Harnessing the Motivations of Others

Establishing Feedback Loops that capture her Ego Investment.

Readership: Men; Men in relationships;
Theme: Overcoming Obstacles
Length: 2,550 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes

Introduction

Because so few enter into marriage with zero sexual experience, the longitudinal result is that couples experience a generally poor quality of sanctification in marriage, or perhaps none at all. Men lament the absence of heartfelt bonding and experience ennui. Wives complain about the dearth of “good men” and hold their husbands at arm’s length, emotionally and physically. Readers may be consternated to see this behavior in their own girlfriends or wives, and then horrified upon realizing that we are experiencing the consequences of sexual sins from long ago. We might even see this malaise in our sons’ and daughters’ relationships and wonder what we might have done wrong in their upbringing. Christian men may simply regard it as a manifestation of the Curse of Eve (perhaps rightly so).

Single men are not exempt either. For example, LastMod shared a story about an incident he had with the Cubicle Office Princess™ (COP) in which there was a generalized disaffection.

This post and the next will explore a potential remedy to this malady. To stratify the readers’ comprehension, I’ll discuss answers to the following questions that were brought up in a previous post, Women have sex to influence men (2021-11-10), and offer some motivational insights.

  1. Why do women withdraw or reject a man when they feel like they are NOT in control of their feelings (even when they are feeling the Tingles)?
  2. Why do the woman’s feelings (and interest in sex) depend on her ego investment and not so much what the man does?
  3. In the interest of married men getting more sex from their wives, how can husbands get an ego investment out of their wives?

Certain aspects of this discussion are not limited to marital relations, but may extend to dealing with the COPs and raising and shaping daughters too.

1. Why do women withdraw when they feel like they are NOT in control?

Psychology offers a rather simple answer to this question. Human beings have a psychological need for relationships to be formed and developed within a volitional context — of their own choice and free will.

Having the ability to choose creates the psychological impression that one is in control (even if it is only an illusion), but this is only true as long as one’s internal motivations (e.g. conviction, desires, wants, needs, etc.) are able to inform and direct one’s will. It is a spiritual truth that when humans are forced to act against their wills, it has a deadening effect on their souls. This is partly why those who have worn themselves out on the carousel find married life to be so taxing. Their passions have been spent and heartfelt desire is absent, so they must rely entirely on willpower to engage with a spouse who fails to inspire their internal motivations.

Furthermore, managing one’s internal motivations, such as the will and desire itself, is difficult because these are not usually things that can be very well controlled, even by one’s own self. This is because human willpower is dependent on glucose levels in the brain, and is therefore limited in supply. One cannot very well use one’s willpower to counteract one’s own nature, and if it is done, it is short lived, frustrating, thorougly depleting, and often followed by remorse. Such is a life of living under the constraints of the Law.

However, there is one desire fundamental to human nature that can be broadly employed, and that is the desire to gain satisfaction from a volitional ego investment. As long as a person has a healthy ego, it will continue to function under the power and direction of it’s own essence (the heart and soul). Inserting one’s heart and soul into the NOW is the beginning of spiritual awakening and the first step towards a life characterized by living after the Spirit.

The good housewife puts her heart and soul into preparing healthy food for her family. (IOW, she has an ego investment in her labor.) When she sees her family eating this food with delight and thankfulness (feedback), she receives satisfaction for her efforts. Each day, this is repeated.

Case Study 1 — Falling in Love is an Ego Investment

In common parlance, ego investment is what we are referring to when we say that a girl gets “hooked on” a guy. He has something she desires, needs, or wants. She is drawn in and makes an ego investment in the relationship, but she has not yet gained the satisfaction on that investment. As a result, she feels humbled (colloquially described as “being in love”). Her mind then dwells on this unresolved situation, and she keeps coming back to talk with or hit on that guy — and she will do so until she can get a sense of ego fulfillment from her investment, or else, some other sort of feedback that would confirm that fulfillment will not be forthcoming.

This dynamic is often emphasized in PUA circles because it puts the man in control of the interaction. Not granting her a sense of ego satisfaction or control is what “nice guys” call “being a jerk”. The state of hope that accompanies her being humbled and not being granted a sense of ego satisfaction or control is what PUAs call “maintaining sexual tension”.

Since this is a Christian blog, here I want to point out a few more things:

  1. If the dynamic culminates in illicit sex, then this usually destroys the dynamic of humility and hope because the emotional investment has been satisfied. Then other issues begin to appear on the radar according to Pareto Dominance [1] and Nash Ascendancy [2]. IOW, Rollo’s Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies remains in play.
  2. If illicit sex does not fluke the relationship, then there is either (a) something other than sex that undergirds the internal motivation, or else, (b) the other issues can be successfully navigated and negotiated resulting in a Pareto Optimal Nash Equilibrium [3,4,5].
  3. The humility, interest, and tension resulting from this are not limited to sexual desire. It can also extend to any ego investment that is motivated by an internal motivation.

Foot Notes

  1. A situation is called Pareto Dominated if there exists a possible Pareto improvement.
  2. Nash Ascendancy occurs when agents choose an optimal individual strategy, independent of the opponent’s interests, and then one agent’s strategy becomes dominant.
  3. A situation is called Pareto optimal or Pareto efficient if no change could lead to improved satisfaction for some agent without some other agent losing or if there is no scope for further Pareto improvement.
  4. Nash Equilibrium is the optimal solution in which each agent lacks any incentive to change his/her initial strategy.
  5. Due to the statistical rarity of many fundamental isues all coming together, it makes sense to say that a man who enters into marriage this way does so by the grace of God.

Case Study 2 — Always offer a Choice

As a parent of two children, I’ve discovered a very helpful technique in getting kids to do things and/or do things properly, and that is to always offer them a choice.

For example, if I told one of them, “Clean your room!”, then there would ensue an afternoon of discomfiture and delay filled with excuses, complaining, and crying, and the room would never be properly cleaned. But if I said, “You can either clean your own rooms by yourself, or else you can help your sister clean the whole house.” Rest assured, one of the two options would be done within a very short time, and done rather well. If I play music and throw in some cookies (add motivation), they might even enjoy it!

Offering a choice makes the difference between being domineering and being dominant.

2. Why do the woman’s feelings (and interest in sex) depend on her ego investment?

Short Answer: Ego investment and getting feedback ARE what women call the feeelz. Whenever women talk about their feeelings, they’re talking about the status of their ego investment and how the feedback they’re getting affects that ego investment. Men can either see this as an annoyance, or else they can use this information to identify things that would motivate her.

To expand on this point, consider what Red Pill Apostle said in reporting an argument he had with his wife — an argument which arose when she felt like she was not being heard by him. (Click here to read the full report.)

“This brought us to the parallels of her feelings with the thought experiment from Jesus in Matthew 21:28-32. In it, the son who initially doesn’t comply with the father’s instruction but who then later complies is good, and the son who says he’ll comply but then doesn’t is in the wrong. Mrs. Apostle’s heels dug in and it was more important for her to feel like I considered her viewpoint than to actually consider it.”

Mrs. Apostle was angry because instead of kindly giving her ego a way to tap into the decision-making process, he rebuffed her ego and criticized her overall noncompliance with his decision. (Note to wives: If you want your man to become this way, all you have to do is deny him sex for an extended period of time. Yes, that’s right! Women can also either inspire or deplete the motivations of their husbands too!)

If we apply the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy to two theoretical types of wives standing in for the parable of the two sons cited by RPA, the difference between these two types of women is that the first is pursuing a heart-led engagement in life and is wrestling with how her ego can fit in and adapt, while the second is living in the vanity of her mind. She knows what is right, but she won’t do it because there is no immediate ego reward. Action is necessary to enact the will and stake an investment of one’s heart and soul.

As can be seen in RPA’s last sentence, having an ego investment in the decision/relationship/etc. is, for women, more important than feelings of attention, love, security, etc. (I think this is true for men too, but it’s not as important as pu$$y. After all, men’s “love language” is sex, and a man feels loved and respected most acutely when she actively nurtures and supports his ego in the bedroom. This is a fundamental motivation for men that good wives would never neglect.)

Whenever a man hears his wife say something like, “I’m just not in the mood right now”, chances are, she doesn’t have a genuine interest or ego investment in the task at hand. This holds true in all practical situations, whether it be fully engaging in a conversation, being willing and eager to engage in sexual relations, or disciplining the children in a way that would be conducive to the children’s growth, and not just venting her own anger. Good wives understand the social and spiritual importance of being emotionally involved and invested, and so whenever they’re “not in the mood”, they will do the emotion work necessary to engage from the heart anyway. Her effort in this area is a motivating inspiration to the entire family, and is one of the more important ways that a wife glorifies God in the home.

Smiling is a simple and easy way that women can glorify God. Even if she’s not feeling genuinely happy herself, smiling can lift the mood of everyone around her, and this, in turn, lifts her own spirits.

So in conclusion, we see that a woman’s volitional will to be obedient to God’s order and submit to her husband must arise from an ego investment of heart and soul. IOW, she has to want to get involved for her own satisfaction, especially the satisfaction of providing satisfaction to her husband, family, and community, which is how women please the Lord. Otherwise, she’ll feeel like she’s being controlled/manipulated/etc., no matter whether she actually is or not.

Likewise, Men must utilize their own volitional will to be obedient to God’s order and submit to the Lord’s directives for his life. He must invest his heart and soul into his mission, his work, and his family. The difference between extolling charisma and being a dancing monkey is whether a man puts his heart and soul into the displayed investment. IOW, he has to want to get involved, not so much for the often times elusive satisfaction of others, but more for his own satisfaction, especially the satisfaction of providing satisfaction to the Lord. Otherwise, he’ll feel like he’s an automaton who’s sitting on the sidelines of life, and just going through the motions.

3. How can men get an ego investment from their wives?

It’s important for the man to get an ego investment from his girl because this is a major piece of what keeps her locked into the relationship with him. This is where “compatibility” (i.e. shared values and purposes) becomes a major issue as having a good fit to begin with is the quick and easy way to arrive at a Pareto Optimal Nash Equilibrium (TITS, the “win-win” outcome for the game minded, and “contentment and sanctification” for the spiritually minded).

Σ Frame Axiom 15: A Woman’s Trust is a Tempestuous Storm in which a man must do his best to keep his ego afloat.

In the previous post mentioned in the Introduction, I briefly described one solution to the third question.

“[Husbands can] maintain a balance between her level of challenge and her level of skill, which allows her to attain a state of Flow in the interaction. Flow is important for building confidence, faith, and skill. When all this is firmly established, and her faith in the relationship is growing, then the man can begin to exercise more direct demands over her behavior in the relationship. In the best case scenario, feelings of love, humility, and pair bonding would also develop.”

A lot of readers may be unfamiliar with the concept of Flow, so I’ll elaborate upon this in the next post.

Epilogue

In the past, Red Pill literature has usually addressed the problem of how to create genuine attraction, or “getting her to like you”. But as we know, this only works out for those top 20% men who have the potential for creating attraction in the first place. The way this approach usually plays out for the average man is essentially gynocentric Blue Pilling at best, groveling, or accusations of harassment at worst.

In contrast, the approach described above dismisses this approach altogether, and instead focuses on building rapport and properly managing the relationships you already have. The usefulness of this approach is not limited to men dealing with wimmin of particular interest, but extends to men dealing with most anyone, not just women in relationships.

As you can see, the practice of wife/daughter/COPs/et al. management is not focused on extracting certain feelings or responses from them, but is about asserting masculine authority, assuming control of the interaction, harnessing the motivations in play, and guiding, moulding, and shaping the feelings and responses of others that are already in circulation.

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 Agency, Building Wealth, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Choosing A Profession, Collective Strength, Communications, Confidence, Conserving Power, Courtship and Marriage, Discernment, Wisdom, Fundamental Frame, Game Theory, Headship and Patriarchy, Health and Fitness, Holding Frame, Inner Game, Introspection, Leadership, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Power, Psychology, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, The Power of God, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

106 Responses to Harnessing the Motivations of Others

  1. thedeti says:

    The only thing that really speaks to me here is making clear that women have a choice.

    “Step into my frame, or make your own frame by yourself.”

    “Submit to my headship, or leave.”

    “Sex as often as we both reasonably want and need it, or leave.”

    Women do this to men all the time. “These are my boundaries, wants, needs, and expectations for a relationship with you. If at any time I judge you unable or unwilling to meet them, I’ll break up with you.” In fact, this isn’t even really stated. A typical woman will just end the relationship one day for reasons totally and completely unknown to him. She was constantly and silently judging and evaluating him, and continually finding him lacking in one or more areas. As a consequence, she simply breaks up with him.

    Men can simply be more clear and explicit in their expectations. “I need ABCXYZ. If you can’t or won’t do that, I will end the relationship.”

    Women always have the choice to leave. Women can always leave. Women leave hours long meetings after a first date. Women leave decades long marriages (and take cash and prizes when they do). Women can always leave. Men can help by making this clear at the outset.

    Women can help by not getting offended when men explicitly set this out. One of the problems with the “you have a choice” approach is that women get so p!ssy and offended when you tell them this. “I know I have that choice! You don’t have to spell the obvious out for me!” Or “What, are you TRYING to get me to leave? Are you TRYING to get me to break up with you??”

    What women are really saying here, I think, is…

    “You, man, are trying to take control over the relationship and how it goes. You don’t get to do that. Relationships are women’s province, and I am going to control and direct it. You just shut up and do what I say. You just shut up and do what I want, or I will not have sex with you. You just shut up and do what I want, or I will leave. You don’t get to give me choices. I already have them. Because we’re equal. So sit the F down, shut the F up, and start getting about the business of serving me and giving me what I want.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      It would really help if women would stop trying to control and dictate every little aspect of their relationships.

      It would help if women would stop marrying men they’re not all that sexually attracted to merely so they can get status points with the sisterhood and money for kids.

      It would really help if women would submit to their husbands in all things.

      It would help if men would stop falling all over themselves for once-every-other-month starfish for 5 minutes and “would you please hurry up and finish so I can get up and expel the icky beta-@$$ sperm you’re going to ejaculate into me?”

      It would help if men can learn this stuff so they refuse to accept this kind of crappy treatment from women.

      Like

      • Lastmod says:

        It’s not that they have not “learned” Deti, the info has been out there for a bit now, and the results are in:

        Marriage is down. Co-habitating is way up… but laws are being changed (and already have been) right now so that “living together” equals “marriage”, and therefore Alimony and treating “co-habitation” in court “like” a divorce when the breakup happens is becoming the norm.

        Also, many men… the men who DO have options TO marry are not, or they are waiting much longer…. or they have a kid with someone and never marry and get raped that way.

        And…… there is a continually growing number of men who are deemed “creepy / ugly / losers / too nice / not nice enough / not hot enough / not rich enough”. Thirty years ago these same men would have just been considered “average / okay / good” and probably would have made decent husbands, but are now considered “out” and “not worth even dating” by a huge swath of women. Hence MGTOW and the whole alphabet soup of the kinds of men that fall on this end.

        In 2014, Dr. Helen Smith published Men On Strike, and it’s probably the best book on this trend in a topical sense. Strike is not the best word to use…… Many men today don’t even make the cut to be put in batting order.

        She was on a Fox News talk morning program at that time promoting the book. All of the women and the men on this show disagreed with her premise. She coolly dealt with the retorts of: “Well, men just need to grow up.” “Come on guys, I mean, we girls are showing up, stepping up, we expect you to do the same.” “Why do men who behave like this have to have a WOMAN write about this, says to me that these men just are avoiding responsibility.”

        She replied, “You all here are elites in this aspect. Highly educated, highly paid. Very elite positions and careers. Marriage is becoming an upper class / upper middle class thing now; you need to be out on the ground and see what most men live with daily.”

        She was not asked back. One host made it about “Obama and his policies” and she was smart enough to not even answer that.

        So Deti, the info is there. Many are listening. Many never had a chance anyway and still too many are saying, “My girl / finace would NEVER do that to ME!”

        …and the thirst and justification for sex is made in itself as the only reason to live.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “It would really help if women would stop trying to control and dictate every little aspect of their relationships.

        It would help if women would stop marrying men they’re not all that sexually attracted to merely so they can get status points with the sisterhood and money for kids.

        It would really help if women would submit to their husbands in all things.”

        The first sentence makes the second sentence a foregone conclusion and the third sentence fantasy.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        @ lastmod

        I’m watching the young people at work – to get married to a reasonably good looking girl you have to have a good job. The type of corporate job I have seems to do (you don’t have to be senior law partner or a doctor).

        I’ll even use real first names. These are young people in early to mid 20s.

        Tyler. Average height, doesn’t lift. Starting to bald. His voice is a bit squeaky like a teenager. He looks like a typical Mormon missionary to me – a bit of that boyish, boyscout look. Nice looking young wife – normal – not a model or “smokin’ hot.” She kept wanting him to get her pregnant but he wanted to wait to get a puppy and a better car (a Tesla). He finally got her pregnant recently. They seem happy.

        Daniel. Skinny with small arms a little bit of pot-belly/ love handles. A bit effeminate. Average height. Stands with his hands on hips. Doesn’t come off as gay necessarily but if you’d told me he was I wouldn’t have been shocked. His wife is a thin, reasonably attractive Asian girl (her teeth are a bit big). Again, not a model, but not fat, no tattoos or piercings.

        Allison. Really cute redhead with a pretty nice bod I’m not gonna lie. Just looked her up on social media as I hadn’t met her husband. Normal looking guy. Not muscular or athletic. Not good looking. Not ugly either. In a team meeting, she recently said her best moment in life was when he proposed to her so she seems to be happy so far.

        K (ok – I don’t want to use her first name). Really cute girl in late 20s. Husband is average looking, his body a bit frumpy. No evidence he exercises. They seem happy. He just made associate manager. Again he’s successful in the corporate world. She says she loves him – who knows.

        All these men have reasonably good jobs. Now maybe the marriages will fail or maybe they’re not happy marriages. Maybe sex isn’t frequent, IDK.

        I do not believe only the top 20% of men in terms of looks can get married. From what I see, you need to be at least average looking and have a good (white collar) job.

        So far, my sons don’t seem to want to go to college. Maybe they’re screwed unless they join a religious “cult” — who knows.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “I do not believe only the top 20% of men in terms of looks can get married. From what I see, you need to be at least average looking and have a good (white collar) job.”

        Cam, anybody can get married if they settle hard enough and lower their standards far enough.

        I guarantee you there’s not much sexual attraction from the women to their husbands. Just enough for the women to justify marrying them. Those women are probably very willing to have sex with their husbands. It’s just that they don’t really WANT to have sex with their husbands.

        It’s kind of like women eating their vegetables or do some exercise. It’s like Elspeth and her running/jogging. She is willing to do it but doesn’t really want to. She’ll do it, she just isn’t really gung ho and enthusiastic about it. It’s never, “HELL YES let’s get out there and eat some veggies!” or “Wow, I want to run so bad I can hardly stand it!”

        It’s more like, “I like veggies and running well enough. I’ll eat them and run because I know they’re good for me and there’s benefits to my doing them. I need to do these things for my health and because not doing them over the long term is worse than doing them. The pain I’ll have from not doing them is worse than the mild discomfort and awkwardness I get from doing them. I don’t really want to eat veggies. I don’t really want to run and exercise. But I will do those things, I am willing to do those things, because I get more benefits from doing them than I would get from not doing them.”

        Whereas, sex with Chad is “H3LL YES!!! I’m all about it! Bring me that Chadsex RIGHT NOW!! Bad consequences? Bad stuff could happen? Who gives a sh!t? He’s HAWT and I need that Chadsex RIGHT NOW!!”

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah I don’t know about these young people’s sex lives. I’ve heard enough stories of “once a month” but I haven’t asked this particular crop of young ‘uns.

        Incidentally, another area where HVM’s win. HVM’s wives tend to remain thin. Average and especially below average men’s wives tend to turn into water buffalos, sometimes shockingly soon after marriage. I’ve seen this time and again. It’s pretty messed up because you so often see the women lose weight right when they decide they want to get a man. So they know men want non-obese women but you can’t help but get the feeling that he ain’t HVM for her to keep herself at a reasonably normal weight. It’s really a kind of fraud.

        Again, men, just know where you are in the SMV in order to assess your situation realistically. If you’re American and not HVM you will likely end up with a big girl sooner than later. If you’re ok with that then, hey, cool.

        This may be why men like Nova prefer VERY skinny women. Yeah it’s not the ideal but she’s less likely to turn into Jabba the Hut.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        “This may be why men like Nova prefer VERY skinny women. Yeah it’s not the ideal but she’s less likely to turn into Jabba the Hut.”

        Yeah, in general, people slowly gain weight as they age. Metabolism slows down and the intensity of physical activity decreases. A person who looks fine in high school will be battling the bulge in 20 years, whereas women who are anemic in high school look pretty nice come middle age.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      @thedeti,

      “A typical woman will just end the relationship one day for reasons totally and completely unknown to him. She was constantly and silently judging and evaluating him, and continually finding him lacking in one or more areas. As a consequence, she simply breaks up with him.”

      This is a specific example of the widespread generalized disaffection I mentioned in the introduction. She never put her heart into the relationship. She didn’t have any ego investment. He was just her entertainment for the day.

      “Women always have the choice to leave. Women can always leave. Women leave hours long meetings after a first date. Women leave decades long marriages (and take cash and prizes when they do). Women can always leave.”

      One interpretation of the main concept of this post is that women leave because they never really made any investment in the relationship. Women will only stay when they have some kind of interest to do so. This interest might be visceral (e.g. Tingles), financial (e.g. he’s wealthy), or it could be something more wholesome (e.g. genuine attraction, love, mutual life purpose, shared enterprises, etc.).

      “Men can help by making this clear at the outset.”

      Yes, but that’s making the relationship more transactional than genuine, and this changes the nature of the relationship. Furthermore, if a man only gives her a “take it or leave it”, then that doesn’t necessarily give her any motivation to continue the relationship. It might, if it comes off as Dread, but that would mean she actually has a deeper interest in staying with him. Dread won’t work otherwise. It might be better if men could identify the woman’s motivations, and determine whether she is truly interested in him, or else just using him for fun, entertainment, free meals, a source of child support, etc. IOW, is her heart really in it? Things like IOIs and IOCs would be clues.

      “Women can help by not getting offended when men explicitly set this [choice] out. One of the problems with the “you have a choice” approach is that women get so p!ssy and offended when you tell them this.”

      The technique of offering a choice may not be advantageous in every case. In this case, women get offended because that’s putting the ball in her court, assigning her the responsibility for the success of the relationship. Women don’t want to think about this. What they want is to discover a motivation that would cause this choice to never be called into question. Sticking this choice to a woman also reveals a lack of confidence and faith on behalf of the man. It would be better for him to read her interest and tap into her motivations, such that it is a foregone conclusion for her to continue.

      Think of each woman/person like a bundle of unique wants, needs, and desires. There is potential energy there that can be transferred into momentum. As an analogy, we could think of women like an older car. If you step on the gas, it goes somewhere. If you step on the brake, it slows down. Women are not like new Teslas, where you tell it where you want to go and it automatically takes you there. Also, you can’t give a Tesla a choice about where to go. (Or maybe you can, I don’t know.) In this sense, men need to take drivers ed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • redpillboomer says:

        “One interpretation of the main concept of this post is that women leave because they never really made any investment in the relationship. They will only stay when they have some kind of interest to do so. This interest might be visceral (e.g. Tingles), financial (e.g. he’s wealthy), or it could be something more wholesome (e.g. genuine attraction, love, mutual life purpose, shared enterprises, etc.)”

        I talked with a guy today who is having relational problems with his wife of 11 years. This has been an on again, off again thing in their marriage, reoccurring every three or four years (the cycle). He’s given me the history and the timeline of things that have happened, and here’s the thing I’d say I’d add to the “They (the female) never really made an investment in the relationship” line. A few things about this situation leap out at me, especially Red Pill me:

        1) She was physically abused as a girl by a relative, diddled by grandpa… Big Red Flag #1.
        2) She has a child by Chad prior to marrying him. Huge Red Flag #2.
        3) Her N-Count, by her husband’s estimate, is “in the teens”. Serious Red Flag #3.
        4) She has had, in 11 years of marriage, at least TWO affairs on him. Killer Red Flag #4.

        They’re both fairly new Christians. She is a return to Christ after falling away from her childhood faith, and he’s a new believer, accepting Christ a couple years ago. Their Pastor is coming at it from the classic angle; the couple needs to work on better communication and get her some help in one of the Church’s recovery program (a good one by all accounts).

        Here’s the thing. A few years ago, I’d have said, “Great approach Pastor!” Now it’s like from my Red Pill lense, “OM freakin’ G!!! That’s some serious baggage she’s dragging around right there!” Apart from a divine intervention by God, always a possibility, this is a pretty deep hole to climb out of. Black hole anyone (?). I don’t see how, again apart from God, he/they can climb out of it. The reason she’s staying for the time being, the kids and her job, plus I’m guessing a pretty good double income lifestyle afforded by the two of them making good money. But he’s worried because her heart is “dead toward him”, and this time he doesn’t see it reviving. Not a good situation at all.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        @RPB,
        That’s a sorry tale. The Red Pill lens sure helps you size up their situation more realistically. In a way, it also gives you a greater appreciation for the grace of God at work.

        Putting their story in the terms laid out in this post, physical/sexual abuse chokes off one’s ability to trust and reduces one’s ability to make ego investments. Plus, she has already invested whatever was left of herself all over town and has nothing left of herself to invest in her husband and the marriage relationship. Hence, every good thing must now be done as an act of the will which is really tiring and uninspiring. Her lack of heart and emotional brokenness/neediness might explain her promiscuity. The motivation at this point would be any shared enterprises and whatever she or the two of them might make of the situation. You mentioned that they’re sitting well financially and they have children, so maybe that will be sufficient, by the grace of God. It will be a miracle if they can pull through the long haul together.

        “…the couple needs to work on better communication…”

        I’ve heard this one too many times, and it never works out. The problem is not ever communication. The problem is their ability and willingness to humble themselves, trust, and engage from the heart. Communication is from brain to brain. A heart to heart connection is what is needed to make real progress. The problem is, no more heart!

        Liked by 3 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “The problem is, no more heart!”

        Exactly. The heart needs to be restored and that’s a “God thing.” No Pastor, therapist or counselor can do it. This is one of the problems with childhood abuse and adult promiscuity (the CC), the down line consequences. Her husband likes to say, “We just need to move on from this (the cheating, etc.),” a popular cliche in our culture. Nothing could be further from the truth because there is no “moving on” without deep, inner healing; and in this case, healing inside the redemptive work of Christ.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        Reading over the OP and this reply, I’m starting to understand why more and more men are saying “f__k it” and walking away. The OP and this reply are a lot of work. Too much work. It’s geared more toward men saving bad marriages where the two of them never should have married because there’s not very much sexual attraction from her to him.

        Does anyone here think Mike does this much work for his marriage to Liz? Or that SAM does this to keep Elspeth happy? I’m pretty sure Scott doesn’t do this to keep things going well with Mychael. Those men don’t have to – because they’re married to women who were hard attracted and sexually aroused literally from the very first moment their wives met them.

        No. Mike, SAM, and Scott don’t have to do this work and never had to.

        This is why when you’re an unmarried man, you test for sexual attraction immediately and if she is not so sexually attracted to you she can’t see straight and she’ll do literally anything you want her to, you NEXT her, you tap out, and you nope out. The only way a man should be doing anything like this kind of work is to preserve a marriage for the sake of kids.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        @thedeti,

        “The OP and this reply are a lot of work. Too much work.”

        Yes, it is. We often hear the passage from Deuteronomy 6:4-7, Matthew 22:37-40, Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27

        Mark 12:30-31 (NKJV)
        30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

        …and we think that sounds really nice and wonderful. But when you truly understand what that really means, then you realize that “hard” doesn’t even begin to describe it. It’s more like, “That’s d@mn impossible!” So I can already see that the ideas in this post are going to be a challenge that few will care to take, except those who are already too far in over their heads to do anything else. As you said,

        “It’s geared more toward men saving bad marriages where the two of them never should have married because there’s not very much sexual attraction from her to him.”

        Yes, but the problem is much more than just the woman’s lack of sexual attraction towards the man. The problem is a depravity of the heart and soul. I was just listening to Jesse Peterson’s podcast. Coincidentally, he describes the same dynamic as in RPB’s story in response to one caller whose wife was cheating on him.


        (Sorry, I can’t provide a time stamp because it’s still streaming.)

        Here, Peterson says that people don’t get married because of love, they get married because there’s something about the other person that strokes their ego. This more or less agrees with the basic concept of the OP. But after marriage, they stop doing those things that appease the other’s ego, and the marriage slides downhill. He makes the point that this is not love at all, and outside of Christ, people are incapable of real love. The point I make in the OP is that people need to continue to appeal to the other person’s interest after marriage when it gets harder to do so. I should add that people can only do this as they grow to depend on God rather than the spouse. Also, Peterson makes reference to the ego as sort of a manifestation of the self-centered sinful soul and calls it evil. I try to get a little bit closer to the formal concept of the ego, but readers should know that neither of us are using the word in line with professional psychology. (I’m surprised Scott hasn’t called me out on this.) We’re adapting the word because it’s a concept that people can identify with. But even though we have a different conceptualization of the ego, both Peterson and I are driving at the same truth.

        “Those men don’t have to [do this much work] because they’re married to women who were hard attracted and sexually aroused literally from the very first moment their wives met them.”

        Yes, when you find a good match, one that glorifies God, then everything goes easier.

        “This is why when you’re an unmarried man, you test for sexual attraction immediately and if she is not so sexually attracted to you she can’t see straight and she’ll do literally anything you want her to, you NEXT her, you tap out, and you nope out.”

        I think there’s a lot more to it than just the woman’s genuine attraction to the man, but this is probably the best indicator we’ve identified so far that points to a deeper authentic attraction, as opposed to just using one another to gratify one’s self-centered interests or for an ego kick.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        And there are plenty of men and women who just accepted their vows before God / family in marriage. Their “word” meant something. My mom was not “head over heels with my dad” (my dad was with mom) when she first met him…

        But…

        When they married. Both were immigrants. Both in a “new” country and starting a new life. I honestly believe they did take “for better or worse / in sickness and in health / for richer or poorer” seriously. Many couples had and indeed did have decent marriages without the “I want to f*ck your brains out” attraction at first sight (and that theory alone means looks matter for everything).

        My parents were a good team. They got along very well. Had a great marriage. Their “word” meant something to themselves and to each other. I do believe many marriages survive because of the basic integrity of the couple involved too!

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Deti, I share the distaste for the “marriage is work” BS. The world is hard work and stress. The marriage is supposed to be solitude. If it’s work because she has 257 different emotional triggers or changes after you put a ring on it – well then I don’t want marriage and would advise young men not to marry. “Work” sounds all too much like female drama.

        I am willing to take Liz at her word that she wasn’t super duper get-wet attracted 3 microseconds from first sight. I still think most of what you’re getting at is correct. High value men are more likely to get what men are reasonably due out of marriage without lots of “work.” I don’t think marriage is nothing but sex but the culmination of male physical attraction to women in sex is a pretty big deal and pretty basic. Liz: “Mike and I have sex every day (Mike’s home).” Elspeth: “SAM cranks my engine 99% of the time.” Scott seems to do pretty well in this department. Mike told Liz recently how a stewardess showed him a pic of her bikinied ass. Mike is high value. Yeah, women can see potential high value in a very young man. Makes no difference to your argument.

        So the point isn’t that “life isn’t fair” or “women suck.” It’s so young men can make a reasonably informed risk assessment. If you’re not high value/attractive and you expect to be treated like Scott/SAM/Mike, you might be wise to be aware of the risk of failure.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron,

        “The marriage is supposed to be solitude.”

        I think you meant “solace”. Solitude is being alone. Solace is comfort, or refuge.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah good catch Oscar. My language skills aren’t great. I’m a bit more mathy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Lastmod, I have talked to a number of men in real life (not online in the manosphere) who have intimacy with their wives about once a month. These are younger men. My wife talks with young wives all the time in her Christian mom’s group who do not want to have sex with their husbands. These are young women married to decent men.

        Maybe this was adequate for our parents or grandparents and we’re sex-obsessed because of pron or whatever.

        But I’m guessing not. I’m guessing a lot of men would never have been happy with this. As Scott has said, to a large extent men’s “love language” is physical intimacy which includes sex. Scott is a Ph.D. psychologist who has counseled many men for over 20 years. I trust he knows what he is talking about.

        If I had a once-a-month marriage I’d be very unhappy with marriage. It may be that I’m of poorer moral character than your father (actually it’s likely).

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        Agree deti. When I met the couple, I thought to myself, “He’s got a nice one there. She looks like she’d be quite an enjoyable F for him.” Short, blonde, curvy, pretty, and she seemed like she had a nice sensuality about her just made for a man to enjoy.

        However, in listening to the husband give me their history, I’d say he has never had the chance to enjoy her the way he should have, even though the relationship produced two kids. And now, he’s got a dead bedroom and essentially just a roommate. Even though the wife is a thirty something, it seems such a waste of her still attractive feminine delights.

        Things are not always as they seem. Without the attraction, I’d agree with you; it’s not worth it for the guy because he has to spend so much time and energy trying to get something to work, i.e. sex, that should just work organically.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “I am willing to take Liz at her word that she wasn’t super duper get-wet attracted 3 microseconds from first sight.”

        Exceptions don’t negate the rule. That’s assuming Liz and Mike are exceptions, which I’m not necessarily willing to do. I don’t know everything about their relationship. I do know that women of Liz’ status are prone to describing their relationships so as to paint themselves in the best light possible and to make themselves look virtuous.

        “I don’t think marriage is nothing but sex but the culmination of male physical attraction to women in sex is a pretty big deal and pretty basic.”

        Yes, it is a big deal. It’s fundamental to marriage.

        “Liz: “Mike and I have sex every day (Mike’s home).”

        Which indicates hard, strong, and sustained sexual attraction. Which didn’t take time to develop and which cannot be developed through work. It exists organically, naturally, and immediately.

        So the point isn’t that “life isn’t fair” or “women suck.” It’s so young men can make a reasonably informed risk assessment.”

        Right. And most young men are not HVMs like Mike, SAM or Scott.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        RPB, Oh but it’s even worse because women can fake attraction and their attraction can (probably) temporarily increase in response to an opportunity to get a man. So I think this is probably why Scott and Deti emphasize the “she breaks all the rules for you, wants to f-your brains out” sort of thing. You’re less likely to get fooled – the attraction is more likely to be genuine and/or sustainable.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        She has said she was attracted to him from very early. Just not “hot at first sight.” I’ll take her at her word since I ask the same of her (we’re all anonymous commenters who don’t know each other in real life)

        And it makes no real difference to your point. He’s a highly attractive, HVM. Women don’t show me their asses. Blond bimbos don’t press their breasts into my back at work.

        Don’t even know why this would be controversial. Women are more enthusiastic about f-ing hawt guys. Women’s sex drive is more muted, therefore more discriminating. There’s a biological reason for this but a downside too if you’re not a hawt guy.

        Women don’t “need a man or I’ll starve” anymore. They can be more discriminating.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPB

        Talk about life being unfair. It’s obviously not that woman’s fault that she was abused as a kid. But it wasn’t her husband’s fault either. He never should have married her precisely for that reason.

        That may sound harsh, but again, it’s not his fault. He wasn’t responsible for the damage done, and he was under no obligation to try and fix it. Now that he’s married to her, though, he’s one flesh with her, and he’s stuck with the consequences of that decision.

        To use a less emotionally charged example, if a woman has $100k in student loan debt and a photography degree, taking family photos for $15/hour (I’m not making that up), a man should take a hard pass. That’s her debt, not his. Let her deal with it. If, on the other hand, he’s foolish enough to marry her, then it becomes his debt, because they are now one flesh. Now he has to deal with it.

        Back to the issue of childhood abuse. If a person (male or female) has done the years of work in therapy that it probably takes to heal from something that horrendous, they might be a good candidate for marriage then. Maybe. But that’s a huge risk to take. And, when it comes to marriage, you’re not just risking yourself, you’re risking your future children. That’s a tough call.

        That helps explain why there’s such a concerted effort to sexualize children at increasingly younger ages. The satanic people in charge love the idea of depopulation. Kids who get sexualized at very young ages often get screwed up for life. That leads to more broken families, more abortions, more abuse, and the cycle perpetuates itself.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        “My wife talks with young wives all the time in her Christian mom’s group who do not want to have sex with their husbands. These are young women married to decent men.”

        A dead bedroom despite the desires of the Husband is effectively a divorce falling under “sexual immorality”. The husband might as well make that formal if all else fails.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        My wife talks with young wives all the time in her Christian mom’s group who do not want to have sex with their husbands. These are young women married to decent men.

        Just more proof of what I’ve been saying: Most women are married to men they aren’t sexually attracted to and they don’t want to have sex with. Almost all the time, it’s because before they married and as younger women, they had sex with very physically and sexually attractive men who would not marry them and where it was just “for fun”. Almost all the time, it’s because they were never taught, trained, and instructed on how to be wives.

        In before *”but but but deti you just said you want those women to date those “nice men” and “good men” they say they want! But, but but they don’t want to have sex with those men! But they don’t like those men! So, if they marry those men they don’t want to have sex with, they’re just going to end up unhappy and divorcing anyway! Don’t the men have to do something to be attractive??”

        Stop having sex with men who won’t marry you. Stop having sex with men who won’t give you what you (say you) want. Start dating these “nice men” and “good men” you (say you) want before you have sex with other men. Pick a “good man” you like, latch onto him for life, do what he asks, and give him what he asks for. Do all that before you have sex with Chad and you amp up your taste for alphas to the point that mere mortals can’t satisfy you.

        Yes, “good men” have to do things to be attractive. But that’s a different matter. We’re not talking about what they have to do. We’re talking about what you have to do, because you are the ones complaining incessantly about this.

        Look, ladies: Do you want these “good men”, or not? If you do, then you have to do things to get them. You have to look for them, seek them out, find one, select him, and do whatever he asks. You have to actually do things to get these men. If not, then go back to the carousel, take the Chads, and stop complaining about this. Or, buy a cat, “work” your “jobs”, and die alone.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Oh deti, they got you covered buddy. I had this conversation in the comments section at Quillette a few years ago. Most so called “nice men” are nothing of the sort. They are usually, actually bad men who are just fooling women. Monsters that just pretend to be nice to trick women.

        What a kick in the gut to a decent man. Decent men get jack squat and then they even deny these men are decent, even if boring and unattractive.

        Anything to rationalize the carousel and it’s bad consequences.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        I had this conversation in the comments section at Quillette a few years ago. Most so called “nice men” are nothing of the sort. They are usually, actually bad men who are just fooling women. Monsters that just pretend to be nice to trick women.

        Oh yes. The Impostor: the player/pickup artist who faked being “nice” just to get into her pants. The beta who faked offering a relationship and who professed his love for her just to get into her pants.

        The “NiceGuy(TM)”: pretends to be a friend then turns dark and violent when his sexual advances are rebuffed.

        That’s why you don’t have sex with him. That’s why you do the work and you vet and screen.

        What a kick in the gut to a decent man. Decent men get jack squat and then they even deny these men are decent, even if boring and unattractive.

        Yeah. “Those men are all frauds and fakes. I’ve dated those ‘nice men’ before, and even they want sex!”

        What’s going on there is that women want “decent men” to just give them everything and never expect anything in return, even after they commit and marry those women. Because, to women, “decent men” don’t ever want sex. Women really do think “decent men” are asexual neutered males who give them money and rub their feet for free.

        The minute a “decent man” shows sexual interest or wants something in return for all this commitment he just promised, he’s an evil sex pervert or a cruel sexist misogynist who lied to her to get into her pants.

        Ridiculous.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Most so called “nice men” are nothing of the sort. They are usually, actually bad men who are just fooling women. Monsters that just pretend to be nice to trick women.

        Those are called male feminists.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Oscar,

        Virtually all people are feminists. Who doesn’t think women should vote? Ten people on the internet.

        The interaction I’m describing was about women justifying other women picking jerks because men who are nice guys don’t really exist. They are secretly jerks too.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron,

        I wrote a more thorough response below.

        Like

  2. Scott says:

    The ego basically tries to resolve the wildly variant drives between the Id and the Superego.

    He is like that one kid in the family who is constantly trying to keep the peace. If he can’t, you have schisms. (Hence terms like Schizophrenia and Borderline–a disorder that exists on a three-way “border” between sanity–insanity–dissociation)

    This is why Borderlines are so indifferent to being confronted about the damage they do. They given up trying to resolve that conflict by basically putting the ego to sleep. They don’t see the wreck left behind them as a problem.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott says:

      This is what the term “egosyntonic” means. “All of my drives and resulting behaviors are totally consistent and cool with my ego (and the outside world), because I killed it.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Interesting. This requires killing the ego. I find that fascinating, because one of the first things they tell men in Red Pill is “kill your ego”. I suppose what that really means is “swallow your pride”. Because your “ego”. your “self”, your mind, will, and emotions, aren’t getting killed. Just your pride is.

        But thinking it through, from a pure scientific/psychological sense, this makes sense. If in schizos and borderlines you have the id and superego murdering the individual’s “self”, the “ego”, then all you’re left with is the raw primal drives and the moral/right/wrong/good/evil/beautiful/ugly. The superego moralizes and justifies the id’s drives.

        And the individual does not know who s/he is. There is no “self”. There are only the base drives (survive, hunger, and sex) and the moral (good/right). “Whatever I do, want, or need is good and right and beneficial, because it serves those immediate drives. If I cannot justify it and make it good and right and beneficial, then it doesn’t compute. Anything that doesn’t serve those interests is bad and wrong and detrimental.”

        This is why these people have no sense of identity and are whipped about from whim to whim, fancy to fancy, person to person. They don’t know who they are because their egos are suppressed and buried under mountains of id (raw primal drives) and superego (the constant need to resolve moral dilemmas presented by the id’s activities). They have no identities beyond satisfying and justifying base desires.

        Mind blown. Thanks for that insight Scott.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        @thedeti,

        “…one of the first things they tell men in Red Pill is “kill your ego”. I suppose what that really means is “swallow your pride”. Because your “ego”. your “self”, your mind, will, and emotions, aren’t getting killed. Just your pride is.”

        I noticed this dual usage or multiple definition of the terms before (“ego” and “pride”) and wrote a few studies on it.

        Apprehending True Humility

        The Egosyntonic Art of Tone Policing

        Reevaluating the Centrality of the Male Ego

        Like

    • Jack says:

      @Scott,

      “The ego basically tries to resolve the wildly variant drives between the Id and the Superego.”

      Thanks, Scott. The way I understand the ego is that it is the psychological interface between the heart, mind, soul, and physical reality, including other people. A person who has a weak, poorly adjusted, or non-existent ego is therefore unable to bridge the gaps between those three aspects of the self and reality.

      “This is why Borderlines are so indifferent to being confronted about the damage they do. They given up trying to resolve that conflict by basically putting the ego to sleep.”

      Speaking from personal experience, I would guess that people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder have a similar issue.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Yes.

        The Id tells you: “Chocolate tastes awesome. Eat more. Eat more and more and more!!!”

        The Superego tells you: “Chocolate is junk food and if you eat it, it will kill you because its super bad for you, is fatty, sugary, crap. You are a horrible person for even wanting it, you fat pig.”

        The ego tells you: “Chocolate is generally not a health food, that is true. It has some good properties, but mostly bad ones. It tastes good, and in moderation will not really do any harm. Have some chocolate, then stop after a few bites and you will be fine.”

        Without the ego, we go crazy, and act crazy.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Oscar says:

      Freud was a cowardly, atheistic, degenerate coke-addict, but I think he stumbled onto some truth with his idea of the id, ego, and superego.

      That concept mirrors the Biblical concept of the body (soma, in Greek), the soul (psyche, in Greek), and the spirit (pneuma, in Greek). If we are regenerate, the spirit (pneuma) pulls us towards God. The body (soma, or the flesh) will never be regenerate. It’s made from the ground that was cursed for our sake (Genesis 3:17-19). It therefore pulls us towards sin. The soul (psyche) is stuck in between. We have free will to choose either side, and the way we choose the way of the spirit, as opposed to the way of the flesh, is by renewing our minds, and submitting our will to God’s (Romans 12:2).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        @Oscar,

        “…the id, ego, and superego … mirrors the Biblical concept of the body (soma, in Greek), the soul (psyche, in Greek), and the spirit (pneuma, in Greek).”

        I like to see readers put concepts together like this. In general, drawing such kinds of associations is called superposition (but it has many other names as well, e.g. gestalt, holism, et al.) and it is a powerful frame enhancer! You’ll find that the same ideas are discussed in different fields and contexts, just using different perspectives and terminologies. Once you understand this, your cognitions and understanding can branch out and expand rather easily. See Σ Frame Axiom 1, AKA The Law of Gestalt.

        Like

    • info says:

      There is a higher correlation with criminal activity. So I think Capital Punishment was a way to remove those personality disorders.

      Like

  3. Devon70 says:

    Women can feign real interest until the marriage and then things can change. I don’t like making points with actors but Johnny Depp is an example of how lopsided the current system is and the difficulty men have in getting some measure of justice. There is ample evidence that she is a monster and yet her career continues and his career has been destroyed. The point isn’t that all or most women will do this but any woman can do this.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. feeriker says:

    “Incidentally, another area where HVM’s win. HVM’s wives tend to remain thin. Average and especially below average men’s wives tend to turn into water buffalos, sometimes shockingly soon after marriage. I’ve seen this time and again. It’s pretty messed up because you so often see the women lose weight right when they decide they want to get a man. So they know men want non-obese women but you can’t help but get the feeling that he ain’t HVM for her to keep herself at a reasonably normal weight. It’s really a kind of fraud.”

    It would be utterly unsurprising to me to learn that low-value women who marry Steady-Eddie guys to whom they’re not really attracted to sexually indulge in overeating as a way of compensating for the fact that they didn’t get the man they wanted (i.e., a handyman billionaire hunk who is lightyears out of their league). Packing away the groceries and turning into a landwhale is another way for them to say, “F##k you, loser!”

    Liked by 6 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I’ve seen it with normal women – girls that were reasonably cute. Marry boring Bob and chunk up a bunch. You see it much less with those who get HVMs. It’s a pattern you notice.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron – It’s pretty easy to tell the ones who don’t want to put in the effort and know they don’t have to.

        Liked by 1 person

    • anonymous_ng says:

      Well, I wouldn’t be surprised by that either, but I suspect that the truth is that the kind of woman who can land a HVM is similarly disciplined and driven with a long-term time horizon, and thus stays thin because getting fat would lower her standard amongst her peers.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I guess except that I see it among middle class and upper middle class women too. I think it’s because the woman values the man enough and she’s also afraid if she chunks up some other chick will grab his attention.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Also the pattern I often see is that they lose weight when they want to get a man. They’re long-term horizon driven enough to lose weight and keep it off long enough to get a man and they already had the low status of a fattie among their peers pre-losing-weight-to-get-a-man.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Cameron,

        “Also the pattern I often see is that they lose weight when they want to get a man. They’re long-term horizon driven enough to lose weight and keep it off long enough to get a man and they already had the low status of a fattie among their peers pre-losing-weight-to-get-a-man.”

        If you know a married couple, both of whom have social media accounts, you can predict the end based on the online behavior of the wife. One of those behaviors includes all of the sudden getting in shape. This, of course, is not a stand alone one. It would be wonderful if overweight spouses did this, just because.

        However, on social media, it is a part of a larger array of stuff you will see, and within 6 months they are separated/divorcing.

        — She stops “tagging” him in photos.
        — She posts pictures of “girls night out” complete with drinks in both hands at some bar.
        — She stops sharing things that would normally be a part of a couples life together. “Happy birthday to my sweet husband!” and “Happy anniversary baby!”
        — She starts hanging out with friends from high school that you have never heard of and posting pictures of it.
        — She starts going to the gym and posting pictures of how tight her body is getting.
        — She takes a vacation with the kids and not him.

        Stuff like that.

        The husband is usually not tracking any of this. Then, all the sudden the post comes:

        “Jim and I have decided to separate… blah blah.”

        Jim goes totally dark on social media.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        And not to put too fine a point on it, but the entire world that they inhabit will blame him for all of this.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Scott says:

        And by the way, from aggregated risk factor analysis, this is when Jim is most likely to kill himself.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Keep a close eye on your buddies who might be going through this stuff. There is a window of about 90 days after the initial divorce hits when their suicide risk goes through the roof. Don’t let them out of your sight if you have to. Make them sleep in the same room with you if you have to.

        Liked by 4 people

  5. anonymous_ng says:

    Everyone always says that communication is the problem, and often communication is the problem, but not in the way that well meaning preacherman means.

    Too often, people are using words without agreeing on what they mean. To use a ridiculous, but not ridiculous example. A wife may say that she needs her husband to be more supportive, but what she really means is that she wants him to ask her about her day, and to then listen for understanding, not for solutions. She thinks that she’s communicating.

    He says that they don’t have sex enough, but there is no measure of what constitutes enough, and her hamster brain runs away with things, gets offended, and nothing happens.

    Jack wrote some time back about sitting down with his wife and spelling out his expectations in detail. IMO, this is the first part of “communication” that’s missing, clear expectations.

    There’s a reason that contracts and legislation spend so much time on definitions.

    A friend points out that when people get married, they have to negotiate everything because the wife thinks what she is used to is the right and proper way to do things, the husband thinks that what he is used to is the right and proper way of things, and they need to decide how they are going to do things.

    Liked by 3 people

    • caterpillar345 says:

      Jordan Peterson has given lots of practical advice to this end in various Q & A’s. It seems to me a lot of couples have never really sat down and tried to sort down through the surface-level “be more supportive” lines and had a dispassionate conversation about how to solve a problem in a way that both people would find amenable. Maybe that’s not possible for a lot of couples.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      “He says that they don’t have sex enough…”

      The minute you have to negotiate for a number per week/month whatever, your marriage is over.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Shouldn’t be a negotiation. I agree — if it is, your marriage sucks.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Every time after that, for the rest of your life you will wonder.

        Is she doing this to meet the quota, or because she really wants me?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott,

        “The minute you have to negotiate for a number per week/month whatever, your marriage is over.”

        Not necessarily true if you are stubborn as H-E-double hockey sticks. February of 2020 started my trial and error (mostly error) phase and the first major error was negotiating a number which started at 1x weekly because she wasn’t attracted at all to, nor respected, that version of me. That wasn’t enough, so I pushed for 2x a week and got it. Then that wasn’t enough and eventually I had thought about 1 Cor 7 to the extent that the simple truth of the passage clicked.

        The ensuing conversations were a tussle and I may have made an analogy or two about the farmer not having to negotiate with the cow for milk. In the end, we now have a policy of “any time either of us wants to” which goes both ways. I want more than Mrs. A does, but there are times when I hear the code words (little kids in the house) that Mrs. A is requesting the “benevolence due her”.

        Negotiation is where I started. It is not where I ended which is the important point. The negotiated terms were a step in the sanctification process for each of us. For me, it was wrestling with biblical truth and developing strength in headship which took time and deprogramming. For my wife, it was wrestling with biblical truth and developing strength in submission and obedience.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        RPA,

        “Negotiation is where I started. It is not where I ended which is the important point. The negotiated terms were a step in the sanctification process for each of us.”

        Quibbles approaching. I wouldn’t consider this a “negotiation” with the wife, per se. I would call it “stating your expectations” or maybe “planning a schedule for sex”, both of which are masculine initiates. I think your idea of “negotiation” is just the way you adopted a determined attitude to get things straightened out. “I’m not gonna take this crap any more! I’m gonna do something about it!” In fact, you were negotiating with yourself and your power and ability to extract a desired response from her. “Can I really get more sex out of my wife?” To “win” this self-negotiation, you had to BELIEVE that you are truly the Head of both the house and the bedroom.

        “For me, it was wrestling with biblical truth and developing strength in headship which took time and deprogramming. For my wife, it was wrestling with biblical truth and developing strength in submission and obedience.”

        Yeah, I think this is a better account of what really made the difference.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        RPA,

        That sounds like a lot of work to just get “whenever either of us wants it”, which should be the norm.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Scott,

        It was a ton of work, the work her parents should have done raising her. I personally would recommend avoiding getting to the situation I found myself in. Sin had been embedded and normalized for 17 years. I had been raised drinking from the blue pill fountain of happy wife happy life and she had been raised to be strong and independent. Hindsight being what it is, I probably could have nipped it in the bud around week 2 of the marriage, but God had me learning lessons the hard way. I guess that is what I needed to be convinced the lessons about marriage and women I was taught growing up were wrong. My aim is to guide other men away from my mistakes.

        The results of the effort are that I have a wife that will wear lingerie around the house for me when the kids are at school, gives me input and then defers to me on decisions, generally tries to help me and will cop a feel when she walks by me. It’s not how I would have planned the course of events but things seem to be working out. On a deeper note, I have a much greater appreciation for what Christ does for me on a daily basis because to him I am the same as my wife was to me. I don’t know why he puts up with me, but I am glad he does.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Jack says:

        RPA,

        “I had been raised drinking from the blue pill fountain of happy wife happy life and she had been raised to be strong and independent. Hindsight being what it is, I probably could have nipped it in the bud around week 2 of the marriage, but God had me learning lessons the hard way. I guess that is what I needed to be convinced the lessons about marriage and women I was taught growing up were wrong.”

        Just be thankful you “got it.” The Blue Pill breeds a satisfying paradigm of complacency in men (H/T: CH’s “pretty lies”), and I think this is because it absolves them from much of the inner game types of responsibilities of being a man (e.g. defending boundaries, detachment, maintaining frame, masculine aggressiveness, etc.). It also appeases the inner cuck (viz. the curse of Adam) that lies dormant in all men. In the terms presented in this post, the Blue Pill appeals to all the wrong sorts of motivations in men. As a result, the Blue Pill delusion is a very difficult one to wake up from. Most men can’t do it unless they experience a soul rending catastrophe in their relationships.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. feeriker says:

    “Shouldn’t be a negotiation. I agree – if it is your marriage sucks.”

    It seems that most marriages suck.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. “It’s pretty messed up because you so often see the women lose weight right when they decide they want to get a man.”

    Yeah, or after a break-up when they call it a “revenge bod” — as if they had any intentions of getting fit while still in the relationship! Some good friends got divorced after 30 years. Lots of issues, but the wife completely let herself go until after the divorce. Now she’s trimmed down.

    “If I had a once-a-month marriage I’d be very unhappy with marriage.”

    Once a month?! That’s a dead bedroom to me. Even in the depths of all my cancer treatments we did better than that (nausea is not an aphrodisiac, but you have some decent days . . .).

    The couple above had sex about once a year, and only when she was drunk. She thought the marriage was a 7 or an 8. I’ll bet she changes that pattern with the next guy — at least for a while.

    I read Every Man’s Battle about 20 years ago. (Yeah, I know now that the authors have issues and the content was of mixed value.) But they did have something in there about guys needing/wanting sex again after 3 days or so. I shared that with Mrs. EM and it seems to have stuck. She shared it with her friends, and they hated the concept! They were too busy manipulating their husbands with sex, and getting fat. She saw the consequences of that and realizes it is a terrible idea.

    I assume other couples have the same pattern where sex is sometimes “hotter” than other times. Obligation Sex wouldn’t be much fun if she was just starfishing it, but the occasional, “I’m super tired, but you can have fun” is OK. The worst for me was early in the marriage, when it was “I just want to get pregnant” sex.

    Many years ago, we were driving separately from a church meeting and got caught in flash floodwater that was nearly up to our knees. I got through OK, but she temporarily stalled. We were getting soaking wet regardless, but I carried her from the car through the water. I thought nothing of it because I did it partly as a joke (I think she could have walked through just fine) and just wanted to get the cars home and deal with the carnage. But when we got home, she couldn’t get my clothes off fast enough. To her, it was some huge turn-on that I had “rescued” her. Now if I could only rescue her from a natural disaster on a regular basis, I’d really be rocking.

    “Incidentally, another area where HVM’s win. HVM’s wives tend to remain thin. Average and especially below average men’s wives tend to turn into water buffalos, sometimes shockingly soon after marriage.”

    I think I mentioned elsewhere that I made my wife cry when we were in college by pointing out that she had gained weight. For years I felt bad for hurting her feelings, but now I realize that I was using Accidental Dread Game and did her a huge favor. She’s always stayed fit and is now a Pilates instructor (retirement gig) and excellent ballroom dancer. And I stayed fit myself, which put positive pressure on her. She had friends who hated it when their husbands got fit because it made the women look even more fat.

    Liked by 2 people

    • P.S. The “Keep your man’s balls empty” meme at your “supports his ego” link in the OP should be a standard part of pre-marital counseling. That’s some of the best advice women could get. Granted, few women have that attitude, but I’ll bet the ones that do have husbands who don’t divorce them or cheat on them.

      P.S.S. to “As a parent of two children, I’ve discovered a very helpful technique in getting kids to do things and/or do things properly, and that is to always offer them a choice.”

      Agreed. We read a book called Parenting with Love and Logic that had some good advice. The kids needed to learn “Basic German Shepherd” — i.e., safety rules like stop, come, go, wear your seatbelt, etc., but wherever possible, you gave them choices. It reduced conflict and helped teach them to think for themselves. Instead of getting into a battle about clothes, you’d say, “Step outside and decide if you want to wear a coat today.” You let them live with consequences at a time when they aren’t too expensive. If they didn’t wear a coat, then they’d be cold and think differently the next time. But they wouldn’t die. I overheard one of my kids once saying, “My parents don’t care about grades.” I laughed to myself because, of course, we cared a lot. But we knew our kids, and they were intrinsically motivated and checked their grades obsessively. Why add superfluous pressure? If they had slacked off, then we would have said something, but they rocked along with straight A’s, so we could just celebrate with them and encourage them.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        EM,

        “You let them live with consequences at a time when they aren’t too expensive.”

        Me and Mrs. A live by this with 2 grade school aged boys. They learn best by natural consequences and we only intervene in setting boundaries that keep the consequences age appropriate. The world is a much harsher teacher with much steeper penalties so it’s better they learn the lessons early under my guidance.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      @EM, thanks~!

      “The worst for me was early in the marriage, when it was “I just want to get pregnant” sex.”

      I know what this is like. No genuine passion, tenderness, or empathy. I felt like my wife wasn’t human at all; she was just a clumsy monkey trying to get herself off on me. Single guys might find this hard to grasp, but it wasn’t appealing at all. It was so embarassing that I’d have rather read a book. But I remembered 1 Corinthians 7:5, put on a smile, and let her do her thing. What I discovered is that it really meant a lot to her, and it increased her genuine affection for me over time. It would be nice if defrauding wives would realize this and do the same for their husbands.

      To revisit the OP again, tap into that motivation! Don’t ignore it or refuse it.

      “And I stayed fit myself, which put positive pressure on her. She had friends who hated it when their husbands got fit because it made the women look even more fat.”

      This is what I call Contextual Dread Game. There’s no verbal exchange, but it is implied through the context of raising one’s SMV. Women hate it, not only because it makes them look like sedated cows, but also because it shifts the balance of control by opening up more “opportunities” for the man.

      It’s yet another example of tapping into her motivation.

      “Keep your man’s balls empty” …should be a standard part of pre-marital counseling. That’s some of the best advice women could get.

      Yes, women can motivate men as well, very easily too, if they care to do so.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Lastmod says:

    “If I had a once-a-month marriage I’d be very unhappy with marriage. It may be that I’m of poorer moral character than your father (actually it’s likely).”

    Where did I say my parents had no sex??? I heard them plenty growing up.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      I wasn’t referring to your parents Jason. I was referring to the men who I’ve spoken with at work who tell me their wife is up for once a month. I’m not a very good writer so sorry for the confusion.

      Like

  9. Sharkly says:

    “Which indicates hard, strong, and sustained sexual attraction. Which didn’t take time to develop and which cannot be developed through work.”

    While I agree with that generally, I will also disagree and say that a person, even a woman, can work to develop their attraction to their mate.

    Yes, it doesn’t come easy, and lazy wh0res are not likely to attempt things that require effort, especially when it is more their nature to blame their partner for their own unfaithfulness to him. But women are capable of doing what is right, and even learning to enjoy doing right, and that is also why they will be responsible before God for their actions, because they can indeed do right and learn to desire to do what is right.

    If I recall correctly, I read an article by a woman who had a dead bedroom marriage who committed to having sex with her husband every single day for a month, and after the month she reported being far more interested in having sex with him, and was in fact getting wet in anticipation of when he would arrive home.

    Here is a similar story I found:

    ABC News: Sex Every Day for a Month? Utah Couple’s Experiment Leads to Greater Intimacy (2014-8-7)

    I’m not saying that the story is proof, I’m just saying that there are things a woman can do to heighten her attraction to her mate. She just has to choose to do them. But due to the satanic society we live in, ruled completely by satanic Feminist lies, (even in churches) women are not likely to do the things that would lead them to develop and show greater respect for their husbands, when all institutions of society (including churches) are pushing them to have contempt for their husbands and to deny their husbands the respect, submission, and the reverence that is due them, things that would serve to rev up women’s attraction to their husbands. The woman in the story developed greater sexual attraction to her own husband merely by stopping her satanic habit of continually denying him sexually.

    While ideally today’s women shouldn’t overwhelmingly be satanic wh0res who fail to respect their husbands, women can certainly choose to reverence their own husbands as God commands them to in Ephesians 5:33. And great reverence is a solid basis for vagina tingles. The problem is that the concept of men being the image and glory of God, the Patriarchal Father and His Son, worthy to be obeyed in everything, has been under attack by Satan ever since Genesis 3.

    In the very early church when patriarchs were highly esteemed and were able to rule over their families with full authority and women were taught that they were not the image of God but were to be under subjection and to adorn themselves with shamefacedness, the church at that time reported that wives were the sexual aggressors constantly filled with earthly lust for their husbands. I fully believe the patristic age fathers of the earliest church were accurately describing the situation on the ground at that point, when they described the majority of church women as being filled with fleshly passion for their husbands.

    We’ve just had a complete cultural inversion since then where women are now consistently taught that they are equal to or greater than their husbands leading them to generally disregard their mates. You don’t look up to an equal. Feminism is the tingle killer. Of course it helps to be handsome, and for the infatuation to be “at first sight”, but even that instant infatuation didn’t keep many handsome men’s wives from later being turned to showing them toxic contempt. Sexual attraction for one’s mate can be developed by a proper wife just as it can also be squandered away by a woman of poor character. (Proverbs 14:1)

    Liked by 2 people

  10. lastholdout says:

    “That sounds like a lot of work to just get “whenever either of us wants it” which should be the norm.”

    C’mon Scott, give him a break. It worked for him.

    I read in a forum where a guy “negotiated” 2x a week with his wife. He said that after a couple weeks his wife voluntarily said, “anytime you want.”

    Our heart follows our will. Agapé is a willed love and is required of all of Christians. It is what compels us to act and speak kindly to the other when we don’t necessarily feel like it. It is what persuades the Christian woman to submit to her husband when she is tempted to rationalize and act differently. It is what induces the husband to correct his wife’s rebellious words and acts when it would be easier to let them slide. It is what obliges the husband to continue expressing acts of kindness when she isn’t kind. It is what necessitates both husband and wife to uphold the biblical elements that are unique to marriage.

    This willed love of agapé is what some describe with the old cliché, “Fake it until you make it.” It is to do what the Lord requires of us, against what our feelings of anger, apathy, or pride would lead us to do — or not do. Eventually, the feelings succumb to the pattern laid down by the will.

    Our heart follows our will and I think that is exactly what RP did — he first effected her will and her heart followed.

    Every man has to assess their own situation and do what they think will work. Especially if they find themselves new to RP and need to make a course correction in a marriage that is not satisfactory.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Jack says:

      Sharkly and LastHoldOut brought up a fantastic point that I somehow missed.

      “Our heart follows our will.”

      In the OP, I presented the will as a “backup” for when the heart is disinclined towards a desired action — a backup with limited power. But by continually applying the will over time, the heart can realign, although I think the effectiveness of this approach will vary with respect to the individual and the situation. Like LastHoldOut said, every man has to assess their own situation and do what they think will work.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Jack says:

    RPA wrote,

    “The results of the effort are that I have a wife that will wear lingerie around the house for me…”

    Early in our marriage, I made a “rule”, “No clothes at home or in bed.” I got this idea from Genesis 2:25.

    Genesis 2:25 (NKJV)
    And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    She felt awkward/embarassed at first and didn’t want to do it. But after a time (it was during the hot summer of 2016), she learned to enjoy it so much that now she tells me to take my clothes off first thing when we come home in the evening. (As a side note, in southern Asia, it’s rather common for people to only wear underwear at home because of the heat and humidity. So my request for nakedness was just a small step away from the norm.)

    I’ve found that being naked tends to increase humility between us, and this also serves to defuse her temper. She can’t work herself into an angry tantrum with her tits bouncing in the air. Somehow, being naked makes her aware that her deferential behavior is more appropriate for married life and that her attitude makes a big difference in the overall atmosphere of the home. Oh yeah, it also increases the frequency of physical affection and impromptu sex. So it’s all good. I encourage all the married men to push for this.

    Putting this into the context of the OP, I created, or rather, “tapped into” a motivation for her to desire more openness and intimacy by making nakedness fun for her.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Pingback: Pursuing Flow to develop Confidence and Trust | Σ Frame

  13. feeriker says:

    “Jim and I have decided to separate… blah blah.”

    Oh, to see someone post, “No, b!tch, YOU decided to separate. Jim had no say in it whatsoever.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • OKRickety says:

      I know I failed to be the husband I should have been, but I refused to go along with my ex-wife’s desire to tell our two kids that WE had agreed to get a divorce. I made certain they understood that she wanted it, not me. I have also told many others the same. Another action I took was to change our divorce agreement to state that I did not agree that we had irreconcilable differences.

      I know that didn’t stop the divorce but I wasn’t going to let her lie about who wanted it, especially to our kids.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. locustsplease says:

    I think one thing there is too much emphasis on, is how much the husband’s looks contribute to a dead bedroom. Every Chad I know has been dead bedroomed by a girlfriend and has had to tell her to hit the road. The 6’5″ F boy who works for me has had 1,000+ hot, under 30 girls, and when he walks in the room, you can see it in their eyes. He is rich also. And this guy was 100% cut off by his most serious girlfriend!

    He says I’m the Chad because I am way more built and threatening, and girls sometimes hit on me in front of him, and so he thinks I must be the only one who does that. At 40, I could take my pick of the hottest college girls, and my own wife told me to my face — dozens of times — she never wanted to have sex with me again for the rest of her life!

    I’ve been single and celibate for a long time. The few long term relationships I’ve been in all went the same way — they aim to please until they get comfortable, and then they hit the streets laughing — until they can’t find a better option. So my point here is that attractive men might get constant attention from attractive women, but that doesn’t mean they get good women, nor do they necessarily have a regularly satisfying sex life.

    OTOH, I know some real Schlubs — short, soft, overweight — with attractive submissive wives who seem to take care of wifely business and are pleasant to be around. And here I am, a 6’3″, muscular, dominant, former bouncer who never lost a bar fight, who has taken on 10 men multiple times, and even I couldn’t get any sex from my own wife! What I’m getting at is that most of the guys with great wives would not be able to compete with me in the sexual market place for women. It wouldn’t even be a competition! I would feel bad for them.

    What’s the difference? From what I’ve seen with all the Christian men and a few others, the major factor is just dumb luck, or I guess you could call it God’s grace.

    I just think there’s an illusion that if a man is attractive or manly enough, then he will win them over forever, and that he’ll be able to easily settle down into a good marriage with a great sex life. No… Most of them are hoes. They’re gonna ride him for awhile until they get bored, and then go do other hoe things. The good, marriage-minded women are settling down quickly, not waiting until 29.999. So a man needs to be around a large number of women in the 17–23-year-old age bracket to meet the good ones, and then he needs to get lucky.

    Liked by 4 people

  15. feeriker says:

    “Most so called “nice men” are nothing of the sort. They are usually, actually bad men who are just fooling women. Monsters that just pretend to be nice to trick women.”

    It’s all part of the game most men have to play in order to get anywhere with deceitful, dishonest women (i.e., the overwhelming majority). One could take the position that men who do this are desperate and thirsty, and thus masquerade as something they’re not in order to get some action. Then again, given the unchecked feral nature of modern women, one could reasonably ask, “What other choice do they really have?”

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      I got the impression she was denying the existence of actual nice guys (who do exist) as an excuse for women’s poor choices:

      “That’s not an option for us since nice guys don’t really exist.”

      “Where are all the good men?!?!”

      Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        That could very well be the case. It’s also probably not that she doesn’t really believe “nice guys” don’t exist, but that she’s not attracted to any of them, knows that she’ll take heat for that, and is thus trying to rationalize her choice of going after the bad boys she prefers.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Yes, she’s saying that nice guys don’t exist.

        We all know that genuinely nice guys do exist. We’ve met many of them in real life.

        So, what’s the real problem?

        Most likely, she’s been bouncing back and forth between f-boys and male feminists, and as we all know, when a man identifies himself as a feminist, you can start the clock on incoming credible sexual harassment/assault accusations.

        It’s likely that she’s met some genuinely nice guys, but having cultivated a taste for f-boys, nice guys don’t make her tingle, so she pretends they don’texist.

        Obviously, male feminists don’t make her tingle either, but her Womyxn Studies professors convinced her that they should make her tingle (women get lied to just as much as men, if not more). Besides, those genuinely nice guys are probably sexists, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, transphobes, ad infinitum. They may have even (gasp!) voted for Orange Man Bad!

        So, now she’s faced with a dilemma. Does she accept, and deal with reality as it is? Or does she absolve herself of responsibility, and make excuses?

        Obviously, she’s chosen the latter. And this is another reason for us to take responsibility for ourselves and avoid making excuses.

        Excuse-making is effeminate.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Who knows what the woman’s personal story is. I got the impression that she was rationalizing/making excuses for women in general. The point is they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with excuses and lies. I’ve done this at work too – mansplained to them what the deal is – how so many of them pick bad men and get bad results. No trips to HR yet either. They actually seem to listen.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Women who’ve been indoctrinated in feminism think that male feminists are nice. How could they not be? They’re allies in the fight against patriarchal oppression.

        In reality, the archetypal male feminist is Harvey Winestein.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Oscar,

        “In reality, the archetypal male feminist is Harvey Winestein.”

        I don’t know where you’re getting this stuff.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Could be. I’m not really talking about male feminists. Certainly not post 70s “you go girl” feminists. I mean actual decent guys who are average or below average attrativeness who were taught to “treat a lady right” and have an old fashioned sense of Christian propriety. I know men of my generation and boomer men like this. If women wanted this type of man women would be competing over this type of man, thus inventivizing this type of behavior and type among men. Women don’t compete over average attractiveness guys who are decent guys. That’s fine – they just shouldn’t be allowed to get away with lying about this type of guy not existing to make excuses for women choosing obvious @ssholes and getting burned.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jack

        You don’t know about male feminists’ reputation?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Here’s one example of what I’m talking about. There are countless others.

        The Other McCain: ‘Male Feminist’ Admits Well-Known Truth: ‘Male Feminists’ Are Scum (2014-12-19)

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Oscar. I think there’s so much room for what’s called feminist. Everything from “women should vote” to male versions of radical feminists (contemporary feminists who think there’s “tons of work to be done”). I’m thinking of those somewhere in the middle. I think the fake ones McCain is talking about are not what I have in mind.

        I have a high school friend who is what I’m thinking of. He’s a simp. He brags online about how he sits down when he pees so he won’t get pee on the toilet seat – to please his wife. He has learned his version of feminism from society and from his liberal mom and dad. And I often think this type is also feminist because they’re mediocre in attractiveness and it’s a way to curry some (albeit limited) favor with the women in their life. It’s the attitude of a thirsty male who, if he’s a good boy, will get a little (attention, praise, affection, sex).

        I agree with you and McCain that the slimy male fake-feminists exist. That’s just not what I’m thinking about.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        Like I said from the start, I’m guessing, so I could be guessing incorrectly. The tell, for me, is that she said that the nice guys she dated pretended to be nice, but turned out to be “monsters” who are just “tricking” or “fooling” women. That reeks of male feminist to me.

        Genuine nice guys don’t do that, but again, my guess is that she’s not dating genuine nice guys at all.

        As for McCain, he obviously highlights the most extreme examples, because they’re the ones that make the news. But, remember, she did call them “monsters”. And frankly, as far as male feminists go, I’d agree with her.

        Also, I wouldn’t call them “fake”. It’s a feature – not a bug – of the SJW cult that you get to be a “monster” while luxuriating in your unearned sense of moral superiority, virtue, and righteousness.

        That’s nothing new, by the way.

        Karl Marx was a male feminist. He claimed that marriage and family were a form of slavery for women (even though he was married), and that Marxists’ plan to abolish the family would finally liberate women and allow them to reach their full potential (sound familiar?). Simultaneously, he impregnated his house keeper, and when his wife found out about it, he kicked the house keeper out without pay, and never supported her or their child. Talk about exploiting the proletariat!

        That’s another thing Ted Beale got right. SJWs always project. Marx was everything he accused capitalists of being. Did that make him a fake Marxist? Hell no! That’s what the SJW cult – in all its permutations – is all about.

        Male feminists are far worse than the worst PUA, player, or f-boy, because those guys are pretty straight forward about what they’re after. Women pretend to not know that all they’re after is sex. They pretend that there’s some hope of a real relationship, but they know.

        Male feminists, on the other hand, really are deceitful. They’re pathetic, despicable creatures. There are gradations, of course. Your high school friend sounds like he’s much more on the pathetic side. So, yeah. Of course she’d prefer PUAs, players and f-boys over that.

        Finally, I commend you for calling her out on her crap. God willing, it’ll stick.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Oscar, et al.,
        Your description of a “male feminist” as being a powerful wealthy ambitious player (e.g. Harvey Winestein) just doesn’t jive with me. I think men like this (many actors and singers included) who parrot feminist mantras are currying favor with their consituents and/or masquerading as Woke to maintain a trendy public image. I’m sure they’ve bought into the Blue Pill lies (as most everyone has), but I’m not sure they truly believe in the glorious revolution of establishing a wimminocracy. IOW, they talk autofeminismatically, but walk toxic patriarchy. I guess you could argue that high profile men who adopt a Woke image, spout feminist jargon, and sleep around indiscriminately are working against traditional Christian values and are furthering the feminist agenda — in this sense, I can see how you might call them “male feminists”, but I would describe them as “male protagonists of feminism”.

        I’ve always had the idea that a “male feminist” is a simpy soy boy who panders to women and who couldn’t punch through a wet paper bag.

        The article at The Other McCain that Oscar linked to describes a “male feminist” named Charles Clymer. If you’ll click on the link to his Twitter profile, you’ll see that in the 7 years since that article was written, Charles has morphed into Charlotte! LOL!

        This agrees with my original idea of a male feminist — “male feminists” are men who are deeply confused about sex roles and who are driven to find popularity (among other things) among the progressive crowd.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jack

        “Your description of a “male feminist” as being a powerful wealthy ambitious player (e.g. Harvey Winestein) just doesn’t jive with me.”

        I used Weinstein as an example because he’s famous. He’s also not a player. The women he bedded didn’t want to have sex with him. It was a transaction.

        “…but I’m not sure they truly believe in the glorious revolution of establishing a wimminocracy. IOW, they talk autofeminismatically, but walk toxic patriarchy.”

        No one who leads the glorious revolution believes in it, not even Marx himself. Just as Castro and Chavez died billionaires, parroting revolutionary propaganda — while doing the opposite in ones own life — is a feature of the glorious revolution. It’s what all the real revolutionaries do.

        “I’ve always had the idea that a “male feminist” is a simpy soy boy who panders to women and who couldn’t punch through a wet paper bag.”

        Have you seen Weinstein? Does he look like the picture of virility to you?

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Weinstein looks like the character Chet in the 80s movie Weird Science. Specifically, when Kelly LeBrock turns the character into a pile of feces.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        In other words, if Weinstein was a player, then so is every John who hires prostitutes.

        If Weinstein isn’t a real feminist, then Marx wasn’t a real Marxist.

        You don’t seem to understand that for these people (Marxists, feminists, SJWs ingeneral), there is no truth, only power (their words, not mine). And the best way to demonstrate their power is to violate every principle they claim to believe in, and get away with it.

        They even know that the glorious revolution eats its own, but they all think they’ll be Lenin, or Stalin, not Trotsky, Beria.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        The left (feminists are a subset) consists of true believers and people exploiting “the movement” for personal incentives. And for some probably a little of both. Personal interests can influence ideology and the reverse as well.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “The left (feminists are a subset) consists of true believers and people exploiting “the movement” for personal incentives.”

        Have we learned nothing about what people say, versus how they behave? Judging by their actions, versus their words, none of them believe what they claim to believe.

        Marx obviously didn’t believe his own BS. Neither did Lenin, nor Stalin, nor Mao, nor Castro, nor Chavez, nor Bernie Sanders, nor Gloria Steinem, nor AOC, nor anyone else you can name.

        As soon as they achieve power, they violate all their so-called principles, because that was the point from the start.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        You’re referring to the men in power, famous leftists, feminists, their “celebrities.” I’m referring to rank and file leftists. There are rank and file people who believe in leftism, feminism.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Have we forgotten how quickly feminists went from “believe all women” to “it doesn’t matter how many women and children Joe Biden groped”?

        Repeat after me: THERE IS NO TRUTH, BUT POWER.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “I’m referring to rank and file leftists. There are rank and file people who believe in leftism, feminism.”

        You mean the rank and file Leftists who voted for Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, etc.?

        Oh yeah, they really believe what they claim to believe.

        THERE IS NO TRUTH, BUT POWER!

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        THERE IS NO DANA ONLY ZULE!!

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I’ve voted for plenty of Republicans who’s ideas and even basic philosophy I didn’t agree with. I even voted for W. in 2000 (still trying to wash the stank off myself from that),

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I’ve voted for plenty of Republicans who’s ideas and even basic philosophy I didn’t agree with.

        We’re not talking about voting for people whose “ideas and even basic philosophy” you disagree with. We’re talking about claiming to hold feminist ideals, then voting for a married man who impregnated his secretary, then killed her in a drunk-driving-without-a-license crash. And a man who sexually harassed and/or raped multiple women. And his wife, who intimidated said women. And a man who routinely gropes women and little girls.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. feeriker says:

    “[H]er Womyxn Studies professors convinced her that they should make her tingle (women get lied to just as much as men, if not more). Besides, those genuinely nice guys are probably sexists, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, transphobes, ad infinitum. They may have even (gasp!) voted for Orange Man Bad!”

    This really does make a solid case for not ever dating or marrying a woman who has a college degree.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. feeriker says:

    “I’ve done this at work too – mansplained to them what the deal is – how so many of them pick bad men and get bad results. No trips to HR yet either. They actually seem to listen.”

    I’ve never done it at work, but have done so with a few female neighbors and acquaintances. The surprising (to me) thing is that ALL of them have responded to “Red Pill suppositories” in a manner that indicates that they KNOW that they’ve “effed up” in their choices of men. However, being women, they cannot (1) admit that they’ve effed up and take responsibility for it, or (2) wean themselves off of the drama high that is part and parcel of being in a relationship with a sh!+b@g loser of a man.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Pingback: The Male Feminist | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Imposing Masculine Presence | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: How to Motivate the Four Personality Types according to their Communication Styles | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: Only Hunky Monks can find a Sanctified Marriage | 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 )

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