

    .

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      Just more proof…. you’ve never seen weakness in SAM.

      QED

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Absolutely NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING we’re discussing on this thread.

      I am utterly incapable of associating SAM with weakness. Who he is and weakness are mutually exclusive.

      Then he is a superhuman demigod, or you are as blind as a bat or you are not paying attention. He’s not superhuman and he’s not a god, so we can rule those things out.
      Because I can guarantee you, he’s been weak, hurt, injured, and down. And you’ve either never seen it because he’s never shown it to you, or you have not paid attention.

      EVERY man has these episodes in his life. And you’ve either never seen them because he’s never LET you see them (very smart on his part), or you just aren’t watching closely (very lucky on his part).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Deti:

        I’m going to retrun your bluntness with some of my own.

        Are you daft? Do you honestly think in 27+ years of marriage I have never seen my husband sick, injured, unemployed, grief-stricken, uncertain, etc? Do you even think that is POSSIBLE? Do you think any one person can live intimately with another person for 28+ years and not have their “softer side” exposed? The parts of them that no one else sees?

        Of COURSE I have seen my husband in all of those situations. And I’ve seen him behave in ways that are far less than godly (so nope, not a demigod).

        I just don’t look at any of that as “weakness”. I look at those as parts of the natural challenges and vulnerabilities of the human existence.

        I think the real issue here is that you and I define weakness differently. When I think weak, I think either physical weakness (and yes, he has had an injury that demanded I do some things for him), or I think weakness of faith or character (which I haven’t really seen in him).

        So I suppose I have seen him weakened by injury. But I haven’t seen him broken mentally or emotionally or exhibit weakness or defect of character (not to be confused with Christian or moral perfection!).

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Elspeth,

        Ha!, I had to look up the definition of daft.

        Any man can become physically weak through injury or sickness – no man is invulnerable to that.

        “But I haven’t seen him broken mentally or emotionally or exhibit weakness..”

        That’s because he’s an alpha male. And I mean a personality dominant alpha. He’s not a sensitive beta male. We’ve discussed this. Neither SAM, or heathie’s man are sensitive beta men. They don’t show that weakness because they don’t have that weakness. SAM relates to the conquering of a woman. He’s alpha. I don’t relate to the conquering of a woman mentality because I’m a sensitive beta male.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Alpha’s don’t show weaknesses?!?!

        Well, in general, yes. It seems to be their personal code of situational ethics.

        Alpha’s are also exceptionally good at covering their weaknesses, and/or recasting/transforming their weaknesses into strengths.

        Liked by 2 people

  15. feeriker says:

    thedeti says:
    2021-06-24 at 5:59 am

    I wish I could “like” this comment of yours one thousand times over, as it is absolutely spot-on hard truth for most marriages.

    I’ve been blessed so far in my own marriage due to the fact that my wife and I have both suffered terrible hardships, both separately and together, in the relatively brief time we’ve been married to the point that we accept each other’s weaknesses, things we couldn’t hide from each other even if we wanted to, and neither of us feels either shame or disappointment in the other. God has always been good to us at the end of the day and we have no reason to believe He will ever not be.

    Yet with all of that said, having swallowed the Red Pill and having had my eyes opened to true female nature, part of me, albeit a small, well-buried part of me, still expects “the other shoe to drop” at some point. It might never happen, and there have been no indications so far that it ever will (my wife not being an American woman mitigates the risk tremendously), but the fear is still there, however subdued and subjugated. Like most men here, I cannot un-see what truth I have seen.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      In the end, all men are ultimately alone in this world. As soon as you become OK with that, you will start to feel less insecure about what might happen.

      All that is left is what needs to be done.

      Liked by 5 people

  16. Elspeth says:

    I’ve been blessed so far in my own marriage due to the fact that my wife and I have both suffered terrible hardships, both separately and together, in the relatively brief time we’ve been married to the point that we accept each other’s weaknesses, things we couldn’t hide from each other even if we wanted to, and neither of us feels either shame or disappointment in the other.

    With the exception of being married a relatively brief time, this resonates with me. Greatly.

    It just never occurs to me to view any shortcomings or setbacks my husband may experience as “weakness”, so deti and I talk past each other. When I think of my husband I think strength. When I look at him, I see strength. Imperfections are not weakness unless they are excused or indulged.

    I suspect this is simply semantics.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Deti is very direct so I see how subtleties and nuance are lacking in his comments but I think there’s a to-the-point truth in his comments that I appreciate that I think doesn’t appeal to you because you’re gonna say “hey!, that’s not me and SAM!”.

      Strictly speaking, the more beta male a man is, the more his weaknesses and vulnerabilities make him unnattractive, cause anxiety in women, are stored away for future use against him, etc. Men like SAM are less vulnerable to revealing their weaknesses/vulnerabilities (and having a good wife like you also helps – no, not all women are exactly the same even if there is a female nature). Flaws are more easily tolerated by women when the man is a top 20%’r or whatever.

      The same weaknesses and vulnerabilities in different men cause different reactions in women. Alpha vs. beta matters.

      Like

      • elspeth says:

        I posit lot of this has to do with how a woman perceives masculine manhood and how she relates that to her husband (dang, I think I’m about to agree with Deti). Probably more so than an alpha-ness or beta-ness of her husband.

        Example: I am good friends with a woman who has a good husband. He is a man of strong character and a good provider. He has some good masculine qualities. He is not the kind of mountain man, gun toting masculine she grew up seeing from her dad and extended family, and she deliberately chose a different kind of man for marriage. As is often the case, as we age, we develop an appreciation for our roots and where we came from. With that retrospection, she sometimes sees the disparity in the two kinds of masculinity, but she’s a top notch wife so she still appreciates how well she married. A lot of women (not top notch) really screw their marriages up.

        I, on the other hand, married a guy whose expression of masculinity jives fairly closely with what I saw in my dad. Strong, commanding, competent. Not perfect, not invulnerable. I remember seeing my father cry when my sister got sick, for example, and his realization that he wouldn’t be able to fix it this time. I saw his flaws as well, and my dad and I bumped heads a lot when I became a woman, mostly surrounding my brazenness with SAM. He was disappointed with me but again; I didn’t see that as weakness. Just never occurred to me that his obvious pain was a sign of weakness.

        When a woman sees her husband’s humanity as “weak” I would submit that this is a reflection of the fact that she probably saw herself above him to begin with. I offer this with a caveat: barring a glaring character flaw such as substance abuse or other addiction, for instance, which is clearly a weakness. But desiring to be desired by your wife is natural, not weakness. Loving your wife the way Scott describes is not weakness, and I would say a wife who views that as weakness demonstrates weakness in her own character.

        Just don’t grovel though. Not a good look.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Could be. My guess is that you are fairly different from the average woman in that you are a pretty rational thinker (a lot of women, maybe most of them are ruled by their emotions). Maybe your friend is too. From what I see – a lot of women have a REALLY hard time controlling their emotions and reaction to their emotions. Attraction is an emotion.

        I can see where women’s perception of masculinity might matter but I strongly suspect a lot of women are going to respond to attractive men (there’s a general consensus with some minor variation among women as to which men are attractive) independent of what they’re taught about masculinity. Attractive is attractive and we now marry for romance not duty or practicality or Christian considerations.

        My wife’s stepfather was a whitetrash jackass, who was stupid, unreliable, mean/hurtful, lower class, etc. The things she has explicitly stated she picked me for: intelligence (standards aren’t real high where we come from – if you took Calculus in high school you’re a genius) and she wanted her babies to look like me (she specifically mentioned eyes). Her understanding of masculinity wasn’t based on Ft Pierce toothless redneck men who get in barfights– she clearly wanted a middle class beta.

        In the end, I go back to Nova’s observation. One of the biggest problems is that women tend to want a lot of different things in men – their attraction equation is harder to solve.

        Liked by 4 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Cameron&elspeth you are both right!I&deti are famous for not being subtly that comes naturaly to me as any one here can tell you!My first girl obviously saw this as I as usual stood alone everyday at recess on the blacktop playground!Then after she came up to me everyday sitting alone with her in the grass around the playground as we ignored everything else going on around us,which also can also be very easy for me to do!But clearly not most men!Groveling seems to come very easy to most men or we would’nt be seeing the world we have,right!?

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        I posit lot of this has to do with how a woman perceives masculine manhood and how she relates that to her husband

        TLDR/translated:

        Sexual attraction is paramount. If you aren’t sexually attracted to your man, you’re gonna have a LOT of problems. Most women are NOT sexually attracted to the men they married, because they couldn’t get the men they wanted for marriage and had to settle downwards. I don’t have these problems in my marriage because I am so incredibly sexually attracted to my husband I can’t see straight. I am utterly unable to relate to or empathize with what the men here are saying, because it’s so alien and foreign to me you might as well be speaking ancient Greek.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Liz says:

      It just never occurs to me to view any shortcomings or setbacks my husband may experience as “weakness”, so deti and I talk past each other.

      Agreed. What is weakness exactly? Indecision? Illness?
      When my dad had a stroke, one could say he was physically weak but I would never have said “I sensed weakness about him”.
      You don’t spend your life together and raise a family without going through stuff.
      People get ill, lose their jobs, experience indecision, ect. It’s just a part of life.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Elspeth and Liz,

        “What is weakness exactly? Indecision? Illness?”

        You’re not talking about physical weakness. A weak man is a man who is cowardly, or who has many feminine qualities. The connotation is a flaccid will, insufficient determination to “finish the job” well, and a willingness to fold at the first setback, loss, or difficulty.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I think the weakness/vulnerability that is relevant to this discussion is emotional weakness/vulnerability e.g. fears, insecurities, emotional hurt etc. The original topic of discussion was sharing thoughts/feelings with her. Women look to men for strength and security and so many don’t empathize with men when men open up to them. The point is women say they want men to share but men sharing often isn’t wise.

        Also women have a strong tendency to personalize things so when men open up what he shares is likely to be personalized by her.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Cameron

        Exactly.

        If a man says to his wife something as non-committal, thinking out loud, musing, like

        “Sometimes my job really grinds on me”

        The response will be:

        “Well you better stick with it because we need the money”

        There will be no discussion about his internal processes, what he likes about it, what he doesn’t like, no brain storming, empathy, nothing.

        Even if he said nothing about quitting or whatever

        Just a fear driven response about security.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        You’re not talking about physical weakness. A weak man is a man who is cowardly, or who has many feminine qualities. The connotation is a flaccid will, insufficient determination to “finish the job” well, and a willingness to fold at the first setback, loss, or difficulty.

        And this is a very different description of weakness than the one described by Scott and Cameron. I’ve had the conversation Scott describes many times in our life together. I wouldn’t say that is “vulnerable” it’s just “I hate my job”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        What the holy hell do you mean “what is weakness exactly”?

        We’ve been in here discussing it for AT LEAST 5 YEARS and you’ve been right in here with us. Have you not been paying attention?

        Indecision. Fear. Intellectual paralysis. Lack of resolve. Depression. Despair, Hopelessness. Setback. Failure. Error. Mistake. It can also include a very debilitating physical injury that lays him up for months.

        Women CANNOT HANDLE these things in their men.

        People get ill, lose their jobs, experience indecision, ect. It’s just a part of life.

        Yes. But when this happens to men, women lose their sh!t and their hypergamy alarm bells go off. Are you not paying attention? Have you not read about men going through this and their women losing attraction for them and leaving them?

        What the hell. I’ve been talking about this nonstop for 5 years and you STILL aren’t getting it? What is wrong with people here?

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        I wouldn’t say that is “vulnerable” it’s just “I hate my job”.

        Most women view that as “weakness”. If you don’t view it as weakness or vulnerability, it is because you are so insanely attracted to Mike you can’t see straight.

        It is all completely a function of your sexual attraction to your husband.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Hi Liz. I do not use the AWALT thing. But I think it is VERY common. I don’t think women in general like weakness/vulnerability whether it is emotional weakness or perceived weakness in their man’s competence as a provider/protector.

        The burden of performance. Men want to be loved independent of it. Some are – many are not. We make generalizations here. They may not apply to all participants. I don’t think the redpill women’s auxillary are typical women. Yes, because of their attractive husbands but I don’t think you RP women are yourselves typical or average.

        I think a lot of women are fueled by anxiety and neuroticism which they want their man to fix with his strength. Women flat out are more neurotic – studies have shown this.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        I agree most women are neurotic (I’ve had my share of neuroses/anxiety).
        These are major life events. They happen. It’s not realistic to think they will not, nor is it realistic to think one can never encounter life such life events or it will be seen as weak.
        Again, Jack’s definition is different. I can agree with Jack’s definition.
        Argument here seems to be:
        (insert one definition of weakness)—-> Ah ha! You’ve never seen him weak!
        (insert different definition of weakness)—->Well, that’s irrelevant you’re just insanely attracted.
        Okay, there’s not much to say about that.

        Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        Yes, this!

        When my dad had a stroke, one could say he was physically weak but I would never have said “I sensed weakness about him”.
        You don’t spend your life together and raise a family without going through stuff.
        People get ill, lose their jobs, experience indecision, ect. It’s just a part of life.

        This reminds me of my own dad’s final days.He didn’t suffer a long drawn out illness but about a week before he died, he went into the hospital. When we visited him, despite his being in his mid-80s, seeing him in that hospital bed was the first time I looked at him and thought, “He looks old.” I never thought “He looks weak”, even though age and illness are necessarily a form of weakness, it’s not a characteristic I was able to associate with my dad.

        Indecision. Fear. Intellectual paralysis. Lack of resolve. Depression. Despair, Hopelessness. Setback. Failure. Error. Mistake. It can also include a very debilitating physical injury that lays him up for months.

        Ok, yeah, no. I can honestly say I haven’t seen that. My husband’s default setting is, “We can figure this out. I can find the solution to the problem. I have the talent, intelligence, whatever to unravel this. Etc.”

        He has had a job he hated (although he would never say, “I hate my job”). He has had a job he really liked and lost it. But he doesn’t view his work as intricately connected to his worth. He views his ability to provide that way, but not the specific work. His decision (and it was his, not mine) to have a SAHWife highly motivates him to work hard and provide well. And we have been very fortunate that even when our situation was uncertain, it has never stayed that way long enough to break his spirit, if that can be done.

        But SAM is a highly relational man, though, so he necessarily sees the world through the lens of how he treats others and being a man of integrity. I was telling Hearth about this, how on Father’s Day he got Father’s Day messages from so many male friends (and a few female friends as well). Just basic well wishes stuff, but it says a lot about his ethos.

        Could just be that if he is afraid or intellectually paralyzed or whatever, he has a masculine inclination not to add my anxiety to the pile, but generally when things have gone south (and they have a few times), my default setting is, “Okay, so what do you need me to do in this situation?” And usually he’ll tell me what, if anything I can do, and I do that. So we work together and figure the thing out. I find sitting around hand wringing and/or looking for him to do it all really unproductive.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Elspeth, it might be the product of marrying very young and having nothing, then building together that makes things work better. Getting established later in life might lead to different, unrealistic expectations.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @ liz,

        “Argument here seems to be:..”

        My argument is that in general women don’t like weakness in men – it’s unattractive and they don’t like the way it makes them feel. This includes sharing of men’s emotional vulnerability that was the original topic. It also includes anything indicating he won’t perform adequately now or in the future. So sharing with her isn’t necessarily good.

        And that some of these weaknesses in general are more tolerated among innately attractive men.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        Friends of ours just celebrated their 27th anniversary. He is deployed in Jordan. He called her a couple of days before and said, “make sure you are available at 11 on (this date)”. Her cell service is terrible so she had to drive somewhere the reception was better and sit in the car and wait a couple of minutes. He came on and was on stage with some visiting country band, he told the audience they’d been together since 1988 (before most of those airmen had even been born). He sang her a song up there (can’t remember which, it’s not one I know). Thought that was pretty epic. They’ve raised four kids to adulthood. Been together a long long while.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        Ok, yeah, no. I can honestly say I haven’t seen that. My husband’s default setting is, “We can figure this out. I can find the solution to the problem. I have the talent, intelligence, whatever to unravel this. Etc.”

        You have never ever seen SAM fail? He’s never ever made a mistake in his life? Never committed error? Never ever once had a setback? Never ever once seen him afraid?

        Are you serious?

        If this is true, he really is a superhuman demigod. Or he is really good at keeping things from you.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Argument here seems to be:
        (insert one definition of weakness)—-> Ah ha! You’ve never seen him weak!
        (insert different definition of weakness)—->Well, that’s irrelevant you’re just insanely attracted.

        That’s not the argument and you know it. It has nothing to do with “differing” definitions of “weakness”. It has to do with what these men allow you to see, and with your attraction levels. Either your men don’t let you ever see it, or you’re so blinded by your sexual attraction you can’t see it. “It” does not change from situation to situation. The point is that you aren’t allowed to see “it” or your sexual attraction blinds you to “it”.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Deti,

        Here’s a different way to state it. Most women are marginally/low attracted to the men they marry (some aren’t attracted at all). When you show weakness (various types of weakness-there may be some types that particularly push her “dislike” buttons) it can push you into the “not attracted to him at all” category with her.

        Men who are highly attractive to the women they marry are relatively (but not absolutely) protected from this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        Most women include men getting sick as weakness that angers them. I contracted a deadly virus and symptoms went on for 24hrs just getting worse it was the weekend and i wanted to wait till i could get in monday am. My ex was talking to her mom all day making fun of me and insulted me dozens of times. In the am she asks me what im doing i said getting a ride to hospital. She got angry told me she didnt know i was sick (i think im gonna die) 100s of times wasnt a hint, and offered to take me i declined telling her i dont need to b insulted all the way to the hospital.

        I lost 30lbs in 36hrs. Several men have told me stories like this they break a leg get in a serious car accident cancer and their wives are either angry at them or laugh at them.

        Liked by 3 people

  17. Ame says:

    i believe this is the thread pondering how women found the manosphere. after my divorce, i was curious as to what christian men were like – were they all like the man who left us? were they like the men i saw at church? or were they different? i was curious. it brought me to an outside group in the sphere and then into these groups later.

    i’m extremely grateful to all the men who have been honest and real and authentic. what i’ve learned is immeasurable, and i’ve passed it all onto my daughters. i’ve also had opportunity to teach some of this to other women as they’ve been receptive over the years. few women are truly receptive. idk if it’s just this culture or if it’s the nature of all women of all time … or if it feeds into ‘narrow the path to God and few follow it, and wide the path to destruction and many follow it.’

    i met my late Mentor when my babies were both still in diapers and several years before their dad left us. she taught me verse-by-verse through the bible and also a lot about marriage – priceless. there were so many women who i thought could benefit from her teaching. she was always ‘funny’ when i brought it up to her. i learned later it was because she knew that those women were probably not willing to learn and to be mentored. and she was right. she was willing to fully invest in women willing to learn, but she was not willing to invest or even try to persuade women who did not want to learn. that taught me much, and i’ve carried that forward. i teach what one is willing to learn and let the rest go. and if one is not willing to learn, i walk away.

    having all the knowledge you and other men have either intentionally or inadvertently taught me has been priceless for those few women who are willing to learn and listen. for that, i am exceedingly grateful 🙂

    Liked by 8 people

    • feeriker says:

      i’ve also had opportunity to teach some of this to other women as they’ve been receptive over the years. few women are truly receptive. idk if it’s just this culture or if it’s the nature of all women of all time

      I have to believe that it’s a mixture of both. Women haven’t changed since Eden, but the temporal culture that they are part of, especially here in the West, particularly North America, very much has. In the past the worst and most destructive aspects of female nature were largely kept in check, both by the secular culture and the fact that Christianity and its tenets, even if more culturally than spiritually, played a much stronger role than today. Even “cultural” Christianity was highly effective in keeping and maintaining a stable moral framework for society.

      Today “cultural” Christianity is a reference to the secular culture having completely converged with and subsumed biblical Christianity. Most women today reject what you try to teach them because they reject true biblical Christianity (most “Christian” men do as well, but it manifests itself differently). Those precious few women who want to learn from you are part of the remnant, kernels of wheat that have separated themselves from the tares.

      Liked by 4 people

  18. thedeti says:

    Liz, Elspeth:
    Read this passage that Scott posted up there. This is what I’m talking about. This is the kind of kneejerk reaction that women will give men, and it’s a sure sign that she sees him as weak, ineffective, and p* ssified.

    *If a man says to his wife something as non-committal, thinking out loud, musing, like

    “Sometimes my job really grinds on me”

    The response will be:

    “Well you better stick with it because we need the money”

    There will be no discussion about his internal processes, what he likes about it, what he doesn’t like, no brain storming, empathy, nothing.

    Even if he said nothing about quitting or whatever

    Just a fear driven response about security.*

    THAT is the reaction I’m talking about. THAT is a wife viewing her husband as worthless and weak.

    Like

    • elspeth says:

      “Well you better stick with it because we need the money”

      I would never say such a thing. Ever. He would think that, because he’s a man and they are duty-driven by nature, but my gut reaction would be, “He’s better than this. He doesn’t have to be doing something he hates.” But then, he doesn’t really see his job that way. he sees it as a means to an end.

      And this illustrates my point about, “What do you need me to do in this situation?” Because my response would never be, “Well, you have to keep doing it because we need to money.”

      I would sit down and go over every skill set, certification and credential he has acquired between the last job and this one. I’d update his resume accordingly, get his approval of the changes, and ask him what kind of positions he wants me to be searching during my down time while he is grinding away at a job he hates so that I can have shelter, food, and clothing. For starters, that’s what I’d do.

      Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        And I can answer so definitively because it’s not a hypothetical. I’ve been there, done that. Both in the “dissatisfied with job” situation and the “lost a job” situation.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Maybe you haven’t.

        The point is that MILLIONS OF WOMEN HAVE done this and STILL DO DO THIS to their husbands.

        It DOES NOT MATTER that YOU have not done this. What matters is the experience of the men here.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I don’t complain about my job to her a lot. Sure I hate it because it’s pointless middle-class welfare spending projects (DoD contracting for the world’s biggest defense company). In additional to being pointless because it’s make-work theft of YOUR tax-money, the work itself s_cks because it is endless, pointless beauracracy – endless security requirements, contract weenies badgering you for crap like sole-source-contract-justification, endless revisions to pointless documents, etc. I would rather be a garbage man like your father or a pool-cleaner like mine – at least those jobs had a point (and no HR harpies to deal with).

        She would support (and I assume love) me if I decided to quit and become a garbage man. I assume you would support and love SAM to if he did. A garbage man’s wife and children can have food shelter and clothing. I assume you would be happy if SAM decided he wanted to be a garbage man.

        Most women wouldn’t react that way. The burden of performance.

        BTW I always wanted to be a garbage man as a very young boy. It seemed cool – you get to pull the lever that crushes the trash.

        Liked by 2 people

  19. lastmod says:

    Weakness….femme qualities…….defined by who and what standard?

    I’ve taken a few punches in my life. Effing hurts. This makes me weak? Hearing Corrinne’s voice 9Swing Out Sister) and watching her perform at that small cocktail lounge in London…..could feel a tear welling up behind my eyes as her voices swept me up to a place I had not been or felt in ages. Is this femme? (Check out “Incomplete Without You”) Or seeing Marilyn McCoo a year earlier in Fresno perform “One Less Bell To Answer” with no mic at a beautiful theater in Fresno. Femme?

    My haunting reoccuring dream that I am father? Femme? Am I weak for this?

    Frankly I don’t care anymore. Listening to advice of how I am supposed to act and when and in every situation is tiring. I’ll be what I’ll be at this point. I don’t care what men, women, dating experts, red-pill or what ROllo says.

    It’s been liberating to actually just be myself. No, women didn’t swoop in and notice me but just being genuine did more for my mental health than just listening to what this or that means…and what I must do to be considered a man.

    Hate to dissapoint you all. But I am a man. My genetics say so and I won’t have anyone tell me otherwise.

    Liked by 4 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Hi Jason,

      I don’t think any man here is telling you how to be masculine. I don’t think we’re judging your masculinity at all – you haven’t disappointed anyone. Scott likes the Smiths. I have a couple of albums from the Fleetwoods – not exactly death metal!!

      “My haunting reoccuring dream that I am father? Femme? Am I weak for this?”

      I don’t think so – that absolutely choked me up – if you’re weak for that so am I.

      I think we’re just trying to wrap our heads around the wisdom of showing weakness/vulnerability (as women tend to perceive weakness) to a woman you’re in a relationship with. Just felt the need to summarize since these discussions stray a lot.

      Liked by 5 people

  20. Larry G says:

    Finally, to the point…
    “Frankly I don’t care anymore. Listening to advice of how I am supposed to act and when and in every situation is tiring. I’ll be what I’ll be at this point. I don’t care what men, women, dating experts, red-pill or what ROllo says.”

    This. I also quit giving a rat’s butt quite some time ago about “advice”. At one point awhile back I bluntly informed my Mrs. that I will do as I please, when I will and how I want…she is welcome to tag along or not, I chase no one. Many decades ago I determined that NO woman would have any amount of leverage over me or my life again, if she is an ally she will follow me, if she is an enemy I have no problem with her destruction.

    Frankly, and I have said so in the recent past, what we are seeing here is merely the twitching of a western society corpse…it’s dead, maybe it’s time to quit beating it.

    Liked by 4 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Larry&jason ever read that sex&culture book from ’34 by j.d.unwin?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_Culture
      That tells all one needs to know were at the end of western civ as I&the first true MGTOW use to say before it became ”cool” with gang shirt logos&all about crying about women!
      Also jason you know what one of my fave songs is?
      forever young by laura brannigan of self control fame!

      I like power metal&saying ”true romantic” because both shock ”good” traditional feminists like that rachel woman from the other day!
      I,deti,scott&now even rollo are evil blackpillers for saying most of the smp/mmp is pointless now!
      I like jason&larry just wear my shades to keep from being blinded by the bright future coming to all of us,right?😎😉

      Liked by 1 person

      • Larry G says:

        No, I have not read “Sex and Culture” however I did read “Fate of Empires” by Sir John Glubb. That spells out the phases of the rise, zenith, descent and expiration of all societies and empires. But to be quite frank, none of that greatly concerns me, whether this present culture survives or not (IMO it will not).
        I have focused all of my energy and efforts on taking care of and protecting my own people, I bear no responsibility for others who are not in my tight circle. One of the grimmest statements in the Bible apply now and here,

        Jeremiah 15:1-3
        1 Then the LORD said to me: “Even if Moses and Samuel should stand before Me, My heart would not go out to this people. Send them from My presence, and let them go.
        2 If they ask you, ‘Where shall we go?’ you are to tell them that this is what the LORD says: ‘Those destined for death, to death; those destined for the sword, to the sword; those destined for famine, to famine; and those destined for captivity, to captivity.’
        3 I will appoint over them four kinds of destroyers, declares the LORD: the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, and the birds of the air and beasts of the earth to devour and destroy.”

        so be it

        Liked by 2 people

  21. thedeti says:

    OK. I’m taking a break from this thread. The women’s hamstering on here has officially reached ridiculous levels. The women who comment here are all married to superhuman demigods, or your husbands are fantastic liars, or you can’t see what’s right in front of your faces because of your sexual attraction.

    I need to get back to reality, because it sure as hell doesn’t reside on this comment thread.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Elspeth says:

    I’m going to exit too I think, but Liz asked a question, and I think it’s a good one. Defining terms is important. What do we mean by weakness?

    Since the conversation revolved around men’s emotions, psychological vulnerability, and how women react to them I formulated a definition of weakness in my mind that I will try to articulate:

    A weak man is a man who folds in the face of life’s challenges. That folding may be a tendency to give up and let life just happen without trying to affect his outcome, may be a moral failing, or it may be treating the people around him as little more than things to be used or discarded at will. A weak man has little to no moral compass, and he gladly lets other people step up to the plate that he is supposed to stand at. That is a weak man.

    So, with that working definition of weakness, I described the way I see my husband. I have never seen those qualities in him. I saw him vulnerable when it was clear his mother would not survive her illness. I saw him afraid, then prayerful when our child was born and had to spend the first week of life hooked up to tubes in NICU. Later, I saw him grieve my father, then his own father. I’ve seen him hate jobs, lose jobs, and change jobs.

    All of these ups and downs and transitory moments of life, I have watched him traverse, and seen vulnerability in those moments (and not just those moments). But no. I never saw any signs of my above working definition of weakness.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Liz says:

      I’m exiting too.

      Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      First of all I would say that the definition of weakness that is relevant is what matters to the particular woman/girlfriend/wife. Whether it be physical, emotional, moral, etc.

      So you have a definition for yourself (I would say a lot of women don’t share your concern over moral weakness but that’s because you’re a woman of high moral character with sincere Christian convictions). By your own words, SAM doesn’t show any of the traits that YOU define as weakness. If this doesn’t support then at least it doesn’t undermine the basic thesis of these posts – that a man shouldn’t show his weaknesses (whichever ones are relevant to the particular woman) to his woman or at least he does so at his own peril. And that her visceral attraction to him affords a man some degree of forgiveness in showing his weaknesses.

      The emotional weaknesses/vulnerabilities/feelings that are being alluded to in the series of posts are feminine qualities. Remember when we were told in the 90’s that we had to “get in touch with our feminine side?” Men have some feminine qualities and women have some masculine qualities. Some men have more than others. SAM has few. What’s being said really is that for many women, their man having woman-like-feelings, emotions, sensitivity, etc. isn’t very attractive, can be used against them in the future, and is best not shared. And the woman will personalize his feelings and use it against him. It will often turned into “what does this say about me?” by the woman because women tend to personalize everything. This despite the fact that women and society say they want this (emotional openness/vulnerability) from men.

      Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “a man who folds in the face of life’s challenges. That folding may be a tendency to give up and let life just happen without trying to affect his outcome”

      This excerpt from your definition is the only part of your definition that most women would consider weakness. The rest of your definition is peculiar to the small subset of devout Christian women such as yourself.

      Most women’s definition of weakness includes but is not limited to the part I quoted.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Thank you.

        Elspeth’s and Liz’ definitions are just not inside any realm of actual reality that exists. Most women do not operate with anything like what E and Liz are talking about – not professional women, not Christian women, not women of any race.

        I am convinced that I am dealing with extreme, extreme outliers in the Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary. Women in the MLA are not anything like women in the real, actual, functioning every day world. Not at all.

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        To almost all women, ANY failure or flaw, ANY negative emotion, no matter how slight or inconsequential, is “weakness” and WILL cause her to lose attraction and chip away at your relationship with her.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I don’t know how extreme they are. They are not typical – not even close.

        I think Elspeth tends to see how things could be. Yes, by God’s grace every woman could be this way or that way. She is imaging the world how it could/should be not how it is. Christians have to be realists as well as idealists.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        No, E sees things as they are in her own marriage and extrapolates that to the wider world. She cannot in any way relate to the struggles men talk about here because she and SAM just have never had those problems. She is so incredibly sexually attracted to SAM she can’t see straight. And she thinks every marriage is, or could be, like hers.

        She cannot accept, she will not listen to me, that they cannot be like hers.

        Elspeth hit the SMP/MMP jackpot – she got a man she is extremely sexually attracted to AND who is a family man/husband type. He is everything to her – husband, father to her kids, ideal sex partner. This is what every woman wants, and about only 10% of women EVER get. Same with Liz. Same with Mychael.

        As an aside, even fewer black women get what Elspeth got – it’s bad enough that only 26% of black women ever marry in their lifetimes. A tiny, tiny, infinitesimally small percentage of black women can EVER marry as well as Elspeth has. Marriages like the one E has are as rare as hen’s teeth.

        What she cannot accept is that most women never come close to getting in their marriages what she, Liz, and Mychael got in theirs. Most women know this deep down. Most women know they couldn’t get the men they really wanted. Most women know they settled. And they are pi$$ed as hell about it. Elspeth cannot conceive of marriages looking like the ones we describe here, because she’s never once experienced it. The language we speak is alien and foreign to her.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I don’t disagree with that characterization. In addition to all that, I don’t think she’s typical – I don’t think women of considerable faith are common. So yes Deti, I think you are right that they’re a rather extreme outlier.

        Liked by 3 people

  23. Rock Kitaro says:

    Dude…I still have to read through everyone’s comments to this essay, but i have to say…awesome essay. In particular the “Questions for Discussion”. Those 4 questions are exactly what I had in mind as I finished reading the essay. Essentially, “is it possible?” Or is it just fantasy. Should a man such as myself simply resign himself to the idea that I should give up this notion of being open and honest with a spouse. Because no lie, I’ve literally prayed for years…to find but one human, one woman who was beautiful, endeavored to serve God, and who I could be my complete honest self around. Just show me that one person. But perhaps…it is just a fantasy. Alright.

    Looks like there’s over a 100 comments to the essay to read through. Let’s see what y’all have to say.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Larry G says:

      My unsolicited opinions, take it or leave it as you see fit, Rock.

      Men in this country have abdicated the control and leadership of the western females beginning at birth. IF a modern day man remains in the house, he is fairly powerless to guide and maintain control over his own children and wife. The result is feral behavior in children and disloyal, self-centered wives which usually morph in immoral behavior. There are few serious consequences for the females and is the direct result of pandering by men who gave up control of these females.
      There are a few of us men who refused to accept the so-called modern western females as they are now, you may want to consider looking outside of the West as well for a bride. Set your standards that the woman must meet and hold her to those standards. If she fails to meet YOUR requirements, cut her loose and get another. Believe nothing the woman says, believe everything a woman does.

      Liked by 2 people

  24. Red Pill Apostle says:

    Rock – Here’s the short version. Q1. God’s intent Q2. Yes Q3. No Q4. Yes

    Now go read all the comments to see the reality, factors at play, pitfalls and the overall effects of sin on the equation.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Elspeth says:

    BTW I always wanted to be a garbage man as a very young boy. It seemed cool – you get to pull the lever that crushes the trash.

    I don’t know how cool my dad thought it was, LOL. It was much harder work way back when than it is now. Now they have the mechanical arms that pick up the can and dump them. My dad had to jump off the back of the truck and pick up the cans -no matter how heavy- by hand. Times have changed. Well mostly. We do have a day for putting out large items and then the guys have to work a little harder, but there are far fewer homes and buildings to stop at.

    One of the things my dad when did when I was a kid, was every pickup before a holiday, he would leave a 6 pack for the guys who picked up our trash. I think sometimes people did that for his crew, so he paid it forward. Sometimes he would even stick an envelope in it with a tip, $20 per guy or something like that.

    It’s a practice we’ve picked up in my family. We remember the garbage guys at the holidays. I’m sure my dad would think that is pretty cool.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Scott says:

      Without garbage collectors, the world would be intolerable and unsafe within a month.

      Liked by 5 people

    • lastmod says:

      Growing up we had to truck our garbage to the dump (country) usually weekly. We had recycling and separation of trash since the 1970’s in my area. Sometime in the 1980’s the county started their own trash pickup…….you didn’t go out and “talk” to the garbage man. You put ten bucks in an envelope at Christmas time. Left them alone.

      Here in California, especially in the Bay Area…..my neighboring family….that wife would be out every pick up day lecturing these garbage men of “where to put the bins” when they were done…..or some other minor thing “could you come later, I sleep in on Fridays, and the noise from your truck is waking me up”

      These men attired in their neat green or blue uniforms with names Like “Luis” or “Jose” or “Marcello” and “Lamont” and “Buddy” would look at her nod. Get on with their work, and ignore everything she said.

      But here in the man-o-sphere the “garbage man” is a chump career. That guy didn’t become an engineer or study STEM or made a poor choice when he was three…..hence why he is a garbage man….oh, I mean….”santitaion worker”

      oh the irony here……men have to be engineers, cops, firefighters, doctors, lawyers, or some have some professional title today to “attract women” and have “provision” while at the same time saying they “champion” men like Luis, Jose, or Lamont saying they are needed….but not their son. No no no….someone elses son can do that work

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        @ lastmod:

        You make a good point, actually. I have often said this about a lot of professions: ‘Everyone [in the middle class] wants to know a good plumber, but nobody wants their son to be one”.

        Same thing applies for garbage men. We all know that they are necessary, and that they provide a significant support to the infrastructure of civilization, but it’s a job without any gravitas at all.

        I’m reminded of an episode of the very funny comedy from the early 2000s, Monk. In an episode where the city garbage men go on strike, OCD Monk starts to go nuts. With the stench of trash piled up everywhere, he can’t think clearly and starts spouting nonsense. But look at all the trash everywhere!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        My oldest is a 4th year electricians apprentice who dropped out of college in the first year. He makes more money than anyone we know.

        Liked by 3 people

  26. Ame says:

    It is very difficult, almost impossible, to fully understand something you have not personaly experienced, especially if your own personal experiences are directly opposite.

    I used to think if I just had the language, the correct words, I could help people understand what I had experienced. Years ago I was explaining part of my life to a friend who grew up in a directly opposite home environment when she finally looked at me and said there was nothing in her that in any way could relate or understand. It was truly an epiphany for me.

    Realizing that, I came to the place where I didn’t expect people to truly understand, but I did hope that those who cared about me would choose to say that although they couldn’t comprehend, they believed me.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Ame says:

      Given that it would be near impossible for Deti to understand Elspeth’s life, and also near impossible for Elspeth to understand what Deti has experienced with his wife.

      Not sure any of us can understand Liz’s life … being married to an elite fighter pilot, moving every year for twenty some odd years w behile raising three incredible young mem😊

      Kudos to Deti for staying around these parts so long and pouring so much of himself into helping and mentoring other men.

      Kudos to Elspeth for sticking with and staying with her man, especially in the early years … for honoring and respecting and submitting to him and raising four amazing daughters.

      And a long list of kudos to Liz and Mike for all they’ve been through, for their service to our country, and for those three young men who will go out and change their worlds for the better.

      Liked by 4 people

      • elspeth says:

        Ame is Matthew 5:9 personified. *hi Ame! 🙂

        Liked by 4 people

      • Ame says:

        Ahh, thank you, Elspeth 💖, what a beautiful compliment 😊

        I try to be. Lord knows I’ve also been divisive; I much prefer peace when possible.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Her online persona which im sure is the real her comes off as very sweet and lovely.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        Ahhh, thank you, Cameron! What a beautiful compliment.

        I must confess that I am very much a human female 😁. I am not perfect. I’ve learned a lot of things the hard way. I do have a bitchy side for which my Beloved Husband will jokingly state that that’s when he “throws chocolate.” 😏

        I have to give all the credit for the goodness to Holy God. On my own I’m very selfish and want my own way. With Jesus, though, I’m a new creation.

        There are some things that are very important to me. The first and most important is to love the Lord my God with my whole heart, soul and mind – then to love myself and others. Always a continuous and conscious thing.

        The second is to find the value in people and to truly “hear” them the same way I long to be heard.

        And the third is to be kind. I haven’t always had much to give – materially or time, but I can always choose to be kind. It’s amazing the power of a kind word, a sincere compliment, and/or a smile.

        I want to be a light of Jesus to those in my path. And “hearing” people and sharing sincere kindness are ways I try to do that.

        Please don’t pedastalize me in any way. I’m still just a girl who struggles through this thing called life. I have my bitchy side and my grumpy side and my whining side. I just hope that when I cross through that veil, the kindness and caring and light will be enough to drown out the other 😊

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        I asked my Husband if he thinks this represents me, and he said yes (laughing) especially the bitchy side 😂.

        He said that am bitchy and boisterous, especially when I’m passionate about something, but I’m loving and caring, too, “and you put up with my sh** and still love me” 😁

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ame says:

        i told my Husband the ‘bitchy’ might be misinterpreted as contentious or a nagging, dripping faucet. he said that is not me even though i do have my moments (he smiled when he said that).

        he said, “You speak what’s on your mind. If something’s bothering you, you say what’s bothering you. You’re passionate and strong-willed when something is important to you. You’re a feisty Mama Bear protecting your girls and me. You’re lovable and passionate and caring about things that are important to you.”

        i will add that he worked hard to get me to be open and speak what’s bothering me and to know he’s a safe place for me to do that. my first husband would emotionally and mentally and verbally beat me for doing that, and my now-Husband knew that, so he worked hard to draw that out of me. (isn’t that amazing!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 )

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Ame not pedastalizing. Kindness and sweetness is very beautiful in a woman so it should be praised. Just like I compliment E’s faith.

        I can barely summon enough faith to not grossly sin – barely enough to drag my butt to confess.

        Good thing you didn’t marry me. Bitchiness would cause me to withdraw and become angry. This drives women nuts when you dont talk – my wife says it’s like a black cloud hanging over everything. She new I had a dark personality I told her on the 2nd date – married me anyway.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ame says:

        🙂

        i think it’s hard to define some things. my Husband said it’s like how i told my step son – his son – that he can’t zoom out of our driveway b/c the two young boys next door play in both our yards. step son said, “but i didn’t see anything.” he was irritated. he can either not zoom out of our driveway that goes down the length of both our yards, or he can park on the street. i don’t care … but zooming out of our driveway is not an option.

        or when i had to go above the principal when Aspie-Girl was in middle school. or many other times i had to fight for her.

        or when i told my girls growing up that if they crossed certain lines, there would be immediate certain consequences, and they knew i would do it.

        i guess that growing up in an abusive home, then being married to my first husband for 20 years, made me a fighter. i don’t think i’m mean, but when i have to fight for something, i’ll do it. i won’t back down b/c it’s hard or makes me uncomfortable.

        of course, as i’ve gotten older, i’ve learned more discernment and discretion and God has granted me more wisdom. but there are still lines drawn … and still fights that i won’t back down from even if i want to.

        when Aspie-Girl started high school in special ed, the director of special ed told her she was going to college and taking out student loans. Aspie-Girl immediately said we don’t do student loans, and i backed her up. i also unapologetically told them i was Aspie-Girl’s advocate and had her back and if there was ever a conflict, i would take her side first till proven otherwise.

        another recent example … my sister committed to helping Aspie-Girl reach some goals. there is a ‘short-cut’ that i, as her mom, can legally do, but it would not be in Aspie-Girl’s best interest, so i said no. my sister asked twice and got miffed that i wouldn’t do it. if i did, it would also make her commitment a whole lot easier. the second time i followed it with an email. my sister was not happy.

        i see those kinds of things as being bitchy … when i have to draw a hard line … when i have to fight for something that’s right and there’s no other option.

        may God increase your faith – it’s something He’d love to do for you 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

  27. Pingback: The fallacy of teaching men to be emotionally honest part 2 | Christianity and masculinity

  28. lastmod says:

    DS again telling us that any man that isn’t rough and muscular causes feelings of “revulsion” in her. STFU. At the same time telling us that looks don’t matter to women, and its very easy to get into the top 20% of men in other posts.

    The clip n pic he uses as an example…no man in these forums looks like that, and the women loved him of course, but he then would say these women were no good. Can’t win with that guy. Gotta look like him, think like him, and be like him.

    His marriage must be tiring and hard work to keep up such a facade

    Like

  29. info says:

    “For example, when my sisters and female cousins started to be sexually active, my mother and aunts gave them lots of “instructions”, and kept it all a secret from the men, as if it were none of their business. If there was ever an abortion in the family, I never knew about it.”

    Seems like a job for an investigative team of detectives because by doing this they conspire to cover up murders.

    A private eye would be very useful to uncover any such suspicious activities like this one.

    Like

  30. Scott says:

    “Scott likes The Smiths”

    They are my second favorite band, sandwiched between The Cult (number one) and Social Distortion (number two). Also in that top ten are Lenny Kravitz, Simple Minds, The Pretenders, INXS, Bauhaus/Love and Rockets, Yazoo/Yaz/Erasure and The Alarm.

    I was actually present (won a contest) for the recording of this most awesome version of “There is a place in Hell for me and my friends:”

    If southern California surfer jock culture makes me gay or unmasculine, then alpha males or whatever can suck it. It was the coolest time ever.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      Recently, Vox had a pretty good post about the music of Gen Xers.
      http://voxday.blogspot.com/2021/06/gen-xs-music.html

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        My GenX list would likely be different from Vox, but a few things pop into my mind:

        1) Control, by Janet Jackson, 2) She Drives Me Crazy by the Fine Young Cannibals, 3) Billie Jean by Michael Jackson, 4) 1999 by Prince (although my husband liked Raspberry Beret because he is him and it’s a song about woman wearing only a hat). 5) Every Breath you Take by The Police? 6) My Prerogative by Bobby Brown (R&B), 7) Giving Him Something He Can Feel by En Vogue R&B 8) a couple of Debbie Gibson songs (We’ll go with Only in My Dreams 9) You Give Good Love by Whitney Houston (another R&B song) 10) Red, Red, Wine.

        I have a whole Rolodex of nonsensical music in my brain. 80s music has that effect.

        Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Jack I think I found DAL’ here!!
        https://www.itsovereasy.com/insights/divorce-statistics 😎😉
        The market will improve yet,right!?
        With GBFM,scott&rollo on the case it sure as hell will!!!

        We agree this is’nt true,right!?

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        That’s some memories Elspeth. New Edition with young Bobby Brown, Cool it Now.

        I was going to marry Debbie Gibson at one point and Belinda Carlisle at another. Both older women. Wasnt meant to be.

        I liked anything that played on Video Soul on BET when I was about 9 or 10.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        He needs to slide his ruler back about 3-4 years to connect with me. Most of that stuff is 90s music.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        In fact, 1990 was the last, great gasp of music before grunge and marketed anger bands like Disturbed and Puddle of Mud pretty much ruined everything.

        Think about it. These are all bands that churned out fantastic albums in 1990:

        Trashcan Sinatras
        Social Distortion
        Midnight Oil
        Gene Loves Jezebel
        Concrete Blonde
        Morrissey
        Ultra Vivid Scene
        The Divynals
        Janes Addiction
        The Stone Roses
        Peter Murphy
        Charlatans UK
        They Might Be Giants
        Inspiral Carpets
        The Pixies
        The Church
        Lenny Kravitz
        Jesus Jones
        Happy Mondays
        EMF
        The Replacements

        …and those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head from 1990.

        All released fantastic stuff — in ONE DAMN year. Its like they knew it was over.

        Then we got Alice in Chains and Blink 182. Lame.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        When my dad heard Alice in Chains he said it sounded like someone being tortured to death.

        I only recognized some of those. Liked “Jane Says” (Perry Farrell is a weird dude) we laughed at Divynals “Touch myself”, I thought Jesus Jones and EMF was a year or two later. Some of these seem like one hit wonders but maybe they just had one playing on MTV.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Shoot you’re right

        “Doubt” from Jesus jones was actually released in January of 91.

        I never get those wrong. Kind of a weird skill I have

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        The funny thing is the WAY I do that. I triangulate, 1 historical/news item, 1 personal detail and can usually get the third data point (song/band name/album/year) within about a month.

        The personal detail is almost always “which girlfriend –or– between which two girlfriends did this come out?”

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        For some inexplicable reason every boy who grew up in the 80s knows this song.

        Liked by 1 person

  31. cameron232 says:

    I hadn’t heard of the Smiths until the 90s when “How soon is now” was used in several movies. I like the Pretenders and INXS.

    In Florida skaters were more popular than surfers (our waves suck). Written in my yearbook: ^Surfers are cool but skaters rule!”

    Like

    • Scott says:

      All I know about Florida is

      Disney world
      Old people from New York retire there

      Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Almost forgot

        “Conservative” Cubans

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Oh yeah. Amerigo Vespucci, Ponce De Leon, hanging chads.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Most people know Florida as Disney, retiree country (and snow birds), and Ponce de Leon. Most people under 40 have no real recollection of the hanging chads. You’re dating yourself, my friend. No one thinks Cubans are conservative though. They are virulently anti-socialist, which is actually worth something given the times in which we live. But that’s all the boring stuff. Interesting things about Florida (for an outdoors man like yourself):

        Alligators. If there is water, there are alligators in int. I find that interesting.
        The Everglades. Awesome bit of nature. Don’t visit in the summer. Too hot.
        The Keys. See note on #2. Costs and arm and a leg to visit in late winter/early spring, but worth it if you have the coin.
        Dry Tortugas, which you can only reach on a launch from Key West. But awesome. See note on #2.
        St. Augustine/Castillo de San Marcos. Literally the oldest European settlement in the United States.
        While in St. Augustine, The Hotel Ponce de Leon, built by Henry Flagler in the late 1800s. It’s insanely ornate and the craftsmanship is awe inspiring. The extravagance is the perfect illustration of the Gilded Age. It’s now the home of Flagler College, which I find offensive, LOL. But they’ve kept the thing mostly intact. We toured it with our school the very weekend before the lock downs of 2020 began.

        Things about Florida that are actually interesting and not related to the ghey Mouse.

        Liked by 5 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Too hot and humid except for a few days a year. Bugs including roaches the size of mice that are politely called palmetto bugs. Half the state covered in ugly flat areas of pine trees and palmettos (the shrub and the tree.) Tropical stuff blooming all the time not good for allergies. My mom and my job or I’d be gone

        Liked by 2 people

  32. cameron232 says:

    I think it’s the voice of the lead singer in some of these bands that makes it hard for me to get into their music. That whiny British voice. If they could just sound like James Hetfield. I wanna like the Cure but they need to give Robert Smith some T injections to deepen his voice. And lose the makeup princess.

    I got into The Jesus and Mary Chain’s music for awhile but I hate Jim Reid’s whiny voice. William has a bass-ier voice. I dont know why but I like dark music like this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      Very interesting, but I will reveal the answer.

      Most of what drew people to alternative rock in the 80s (we didn’t call it that, then–that was the commercialized name that stuck to it so they could sell records) was the fact that it was different and weird.

      We liked it because nobody else did. Being able to quote lyrics from super obscure bands that nobody had every heard of was like a secret handshake for a club we were in.

      It’s why, as soon as those bands started to get really popular (Think INXSs “Kick” album as a perfect example) they became a sell out and no longer obscure enough to be useful in that rubric.

      Even if a band had a really good sounding song, but was part of the mainstream of rock (I secretly liked the song “who will you run to” from Heart) you could not ADMIT that you liked it, or you were a phony.

      “Heart? Like no way dude. Cheesy girl-hair band”

      Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        GNR is another example of a really good sounding band that I had to pretend I didn’t like.

        Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        I was talking’ ”about who will you run to”&florida in general with elspeth at her site back in march?Remember elspeth?

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        If you liked the Cure in the early 90s then you’d get associated with those weird goth kids who were wusses. I think they were proto-goths since goth wasnt quite a thing yet. Good song writing it’s just Robert Smith’s vocals ugh.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        There’s definitely a regional component to this.

        Robert Smiths screechy annoying voice is kind of the point. He looks and comes across as a misfit, a weirdo. But cool.

        In southern California, 80s-early 90s, if you were a teenager the needle you had to thread was: (Big, deep breath)

        Being an individual, but fitting into a clique that is cool and weird. On either side of that super razor thin line to walk were stuff like Def Leppard, Church, Boy Scouts, being a virgin past about 16, being on the track or volleyball teams (football was KING) caring too much about drunk driving, but we had to have at least one dead person from drunk driving for each school year book, make smart ass comments in class but don’t be like the burn out loser kids with the doc martins and trench coats, (chicks hate that), know how to surf and look really good in a wetsuit, make sure when you pull into the parking lot at school that whatever is blaring through your window is so cool no one can touch it, have a super cute girlfriend who everyone thinks is sweeter than honey and totally innocent but who goes home with you every day after practice, carry exactly the right kind of back back (on one shoulder because both shoulders is for dorks….”

        Breath. That was my life.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yup the backpack thing it had to be a jansport brand. Get a Letterman jacket but not in a gay sport.

        Our culture was dominated by rednecks, ghetto kids and preppies or I guess kids who were gonna get outta that town. The key was to be the latter (“outta here”) without being a dork. Ghetto kids weren’t cool yet and rednecks never were.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        I had a letterman jacket but it was never cold enough in California to wear it. I don’t think I ever got it back from my girlfriend. And yes, if it had any sport pin besides football, it might as well be a boy scout uniform.

        The correct attire was:

        Slightly worn, sometimes with a small rip surf t-shirt
        Shorts or perfectly faded Levi 501s (any other brand: ghey)
        Converse all stars

        Optional for “winter:” flannel shirt tied around your waist, in case it gets “cold”

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I married my girlfriend so I got to keep my jacket and my class ring.

        I didn’t play football but Track and field was respectable because black kids did that and black kids didn’t play gay sports. Anything black kids participated in wasnt goobery.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        We only had one black kid at our school. He moved in from Banning and played football.

        Liked by 1 person

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      You know what song we hav’nt talked about?This classic from aug’13 that dal’ loved as in ”GBFM you have outdone yourself”If dal’ loved it then you know its great, right?

      This song could save the smp/mmp!!!

      Like

    • Comandante Baksuz says:

      Cameron
      …you may perhaps want to check this UK band ‘New model army’ , some darkish vibe too there (even though different (say less “decadent” ?) than with JAMC), and the voice is a-ok..

      Liked by 1 person

    • lastholdout says:

      Sorry, but can’t help but share Tom Waits’ “Make it Rain.”

      Liked by 2 people

  33. Elspeth says:

    It is hot and humidity here. Lots of bugs, yes. It’s the tropics after all. I actually find November through March pretty sublime with a few exceptions. Insert ethnic whatever right here.

    Up until about a decade ago I had spent most of my life thinking of this as an ugly place, too hot, wanna leave. Then I thought, “might as well get contented in case we never leave. Find God’s fingerprints here. He created this sauna too.” So that’s what I did. Then 2020 hit.

    In the absence of church we started exploring in earnest. Not as much during summer for obvious reasons, but when the weather was good (March-May, late October-April 2021), we packed the car, hit the road, went to every park and natural corner.

    Changed my perspective. But I totally get wanting to live somewhere less tropical. Scott hated the TX heat too.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      To be precise, its the humidity.

      120+ days are pretty normal in Southern California. But basically zero humidity. Never bothered me. Even practice in the afternoon, tiny bit of sweat formed on the collar of your t-shirt.

      In the south, I could not get from my car door to the curb without feeling like I needed to take a shower. Gross.

      If you draw a rectangle, starting at Fort Hood, Texas, go east to the tip of Florida, then north to somewhere in Virginia, and the then back to the starting point–that part of the world should be forbidden for humans to inhabit.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Scott, Floridians, the ones who aren’t polite and decent like Elspeth refer to that feeling as “swamp ass” – I gotta take a shower cause I got swamp ass.

        Liked by 2 people

  34. Elspeth says:

    It was wealthier people flocking here from the north in the winter months that put Florida on the map. It was only a matter of time before the state was populated more broadly.

    In 1912, Henry Flagler finished a rail line, then referred to by the press as the 8th wonder of the world. It went from the peninsula all the way down to Key West. It was destroyed by a Labor Day hurricane in 1935 which killed a lot of people.

    Anyway, Flagler had a hard time getting workers who could take the heat, humidity, bugs and other hazards endemic to Florida. White workers were among the first to lose heart and head out of here. Black workers did a little better, but it was still a lot to take. His men eventually hired workers in from Cuba and the greater West Indies because they were well acquainted with the climate and were able to do the work with far more speed and vigor.

    Imagine trying to traverse the swamp that was the Florida peninsula without modern day conveniences. I understand why the runaway slaves came here. I get why the Seminoles hid out further down on the peninsula. I have no idea what possessed the Florida crackers (so-called because of cattle raising, not slavery) to settle here, but many did tough it out and make their fortunes. A lot of them also high tailed it out of Florida after the great freeze of 1895 wiped out all of their hopes of getting rich growing oranges.

    The rest, as they say, is history, but there are any number of places on the globe where it might be argued that humans shouldn’t live. But we do it anyway.

    Anyway, now you know some things about Florida that you won’t find in any modern reporting. We are a nation of idiots with no knowledge of our history, who we are, why we are where we are, or anything else.

    So when people consider the state with the oldest recorded history of any of the 50 states, what do think of? Walt Disney World, the company that first gave us Gay Days. If you hadn’t noticed, I’m very much looking forward to the end of pride month, :/

    Liked by 3 people

    • Elspeth says:

      Oh no! I just remembered that October in LGBTQ+ history month….

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      When the older boys were scouts an old woman from Massachusets (raising her great grandson) refused to let the boy go on a field trip to cracker Christmas at Fort Christmas. She said cracker referred to the whips they beat slaves with.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        LOL! Nope. You just proved my point about ignorance.

        Cattle roamed wild all over Florida and when the settlers started coming down deep into the peninsula where no one should have wanted to go, one of the ways they made a living was by catching wild cows, fattening them up, then taking them to the Southwest coast of Florida to market.

        They were called “crackers” because of their skill cracking the whip in that capacity; not only in the gathering of the cows, but for all kinds of things. They’d use the whip to kill rabbits to eat (this was especially key after the Civil War when ammo for guns was in short supply).

        The Florida crackers were proud southerners to be sure, but most were far too poor to afford slaves.

        So this Massachusetts woman is sorely misinformed. History has enough warts and bumps without making up extra ones.

        There was almost no slavery in Florida once you moved south of St. Augustine. For reasons we’ve articulated, no one wanted to live here.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Liz says:

        Heh, they have an area in the Florida keys still called “the cow pens” where they would keep manatees for meat. Think the Spanish started that. The practice dates before the civil war. The Flagler railroad was a big employer for them way back, they had quarries for cutting blocks of coral. It’s not worth making a trip for, but if you happen to be in the area it’s kind of neat to see.
        http://www.keyshistory.org/casequarries.html

        Liked by 3 people

  35. Scott says:

    Totally random and off topic

    Reasons to love being a retired army major and co tractor

    They will never ask me to be the OIC, Chief or commander of anything, ever again
    I walk out the door at 1600 every day even if the building is on fire
    I make more in an hour than an active duty psychologist makes in a day
    They still salute me at the gate

    Liked by 4 people

    • Elspeth says:

      Sounds like you’re living the dream, Scott. I salute you!

      Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      Retired AF Lt Col. Reasons for loving it, no more BS, no more useless meetings, useless reports, ‘mandatory fun.’ I create my own day now, no boss, no organizational structure to dictate how the day looks. I go back on Base to enjoy the amenities and thank God each time that I’m not beholden to the AF culture. Free to be, and free to act!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Liz says:

      I miss the base sometimes. But Mike hasn’t stepped onto one since retirement (except to get our ID cards). When he was done he was really done. It was still hard to make the decision to go though.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Liz says:

        Just thinking further, I’m pretty sure if we’d stayed in Active duty instead of going to the reserves he would have stayed in. He’d have been completely institutionalized/conditioned by then. What started the process was the one year assignment at DARPA. He saw how civilians lived, and liked it a lot.

        Liked by 3 people

  36. Scott says:

    Hey crazies. Happy birthday to me. I’ll be 50 Sunday.

    Liked by 6 people

  37. cameron232 says:

    Pass the eye bleach I think I just saw some old guys balls.

    Just messin with ya man!

    Liked by 1 person

  38. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    I’ll get this thread moving again too!GBFM2021&DAL2021 about to collide with no-promise keepers2021!Thats right they want the CHRISTIAN-MANosphere O.G.s GBFM&DAL’ to show all the grown up momma boys how to be strong masculine men!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfDhmUE9Rwo
    July 16&17th at at&t stadium be there as DAL’&GBFM make history again,as only we can!!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6zp1dfYftQ
    Thats me on my harley going to discuss our battle plans at at&t stadium with DAL’!!!😎

    Like

  39. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Heres the better version of the GBFM&DAL 2021 reuinon!

    We will be bringing hellfire&brimstone preaching mainstream again!!

    Like

    • Scott says:

      I really like how PK has made sure to virtue signal on the race thing. That makes them not racist, don’t you know?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        Actually Scott, while I suspect you’re right about the way the spot was edited, the shots from the 90s rallies were real events where that level of Christian unity was genuine and evident.

        I have always maintained that the mid 90s up to Obama were the high watermark of race relations in the U.S. It was probably as close as we’d ever been to judging people first and foremost by the content of their characters. So it would make sense that it was amplified among Christians.

        Obama set out to dismantle all of that, though. In short order. It’s been a high-speed downhill slide to where we are today ever since he was elected in 2008.

        Talk about irony…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        All of that may very well be true, and they are still virtue signaling

        Also in 1994 giant crowds of black people erupted with glee when an obviously guilty murdering football player was acquitted. The same moment was met with confusion and heartbreak at how this happened to our justice system by whites watching.

        The high water mark was 10 years back when everybody (including whites) loved a TV show about a black obstetrician and his lawyer wife raising their kids in a nuclear family.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        You’re right. Mid 80s up until mid 90s is a more accurate high watermark.

        OJ aside, and you probably know that I didn’t erupt with glee, the turn to where we are now started in 2008.

        And I should add that the LGBTQ lobby was no small part of the turn. Highlighting race and attaching sexual minorities to that train car was a deliberate strategy as well.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Yes 2008 was a turning point no doubt

        Up to that point I was still clinging to the right-libertarian fantasy of a civic race-irrelevant nation

        The perfectly rational syllogism was

        “Although he is a liberal if he wins we can finally put to bed the America is racist canard”

        What fools we were to believe that and the racial rhetoric got turned up to eleven.

        When your opponent makes race a show stopping existential crisis, what are you supposed to do? They forced me to care about race and I resent it.

        At least I rediscovered Serbian culture so maybe I should be grateful

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        To me the 80s was the black-white high watermark. Cosby show and everyone loved Mr. T. I got along great with the black boys in school. There was a degree of entirely voluntary social segregation (e.g. what lunch table you sat at but there were plenty of overlapping individuals too). I remember the black boys often taking up for white nerds who were getting picked on by whitetrash a-holes – they seemed to have an innate sense of justice and fairness.

        The local paper gushed over a local black man who had put 5 kids through college as a shoe-shine man at the barber shop. White people ate that stuff up. My parents generation (baby boomers) were quite anti-racist (I’m sure there were exceptions).

        I just don’t remember a lot of racial hostility – yeah a few crusty old white guys with one foot in the grave who still used the “n-word.”

        That seemed to change quickly in the 1990s. The Rodney King incident. Their were all sorts of rumors and threats of the black kids in school rioting (they didn’t but the threat was there). Maybe it was the newly formed gangster rapper culture. Maybe it was just our age – high school vs. elementary/middle school. Started seeing changes in behavior – much more feral behavior. One black boy in HS used to run around trying to dry hump white (and Latino girls). He dry humped my wife’s BFF’s (a half Mexican/half white girl named Consuela) head as she sat in her desk. One boy tried to pull a girl I knew into the bathroom. The boys used to try to get sex from the white girls – if the girl politely refused the boy would use race-guilt extortion – “what’s the matter, yo’ daddy in the Klan?!!” One black boy who liked to call himself “slow d_ck” used to try to rub his parts on unwilling girls.

        There was suddenly more hostility from black males and females. There were black boys I went to school with since we were 6 years old (I did Kindergarten in Gainesville). They started taking cheap shots in basketball and sandlot football games. Stretched out for a football thrown high and I was about broken in half by a cheap shot to the lower back. The black girls suddenly seemed hostile, particularly to white males. They loved to pick mercilessly on physical defects e.g. a whiteboy with acne and one funny looking, small white boy that they teased endlessly as “ratboy” to the point where he used to cry all during class.

        To me the 90s just seemed to bring race relations to a new low almost immediately. Maybe it was the Rodney King incident and how the media portrayed it. The black kids (not all them obviously) started acting different in the 90s.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        re: Rodney King:

        I have literally spent my life on the outside of the cultural paradigm. I recall the King incident in LA very vividly. I was engrossed in working, full-time, my way through full time college (don’t remember if I was a freshman or sophomore), and church stuff. I remember the general feeling of outrage around me, and I remember by dad thinking that the cops needed to be prosecuted. I went to college while living at home. I also remember him expressing strong disapproval at the recording of the white guy being pulled from a semi truck. My dad was a big proponent of “You overcome evil with good”.

        By the time OJ happened, that was background noise mostly. I’d just gotten married, was expecting a child and was thoroughly engrossed in that season of life. When our oldest kid started kindergarten in 2001 though, we were living in a good school district and we got on well with all the other families there. The biggest distinction between me and the other moms of different ethnicity from me was that I was a full decade or more younger than most. It was a pretty start distinction that held all through my older kids school years. But the racial thing never came up.

        I do remember though how strange it was that tensions seemed to rise after Obama was elected. I was paying more attention to current events then, and every voice that opposed his policies was attributed to racism. Or self-hatred if you were black. Couldn’t just be that I was -still am- a strident pro-life advocate.

        Maybe that’s why I mistakenly remembered the decade before his election as a more peaceful time than it was. Projecting my own personal life experiences of the time. But yeah. The 80s were definitely better by far.

        Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Who did’nt like mr.T?”The T is tender for daladies&tough for the bad guys”!That seems familiar dos’nt it?

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        The white guy in the truck who was beaten was Reginald Denny – Jim Carey played him in a funny skit on the TV show “In Living Color.”

        Funny I just remembered this murder happened last year (2020 was wacked!!) within walking distance of where I met my wife – she lived just down the street. The guy who was murdered was my friend in HS – had sleepovers at each others’ houses – just a bunch of HS guys hanging out, goofing off. We drove to school together. Executed with a revolver to the head – wouldn’t have guessed that’s how it would have ended for him. Don’t get into the Florida thug life.

        He got involved in drugs I think – sad – he had three children. The black guy who killed him – didn’t know him.

        Last time we were down there we drove some of the kids through the area – “Look how good you’ve got it kids!” – didn’t’ seem to have much impact on them.

        White privilege BS really irks my wife – she didn’t know her daddy, momma on drugs, bringing abusive dirtbags into the duplex, lived in the same sh!tty neighborhoods as the black kids we went to school with – but she has skin privilege. F-U leftists.

        https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/crime/st-lucie-county/2020/03/12/live-sheriff-mascara-provides-update-south-market-street-homicide/5033405002/

        Liked by 1 person

  40. Scott says:

    Also, alternative rockers were explaining the red pill back in 1985–

    Well take a look at the bridegroom
    Smillin’ pIeased as pie
    Shakin’ hands all around
    With a glassy look in his eye
    He got a real good job
    An his shirt and tie is nice
    But I remember a time
    When she never would’ve looked
    At him twice

    Well I can see her now
    Drinkin’ with the boys
    Breakin’ their hearts
    Like they were toys
    She used to do the pony
    Used to do the stroll

    I knew the bride
    When she used to rock’n’roll
    I knew the bride
    When she used to rock’n’roll
    I knew the bride
    When she used to rock’n’roll
    I knew the bride
    When she used to rock’n’roll

    –Nick Lowe

    The whole song is good, but clearly the groom is the beta bucks guy she settled for after she was done having fun.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Choked down the redpill:

      “I’ve spent so much time
      Believing all the lies
      To keep the dream alive
      Now it makes me sad
      It makes me mad at truth
      For loving what was you”

      Billy Idol

      Liked by 2 people

      • Comandante Baksuz says:

        And the epitome of the bluepill simping naivety (there are probably worse, but this popped in my mind now): Jonathan Richman:

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Listen to the lyrics of this one. Alpha Widow trying to lure/keep a betasimp she’s settling for who’s having doubts.

        Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      JAMC sounded redpill to me anyway in 1985.

      “I dont want you to need me
      I dont need you to want me
      I dont want you to need me
      I dont need you to want me
      And I walk…..”

      Like

      • Scott says:

        That is a bitchen song, found, by the way, on the “some kind of wonderful” soundtrack

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes sir. I keep meaning to see that flick – Leah Thompson was hot even if she did it with Howard the Duck.

        The albumn version of that song had more feedback distortion – pretty cool.

        Liked by 1 person

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Scott ever heard this rocknrolltroubador version of I knew the bride!?

      Liked by 1 person

  41. lastmod says:

    I pretty much fell in love with The Beatles as a kid, and it went from there. AS a teen drifted into The Who, The Small Faces, Pink Floyd (esp the early years (1967-1970). David Bowie…….then we had a sixties dance at my prep school. I was home one weekend, and my mother taught me some steps from back then (Watusi, Mash Potato, Fly, Jerk, Jump Back) and then it really opened up. I watched old James Brown clips….of course all the Motown acts, and that dixie-fried soul of Sam and Dave, Rufus Thomas, and all the session cats at Stax Records (Cropper et al).

    Was a Mod this whole time as my dancing got better, and I realized I could hold up on a soul / R&B dancefloor I discovered Northern Soul probably sometime in college. For dancing? That was it…any of the club music at the time….could not do. Hip hop? Nope, two legft feet. Ballroom? Ugly guys like me could never get a partner.

    In SF there was (and still is) a small bar called “Mad Dog In The Fog” (English pub) and they had once a month, Northern Soul Night. I would be there from the start to the end. They also had ‘Club 1964’ and “Jetliner” which did have Mod-ish nights and Northern Soul as well.

    As for late 1980’s / early 1990’s alternative (I use that term loosely) it was the whole ‘Madchester ‘scene (Happy Mondays, Charlatans UK, The Farm (Liverpool), Inspiral Carpets, countless other bands like that and of course…Oasis. My fav band of the 1990’s). Hated ‘grunge’ back then. I do like a song now from that era here and there….but really disliked the whole thing.

    Northern Soul…..only the English could take the best unknown American dance music from the 1960’s and early 1970’s and make it cool. The main reason I went to Manchester on my UK trip was to indeed go to Northern Soul dances (Manchester was the mecca of Northern Soul in the 1970’s and 1980’s). I did. I danced all night….almost every night there

    Liked by 2 people

  42. lastmod says:

    Stuff like this….forgotten R&B and Soul…..here is Little Milton (who aint little) belting it out and just telling us all like it is. “We’re Gonna Make it” on “The Beat” a production out of Chicago that aired in 1966, and was a precursor to Soul Train. When I was really down and out…this 45 rpm helped keep me going in those dark days of stuggle 2008-2010

    Liked by 2 people

  43. cameron232 says:

    My sigma peeps.

    I had a dream last night about holding an infant boy – my son, another boy – we had named him “James.” Told the wife she laughed. Dont know what that dream means.

    We’re like the Breakfast Club a bunch of eclectic wierdos.

    Liked by 4 people

  44. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Heres the perfect song to detox&unplug from the matrix with!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  45. lastmod says:

    On our melting pot culture…..

    I grew up in area that was all white. I never heard the use of any derogatory remark against another race at home. Our family watched The Cosby Show, and when “A Different World” started, I was inspired for the fact there was going to indeed be life after I got out of high school

    I am a lover of “balck” music and I’ve had my share of oxtail soup (soul food place….and Stevie WOnder alwasy seems to be playing on that jukebox).

    I have never had a problem with other races, working with being a general social circle at a club, bar, and the like. I’ve had problems with women…of all races…more than anything else if truth be told. Not machismo enough for Latinas, too “white” for many black gals, and just “ugly” for white women.

    Ignored by Asian women.

    I just remember to treat people the way I want to be treated, overall it works. Overall. I think I can speak for many people of all races in this country that it works for them too.

    AS for former President Obama? I too thought…well, okay……I disagree with this policy, this stance, and this…and well, don’t like the Democrats on this stance…..but…….what an accomplishment. From the time I was born til now, we have made indeed much progress. This “racial” thing will finally be put down for a bit. Things were amplified more in so many areas. Not by rank and file folks, but by the race-baitors and angry people who always need to excuse to riot, burn, destroy and hate.

    It’s too bad. There was such a potential for all of us to take it to the next level…didn’t happen. I balme the usual suspect: Political Correctness.

    As of OJ. Called a racist for saying he was guilty, and then after he indeed was guilty……and these same people, “they let a wife beater go…they should have put him a way in 95”

    You can’t win with this crowd.

    Liked by 2 people

  46. Pingback: When walking on eggshells, step boldly! | Σ Frame

  47. Pingback: Answers to the Exit Questions for the Series on Masculinity | Σ Frame

  48. Pingback: The Feminine Secret | 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