How to be winsome by adapting to others’ Communication Styles

Tune in to have your message heard.

Readership: Men, especially introverted men
Theme: Identity, Image, and Impressions
Reader’s Note: * Names have been changed for anonymity.
Length: 750 words
Reading Time: 2.5 minutes

Continuing on the subject of Agreeableness and Personality (2022-6-8) and Imposing Masculine Presence (2022-6-10), here, I’ll convey another case study that should illustrate how adapting to another persons’ communication style can streamline the interaction.

Before I tell the story, here’s a quick refresher on the needs of the 4 communication styles.

  • Fast Paced and Warm (Expressives) => Need to be liked.
  • Fast Paced and Cool (Drivers) => Need to have clear choices spelled out for them.
  • Slow Paced and Warm (Amiables) => Need guidance towards finding contentment and peace, and to avoid guilt, regret, and shame.
  • Slow Paced and Cool (Analytics) => Need to have a detailed confirmation/explanation without getting confused and/or overwhelmed by said details (viz. avoid Analysis Paralysis).

OK, so here’s the story. I remember a particular instance of role playing styles at work when I was 22 and nervous about being in front of the whole office.  My coworker, Faith,* was playing the part of the customer and I was the salesman trying to sell her on a sweater.  She played the part of an Expressive (fast paced and warm) and that is all I had to go on.  The conversation went something like this.

F: “I’m thinking about this sweater.”

RPA: “That one looks nice.  It might work well for you.  What drew your eye to that one?”

F: (Lots of words and multiple rabbit trails.)

RPA: (Questions about the different topics she brought up.)

F: (Even more words and talking about life while I listened.)

RPA: (Circling back and tying the sweater into the conversation) “You should totally wear the sweater to the event you just told me about.  I am pretty sure that people will think you look good in it.”

As you can see, I appealed to her need to be liked. The sales pitch was my own.  The questions to her were genuine and I showed interest in her life.  I focused on those aspects of the sweater she would naturally be drawn to because of her base need to be liked as an Expressive.  As a result, she felt liked by me and she had the idea that the sweater would make her more likeable to others.

This was one of those moments in my life when a concept clicked.

If I had been dealing with a Driver (fast paced and cool) the conversation would have been me briefly finding out why a sweater is needed, then presenting an option that meets the criteria.  The pitch would be the executive summary version: “The sweater meets x, y, and z criteria you need and it will do the job you need it to do.  Do you want me to ring it up for you?”

Analytics (slow paced and cool) would get enough detail to know the sweater was the right choice, but not too much to avoid analysis paralysis:  “This sweater is made of an acrylic/wool blend, which is machine washable, permanent press, easy to care for, and will last for many years.”

Amiables (slow paced and warm) would get aspects of the sweater for them to know that it is a solid choice that they would be happy with and would not regret buying.  Essentially, letting them know it’s a safe choice. “This sweater is comfortable, matches your wardrobe style, and brings out the natural color in your skin tone.”

Epilogue

These are all examples of how a mild-mannered man can connect in a meaningful way with a person of any Communication Style, including those with a cold or faster paced style, by asking questions, active listening, and some validation, without ever being that way himself.  

Precisely and accurately stated, adapting to others’ communication style meets their needs in communication. They are more likely to feel heard and respond positively for this reason.

Using communication styles isn’t a form of manipulation, although some people could readily use the skill that way should they so choose.  Utilizing styles is relaying information to someone in a manner that is most easily relatable to them.  It’s a means of being a more effective communicator that actually works quite well.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the Rogerian therapy technique of repeating patient’s statements back to them has some positive effects because the patient hears statements in their own style.  At the very worst it would make a patient think the therapist understands them to some extent and that alone can be helpful to some.

This entry was posted in Agency, Authenticity, Communications, Confidence, Conserving Power, Discernment, Wisdom, Fundamental Frame, Holding Frame, Intersexual Dynamics, Leadership, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Personal Presentation, Persuasion, Psychology, Purpose, Relationships, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, Trust. Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to How to be winsome by adapting to others’ Communication Styles

  1. cameron232 says:

    Off topic but not entirely. You’re discussing personality (“social styles”). Human beings like dogs are pack animals. While it’s not the only dimension, an important part of the human personality is the dominance-submissiveness spectrum. People vary in this dimension probably because of genes and childhood environment. It’s largely fixed by adulthood, probably earlier.

    Unless your wife is very submissive, if you’re average to submissive your wife does not want to submit to you. It feels icky to her. You can’t fake a dominant personality nor can you cultivate one. At best the woman through grace and command of the will can do what feels icky to her. She won’t like it – forget about her doing it “with a happy heart.” Maybe she can fake a happy heart.

    I think the deti analysis misses this. It isn’t just about being good looking. Of course, attractive, large athletic males tend to be more personality dominant based on early childhood environment & interaction.

    As RPA noted, I am amiable which is an average at best or perhaps submissive personality trait. This is why my wife who craves headship, so often does not submit to me even on easy things.

    I should have married a very submissive woman or if I couldn’t find one shouldn’t have married at all.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      “Unless your wife is very submissive, if you’re average to submissive your wife does not want to submit to you. It feels icky to her. You can’t fake a dominant personality nor can you cultivate one. At best the woman through grace and command of the will can do what feels icky to her. She won’t like it – forget about her doing it “with a happy heart.” Maybe she can fake a happy heart.”

      Yes. Elspeth thinks women can learn to be happy submitting to a “recovering beta”. Well, I’m not sure now. I think women can fake it for a while. I think they can submit, but they do it because they have to, not because they’re happy doing it. They can be happy submitting only to a SAM, a Mike, or a Scott. They will submit. They’ll do it. They just won’t be happy or joyful. The best they can get to is content. The best they can do is “willing” to submit. The best they can get to is accustomed to it.

      What happens is that they eventually start pushing back, for one of two reasons: 1) they really don’t want to submit because they know the guy they picked isn’t their best or first choice; and 2) they sense weakness and a chance to reestablish their former dominance.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Mostly agree but there’s no such thing as a recovering beta. You think women can’t sniff out a fake/LARPer? Only marry a woman who is noticeably more submissive than you. If you can’t get one don’t marry. Unless you’re ok with wife gets 51% of the vote.

        Only other alternative is dread game.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        It has always been this way. What’s different now are the legal and social controls that used to keep both men and women in place are completely gone now. The only one that remains is men’s legal obligation to pay.

        Women used to be ok with being “willing to” submit. “Willing to” used to be enough. This was because there were all sorts of controls and pressures in place to encourage and strengthen marriages. So even if a woman didn’t get what she wanted (and most did not, and still do not, contra Elspeth and most women who are lying to themselves), she was still ok with it because (1) she was willing to do it for an “eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess” guy; and (2) the social pressures and controls kept her there.

        Now that all the social pressures and controls have been removed, “willing to” isn’t good enough. Women leave and take men’s money with them into perpetuity, or at least until the last kid is 18. So, you can’t have a woman who’s just “willing” to be with you. That’s not good enough. She has to be literally begging you for sex, ripping your clothes off every time you see her, and absolutely loving it when you just do literally anything you want. It’s getting to the point where you’ll have to test this by cheating on her and seeing what her reaction is – that’s how messed up it’s become.

        Elspeth’s belief that all women can have what she has is a complete and total pipe dream. It’s not going to happen for 90% of people. She is an extreme, extreme outlier, as are Liz and Mike, as are Scott and Mychael (and Scott and Mychael each had to go through disastrous first marriages to other people to get where they are). And that’s why more and more men are not going to marry, or be in grindingly awful marriages.

        It’s just not going to happen for most men and women. Oh, they’ll still marry, and those marriages will be “OK”. But they won’t have SAM/Elspeth marriages. Not. Going. To. Happen. Not now, not ever.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        What this means is that most people are going to have to accept “OK” marriages, where the sex is just “OK” and everything is just “OK”. They’ll have to settle for “contentment”.

        Which is what most people settled for up until around 1960. Which was good enough for most people until then. But around 80 years ago, it stopped being good enough. It’s all a result of modernity, modern liberalism, and our emphasis on individual liberty at the expense of everything else.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Sure, all that, but what I’m saying is that in most marriages the woman will get 51% of the vote. I’m not just talking about sex.

        Women want male headship, they just don’t want it from most men.

        Of course the two are related as desire sex (as opposed to duty or transactional sex) is very much a submission thing.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Sure all that but what I’m saying is that in most marriages the woman will get 51% of the vote. I’m not just talking about sex.”

        “Women want male headship they just don’t want it from most men.”

        Yes. Women don’t want male headship from most men. They’re willing to accept headship from some other men, if those “some other men” bring commitment and resources literally immediately, and if all sorts of other societal controls are in place, and if those controls aren’t too constricting or limiting, and if they can get out of those controls relatively easily and with cash and prizes like cars and houses.

        I’ve said it before here and at Spawny’s I think. It’s hopeless. Utterly hopeless. Most men really shouldn’t marry under current conditions. A small but ever growing contingent of men are completely unable to get any attention from women at all. It’s completely hopeless for most men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        On the other hand, enjoy your freedom young men. The world is your oyster.

        Know that your wife would be resisting you rather than cooperating with you. All the time.

        Have a good time young dudes – no worries.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        I don’t know, Jack, if it’s fair to lock me out of a conversation in which my expressed opinion and commentary are up for debate. 😉 I’m gonna make this short and sweet and get out quick, since I’m still recovering from a mini vacation. (Shouldn’t I be rested?)

        Yes. I do think a woman can be contented and even happy as she learns to submit and respect her husband. Not faking it, but in learning to grow enough to live what she says she believes, God will fill in the gaps. I have receipts, so I can tell you for certain that at least two, long married men have said that their wives being friends with me has revolutionized the way they interact in their marriages. These men (likely not manosphere denizens) are happy with the changes, and are not likely wringing their hands and losing sleep over whether or not their Christian wives feel the tingles every time they wrap their arms around her. They are thankful for a happier, more fulfilling marriage with a woman who treats them well again.

        Given that we have established repeatedly (and as you recently feel the need to repeat ad nauseum), my route to the altar was risky, immoral, and unChristian, there really is no point in lamenting over whether or not my situation can be replicated. It shouldn’t be replicated.

        More than that, in a world where sex was not situated at the center of everything, no one would consider me a model of anything. I readily admit that we have an atypical relationship, but I also know that it’s mostly dumb luck. SAM wouldn’t call it dumb luck, but he’s not here.

        Truth is, I’ve always had a healthy reverential fear of my husband, and it has served us well. He would never hurt me and I know that, because he loves me passionately. But for some reason it is there nonetheless. My old friend Alte from back in the day used to say that fear and arousal are sort of cousins arising from the same place. I don’t know if that’s true but it rang true for me.

        But I digress. The bottom line is that in a sane world, I would be a cautionary tale, and I know it. Thanks for the indulgence Jack, and I’m done talking. Whatever is said after this, it’ll just have to hang there.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        No, the world is NOT their oyster.

        The most sexually attractive men will likely be able to have some casual sex, but they’ll have to “pay” in some way.

        Most men will get jobs and earn enough to enjoy a decent life. But they’ll always sense that something is missing. Most men who go MGTOW do this because they have to — MGTOW is the only viable choice.

        Most will heed the call of the p_ssy and will get into relationships of varying duration and intensity. Most will father a child or two and have relationships of varying involvement levels with “their” children. Or, rather, the children created with the sperm they wittingly or unwittingly donated. Most men will do this because the sex drive is that strong. (Same with women — the drive to nest and make babies is that strong, so they will try to get pregnant with the most attractive men they can find, and then extract as much money as they can from those men.) Note that I’m describing what Christian men and women are doing.

        But no, the world will NOT be their oyster. But, yes, as you say, at least they won’t have to struggle for dominance with a woman who doesn’t really want to be there and who is at best “willing” to put up with him, and is there only because he was “the best she could do” and “eh, yeah, sure, OK, I guess he’ll do”. At least they won’t have to put up with disrespect and constant back and forth on who is going to run things.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I’ve always had a healthy reverential fear of my husband, and it has served us well. He would never hurt me and I know that, because he loves me passionately. But for some reason it is there nonetheless.”

        That right there is why your marriage to SAM works. No other reason. Not God, not His work in your lives, not anything else.

        Most women don’t experience that reverential fear even of the Most High God. There is no way on His green earth they can even conceive of feeling that for a mere mortal man.

        And it’s not there “for some reason”. It’s there because you’re so insanely attracted to SAM that you can’t see straight, and because you have felt that way about him literally from the very first time you laid eyes on him.

        The ONLY reason marriages work now, and the ONLY reason yours does, is because of hard, visceral sexual attraction from wife to husband. That’s it. That’s all. That’s the only reason.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        She has a reverential fear of him even though she knows he wouldn’t hurt her?

        Ummm… yeah — alpha. Formerly dangerous man (or at least, he got into fist fights all the time), dominant, bold, could hurt her if he wanted….. Alpha. “I have a reverential fear of my alpha husband even though I know he wouldn’t hurt me.” He’s an actual alpha, by the way, not some manosphere geek definition. Not Justin Bieber. LoL.

        Yep.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Two of her friends learned. Also “yep.”

        So SOME women who are mentored by a under submission to an alpha tradish wife can do it too. Many of her female Christian friends say “nope” to her beliefs. Some attack her beliefs.

        So yes it CAN happen for SOME men if only they can find a tradish under submission Christian woman to mentor their wives. Will it happen for most men?

        Nope.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “…there really is no point in lamenting over whether or not my situation can be replicated. It shouldn’t be replicated.”

        No one is saying how you got there should be replicated. But you come here all the time saying that how you feel about SAM CAN be replicated in other marriages and relationships.

        It cannot.

        You come here and other places in the ‘sphere telling us that women can feel about their marriages the same way you feel about yours, and they can feel about their husbands the same way you feel about SAM. You claim they can “do it” if only they’ll try harder, “submit more”, be more “Christian”, be nicer, and “just be more Ephesians 5”. And that does produce changes. But it goes only so far. It gets a woman to “willing to” do it. It gets her to “content” and “yeah, sure, OK, it’s fine, I guess”. And that’s the best it ever gets.

        The reason is because they don’t feel “reverential fear” for their husbands. Hell, they don’t feel that even for God Himself. The reason is because they aren’t sexually attracted to their husbands and never really were. The reason is because they have to fake it. And you can fake it only so long.

        As for the husbands of your friends — something will happen. They will drop frame, show some kind of weakness, or some event will happen that freaks the women out or skeeves them out. They’ll see their opportunity, and they’ll push back and try to reestablish their dominance. It won’t last. It will fall apart, and they’ll have to find ways to muddle through.

        No one is saying “your situation” should be replicated. But YOU are saying that how you feel about SAM can be replicated. It can’t. It can’t, because most women just don’t feel about their husbands the way you feel about SAM. And most women can never, ever have what you have. Most husbands can never, ever have what SAM has, because they can never, ever be what he is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “Ummm… yeah — alpha. Formerly dangerous man (or at least, he got into fist fights all the time), dominant, bold, could hurt her if he wanted….. Alpha.”

        Yes. Among other things. He was a stone cold BAMF player, a bull alpha. Still is. And E tamed him.

        This is all women’s wet dream — a total bad boy who “reforms” and comes to Jesus and is nice only to her while still projecting BAMF to everyone else. The tamed alpha.

        Where E goes wrong is in thinking that all women can have this.

        “I have a reverential fear of my alpha husband even though I know he wouldn’t hurt me.” He’s an actual alpha, by the way, not some manosphere geek definition.”

        Right. Most women don’t feel this way about God Himself, much less about the men they marry or even had sex with.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        The best type of marriage from the man and woman’s perspective is the Elspeth type marriage.

        From the man’s perspective, the next best is childless yuppie marriage where both make about equal money.

        The worst marriage from men’s perspective is betabucks with children. There’s a reason the writers of the TV show Married With Children depicted this.

        This is our problem. Marriage v.1.5. Best of both worlds for women. Transitional “boomer” marriage as my son calls it.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I’d point out that everything Cam and I are saying here was said by Scott in his post, Probabilities (2020-2-24).

        And E put up a series of approving comments starting here.

        This is nothing new. I’m just trying to get all the way to the bottom of this, and I think that we — and Scott — have. It’s all about how viscerally attracted she was to her husband from the very first time she saw him. And that men should never, ever marry any woman who wasn’t positively begging for him to rip her clothes off and take her right then and there. There’s just no way around this. There’s just no other answer.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I agree deti, and want to add that visceral attraction isn’t just looks, it’s also personality and physical dominance. Some comments by Liz made this obvious. E’s case too.

        Liked by 1 person

    • locustsplease says:

      I can’t say I had a dominace fixed before adulthood. If I had the dominance I have now when I was with my first LTR at 19, we would most likely be married with many kids. I was taught to be a beta slave but I didn’t like the idea. However I had the genetics and as I grew the takeover started.

      The big improvement is my frame. I go places and ignore every woman and they will wiggle themselves into my personal space. Except at church that never happens! Haha! Being self employed helps — doing sales. I was no alpha male at 17 but I rank fairly high among men in my age group at 40.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Very happy for you that you’ve turned yourself into an alpha male. Most men aren’t going to become a bar bouncer and get in 50+ streetfights like you in order to get a shot at a wife who gets 49% of the vote.

        You might be an exception, but it’s hard to believe alpha guys post on these sites dedicated to trying to create a masculine frame (and under anonymous names no less).

        Elspeth’s husband scoffs at this sort of thing.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. anonymous_ng says:

    “You can’t fake a dominant personality nor can you cultivate one.”

    I disagree.

    I mean, functionally, you’re correct, but that’s only because most men won’t put in the time and effort necessary to create that level of change. And, frankly, anyone who did put in that kind of effort and did reap the rewards of it, would get accused of being that way before.

    That’s like saying you’re either a natural born salesman, or you might as well find another career. Sure, some people come to it more easily than others, but sales can be taught too.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Maybe. I think personality is largely fixed by early adulthood. Hard to believe a relatively submissive young man will become dominant in personality. Maybe if you roid up a bunch. IDK.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Be careful not to entangle personality and learned behaviors. A man who tends to back down more (submissive guy) can exude dominance by changing his behavior. It starts with being comfortable with what you want for yourself and being comfortable telling people “no”. Changing depends on whether the man makes excuses in order to maintain the behavior his is comfortable with, but doesn’t get him what he really wants, or if he sets his mind and gets busy working.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I think women are viscerally attracted to men who are naturally dominant. An example would be men who naturally stare down other men and are confrontational by nature (which can be genes and upbringing). I can force myself to stare down other men. It’s a LARP.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “…women are viscerally attracted to men who are naturally dominant. An example would be men who naturally stare down other men and are confrontational by nature (which can be genes and upbringing).”

        I was somewhat of a miscreant in middle school, puberty and all that. But I grew out of that by the end of the 9th grade in high school.

        When I was in middle school, guys would have “staring competitions”, “arm wrestling”, “chest bumping sumo”, and other forms of aggression and competition. This kind of behavior went on steroids during gym class and recess. I thought it was really stupid, annoying, and disruptive. I mean, how can one guy attain social dominance simply because he didn’t blink? And no one would arm wrestle me because I had long arms and I always won 95% of the time. No one would chest bump me because I was much taller. So I was always out of the loop. I had other ideas about character that were based on practical skills and earning respect.

        But later on, I noticed that those guys who were engaging in “staring competitions” and “chest bumping sumo” etc. in middle school had moved on to be the most proficient in sports and attracting girls in high school. They also married fairly young and to the high school hotties too. Most of them didn’t go very far in life, but they were the c0ck of the walk in high school. Those guys had dominant, gritty fathers, so I’m sure it was largely upbringing.

        Since traveling abroad, I’ve learned that this is a western phenomenon, but it is what it is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron – Not “naturally dominant”, just dominant. Your example about the stare down, while relevant, is only one way to express dominance and only in an exceedingly small number of circumstances. Think of all the other ways that a man can assert himself to influence an outcome in his favor.

        All of these possibilities are forms of dominance. Men are going to excel more at some ways and less at others and the secret is to find the ones you are naturally good at and use those while working on ones you aren’t the best at. Is a martial arts instructor who could physically manhandle the finance nerd banker the more dominant or is it the finance nerd banker who holds the note on the martial arts instructor’s business that has the upper hand?

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I think the guy who can kick the other guys ass is dominant but then I grew up in a craphole of a town.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      “You can’t fake a dominant personality nor can you cultivate one.”

      One of the main running points of the past three posts is that a man doesn’t need to have a dominant personality (i.e. extroverted, fast paced) to be dominant.

      Like

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        This is true. However, with our modern internet-based, attention seeking society has basically run the quieter men out of existence. It used to be known that there were plenty of women who pined for the “strong, silent type”. Those women today have had their receptors fried and thus no longer have the ability to notice these men. Sad deal for both sides.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        The “social styles” method of categorizing people doesn’t resonate with me but if forced to use that model I’d say dominant people are concentrated in “drivers” submissive people in “amiables” with analyticals and expressives tending towards moderation in dominance.

        However I prefer a model of one dimensional spectrum of dominant to submissive. Dominant people are comfortable with in person confrontation. Submissive people are not. There’s all sorts of body language associated with both. Dogs btw are very sensitive to this human body language.

        Like

  3. Jack says:

    Upthread, deti wrote,

    “I think women can fake [being submissive to a beta] for a while. I think they can submit, but they do it because they have to, not because they’re happy doing it.”

    One thing I’ve observed among women who are happy being submissive (to any man, not just to alphas or betas) is that they see themselves as feminine, and so being submissive comes rather easily and naturally as an expression of that femininity. These women are not submissive so much out of a sense of allegiance, loyalty, and obedience (as a man might think of it), but rather because they just love being feminine. OTOH, women who are NOT happy being submissive see themselves as being rather masculine, “Strong and Independent”, and so on. Within this paradigm, they can’t envision themselves as being submissive. It just doesn’t fit within their self-image, and the very idea comes across as rather offensive.

    Liked by 4 people

    • anonymous_ng says:

      Exactly. I want to meet a woman who enjoys being a woman versus one who wakes up and curses God every day because she wasn’t born a man.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        One thing is that some men must have reasonable, not inflated standards, for physical beauty. Oscar and I joke about “Jessa Duggar’s Fat friend.” Not saying men have to choose her but I’ve known plain looking girls with e.g. no visible breasts and skinny hips who are submissive.

        This comment isn’t directed at you I just wanted to make a general point. I would take average looking face and no boobs in a girl who is submissive over an independent “hottie.”

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        It’s not that such women curse God because they weren’t born men. It’s that they want the best of both worlds but can’t have it because it all comes crashing down at some point.

        They want the perks and benefits men have while living in the emotionality and irresponsibility women enjoy. They want to move through the world like men do while at the same time shirking the accountability and responsibility men have. They want to work, talk, act, and have sex as men do; with none of the responsibility or ability to back it up.

        Women can do this… for a while. It never lasts, though, because their female nature to have babies and nest and get a man to accumulate resources starts trumping everything else.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. cameron232 says:

    Yes and they’re unlikely to change such a basic thing about their identity once they reach adulthood so only marry the submissive, feminine ones. Don’t marry the independent ones. So most men can’t marry.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Cam

      What this means is that most men should not be getting married at all. But, most men will get married at some point. The numbers are still bearing this out.

      Most men don’t have what it takes to be married to a modern woman. Most women don’t want modern men except as sperm donor and as resource provider. Most women don’t have what it takes to be married to anyone.

      It just is what it is.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes I agree deti many men will marry anyway. This site is about helping men. So for the lurking young men reading what would you advise? Do not marry? That’s my take. As a person attempting to practice Catholicism I cannot endorse childless companionship yuppie marriage.

        I’m not trying to make predictions I’m trying to help young men.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “This site is about helping men. So for the lurking young men reading what would you advise? Do not marry? That’s my take.”

        Yes. That’s my take as well. I can’t in good conscience advise men to marry in today’s environment.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. anonymous_ng says:

    “You can’t fake a dominant personality nor can you cultivate one.”

    “One of the main running points of the past three posts is that a man doesn’t need to have a dominant personality (i.e. extroverted, fast paced) to be dominant.”

    Jack’s comment made me remember how assertiveness training was a thing in the ’70s or early ’80s, and I think that’s what’s needed today.

    My contention is that one doesn’t have to be a Jack Welch, type-A personality. One doesn’t have to be the guy who throws his weight around and is in general a jack-wagon that no one likes or wants to be around.

    Being assertive instead of a doormat is probably enough.

    Liked by 2 people

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

  7. thedeti says:

    Like Cameron, I’m interested in helping men. I want to be very, very clear here.

    I take E to task not because of her past; but because of her outlandish claim that all women can have what she has and that all men can have wives who feel about them as she feels about SAM. She’s 100% wrong.

    The reasons E, Liz, and Mychael have the marriages they do are (1) because their sexual attraction to their husbands started out intense and strong and continues to the present; and (2) the way they see their husbands borders on worship (as it should). E speaks of it as “reverential fear”. Mychael speaks of it as “healthy fear”.

    Most women don’t feel this way about any men. Most women can’t even get themselves to worship God, much less get to “borders on worship” with a mortal man. Most women don’t have any fear of God; much less “reverential fear” of a mortal man.

    The best most men can do is a wife who’s submitted to God and who is willing to be there. She submits because God commands her to do it and because she knows if she does not, she will suffer hard, real world consequences like loss of social standing, money, and lifestyle. She has sex with him and sometimes really enjoys it, but most times does so because she knows it’s expected of her. They have a sex life that is good, sometimes. She remains with him and treats him well because she knows if she does not, he will divorce her and burn her lifestyle to the ground. She “submits” not because of the overflow of joy in her heart, but out of grudging obedience to God and societal expectation.

    She is willing to be with him because he was the best she could do, and because she has a decent, acceptable life with him, and because he wanted her. She is willing to have sex with him because she knows the consequences if she refuses him; and because it’s actually pretty good sometimes.
    But she doesn’t really want to be with him. She never really wanted him. He was her fourth or fifth choice. She really wanted someone else. She laughs out loud at the idea she is supposed to feel “reverential fear” for him. The only man she’s ever felt anything like “fear” for is Harley McBadboy who rocked her world. She draws clear distinctions between God and her husband. She completely ignores “respect and submit to your husbands as unto the Lord, because, well, that’s just… ewww gross and icky.

    But she’s willing to be there with him. Willing. She’ll do it. She’ll even do it with a smile on her face sometimes. But “willing” is the best you’ll ever get from her. She doesn’t really want to be there. And she doesn’t really want you. She doesn’t desire you, either because (1) you’re not desirable in general or to her; or (2) her promiscuity fried her bonding receptacles and she can’t truly desire her RMV counterpart.

    Men, that up there is as good as it will ever get for most of you. You will never, ever have a marriage like Scott, Mike, or SAM. And you will never, ever have a woman feel that way about you. Ever.

    I cannot advise any of you to marry. Most women you’ll meet don’t have what it takes to be wives to any man. And you don’t need to even try to be husbands to most of them.

    And with that, I’m done.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      No there’s more deti. That’s as good as it gets (and it’s not bad at all) but you very likely won’t get that. Most men won’t even get what you describe deti. What you describe is what the lucky ones get.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        I’m just gonna put this here too.

        Here’s E’s admission, proving me right. Again.

        “I have seen up close average men in average marriages loving and serving Christian wives who are often controlling even when they don’t mean to be, and I’ve seen it over a long period of time. It’s one of the reasons I have said that I am doing my part; leaving it all on the field.”

        “I frequently remind these -mostly well meaning women- that they are not supposed to be wearing the pants, and I have actually made some real differences in the way quite a few women treat their men. What started out in many instances was the assumption that the dynamic in my marriage is a function of ethnicity has evolved to an understanding that it is driven by Biblical truth.”

        Here’s the money shot:

        “Does any of the above mean that the referenced husbands are going to have wives who feel about them the way I fee[l] about SAM? Well probably not.

        Thank you. Game, set, match to deti. Thank you, E, for admitting I’m right.

        And then, she dismisses what men want as literally nothing:

        “But when there is a long term marriage, with children and the profession of Christ, that’s secondary.”

        Sure. “Secondary”. What men want, what they want most, what they’ll never have….

        “Secondary”.

        Meaning it doesn’t matter one bit. She just waves it away like it’s nothing.

        E, you don’t get it. You still don’t get it. And you never, ever will.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        She has had success with 2 couples and is to be praised for her work on behalf of Biblical womanhood. Many, presumably most of her Christian friends reject her counsel and some say it is abuse. One wonders if they would consider it abuse if they were married to SAM – I suspect not.

        “Two out of three (hundred) ain’t bad.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        And then, she dismisses what men want as literally nothing:

        But when there is a long term marriage, with children and the profession of Christ, that’s secondary.

        Sure. “Secondary”. What men want, what they want most, what they’ll never have….

        “Secondary”.

        Meaning it doesn’t matter one bit. She just waves it away like it’s nothing.

        E, you don’t get it. You still don’t get it. And you never, ever will.

        You love to misrepresent me and paint what I write in the worst possible light. When I said that it was “secondary”, I was simply making the point that these are people who are already married with children. The alternative being divorce, then YES, ideals are secondary at best. I stand behind that and I still believe it.

        There is a difference between couples who are not yet married and people who have been married and produced families. There are things about me and my life that will never be ideal, but those things are secondary to what really matters. This should not be controversial in the least, nor should it be anything that induces a derisive response among Christians who believe in lifelong marriage.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I do not feel entitled to a Elspeth-SAM level of desire. Most of what deti described above is good enough. 51% of the vote in important things (taking into account her concerns and opinions) not dealing with sleeping in a separate room for what will be 4 years this November, etc. Doesn’t need to prove her uncontrollable attraction to me for me to be happy. I’ll take the best that most men can get (as described by deti) above for the win Alex.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “You love to misrepresent me and paint what I write in the worst possible light.”

        I didn’t misrepresent anything. I quoted you at length so there would be absolutely no question about what you said or its context.

        “When I said that it was “secondary”, I was simply making the point that these are people who are already married with children. The alternative being divorce, then YES, ideals are secondary at best. I stand behind that and I still believe it.”

        Sure. She’s getting everything she wants: Nesting, money, attention. He’s getting nothing he wants. He wants a wife who actually, um, you know, wants to be there and who has a “healthy fear” of her husband. He won’t get that. And that’s not secondary. He has to live with a major need not getting met, while all her major needs are getting met. That is not secondary.

        I won’t respond further since it’s clear you haven’t read a word I said, or if you did, its meaning just isn’t registering with you. What men want and need from their marriages is important, it is not “secondary”, and we can’t just gloss over it and wave it away as meaningless and nothing.

        Have a good rest of your day.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “…not dealing with sleeping in a separate room for what will be 4 years this November, etc.”

        No. No no no. Absolutely unacceptable. That’s something that you’d need to address immediately. No, I would not permit that to go on one more day. No, she either acts like a wife or she does not get to be a wife. No.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        3 year old nursing and cosleeping in seperate room.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “3 year old nursing and cosleeping in seperate room.”

        Did you decide this together, or did she impose this on the marriage?

        Is this 3 year old still breastfeeding? That’s a long, long time to still be breastfeeding or even bottle feeding if so. Baby needs to be weaned off the breast before age 1 and needs to be off the bottle soon after that.

        This was a mistake I made when detiette was born, and we slept in separate beds for a few months. I was wrong in allowing it. I am glad I did not permit it when deti jr. was born 7 years later. No. Absolutely not. Wife needs to act like and be a wife, and part of that is sleeping with and being with her husband. No. I would not permit this.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I’ll chime in that having 51% of the say in important things is not biblical. When Peter writes “all things” and that Sarah called Abraham lord, he did so after going on about how slaves should obey their masters to the glory of God. Husbands are not 51% responsible for their families, they bear responsibility for it all. Tell your wife what you want and expect for your family, and from here and then, let her know that rebellion against this is sin if she defies you and she’ll have to answer to God for how she behaves. When she blows up, you tell her that all sinners in rebellion against God’s order pitch a fit, but if she’s truly one of God’s children, eventually the Holy Spirit will work on her heart until she comes around.

        The whole 51% thing is the language of complementarians use in their fear of telling Christian women the truth. It’s weak sauce. Husbands are 100% responsible for how they manage their families and wives are 100% responsible for falling under the husband’s management and obeying. Her authority in areas of the family he’s given her control over stems from him because he trusts her to do good for him.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Thanks for this RPA but you misunderstood. “51% of the vote” is a sarcastic way of saying when there’s two people one has to be in charge.

        I’ve had bosses that used this line. “I’m in charge.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Most women can’t even get themselves to worship God, much less get to “borders on worship” with a mortal man.

      I shouldn’t have put it quite that way.

      Most women today have experienced “borders on worship” with a mortal man. And most women today have had sex with such a man they could not marry. The reason they didn’t marry that man was because those women did not do, or could not be or do, what it takes to keep such a man. They didn’t bring enough to the table. They brought only their bodies, and it wasn’t enough.

      What most people will not tell you is that women never, ever forget this. And they boil over with seething resentment about it. And they will take it out on the men they marry. They think “I wasn’t good enough for Harley and I couldn’t keep him. Now I have to settle for Billy Beta. How am I supposed to feel “reverential fear” for him?” And they absolutely hate it. They hate themselves for not being good enough; and they hate Billy for not being Harley.

      The worst thing most men do in their marriages is not being as sexually attractive as the men their wives used to have sex with. That’s their worst “offense” – they’re just not as hot as the men their wives really wanted.

      Now I’m done.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. feeriker says:

    “Most women can’t even get themselves to worship God, much less get to “borders on worship” with a mortal man.”

    “I shouldn’t have put it quite that way.

    Most women today have experienced “borders on worship” with a mortal man. And most women today have had sex with such a man they could not marry.”

    “What most people will not tell you is that women never, ever forget this. And they boil over with seething resentment about it.”

    I’ll go even further and say that many of them not only can’t get themselves to worship God, they actually RESENT God for not giving them the man they wanted (i.e., Harley McBadboy / F_ckbuddy Rockdrummer). They LARP the “good, faithful Christian”, somehow thinking that virtue signaling the role will fool God like it fools (almost) everyone else around them. But deep down inside, they are furious at God for not making their girl dreams come true. Fortunately for them, they can project the blame for this onto their hapless Billy Beta husbands in a manner that their churches’ “leaders” will use to punish their husbands on their (the wives’) behalf.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. cameron232 says:

    “But when there is a long term marriage with kids and a profession of Christ…”

    Marriage, smarriage. For Catholics. As Zippy said most American Catholics probably aren’t sacramentally married since they don’t consent to God’s definition marriage. In our case we weren’t even Christians when we married. The priest mentioned “presumably” wrt when we were baptized but that doesn’t sound like certitude to me.

    Most of you are prots. What agreement is there on what makes a marriage? RPA says a valid marriage can be dissolved based on lack of sex (willful). Others say marriage is created by sex so if that’s true most men are committing adultery with another man’s (that guy from high school or whatever) wife and need to bail anyway. If you’re a prot read the Bible however you please on this.

    Bottom line is many legal marriages can probably be ended by sincere Christians who confess Christ.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Cam

      Doesn’t really make any difference if you want to get all the way down to it. You’re Catholic, you’re not getting divorced, and all this is a major speed bump you’ll negotiate and get over.

      Things are tough right now. She’ll get over it. So will you. Make a plan and start working on it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        And no an almost 30 year relationship and 8 kids cannot be used to force me to marry her.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “And no an almost 30 year relationship and 8 kids cannot be used to force me to marry her.”

        What does that even mean? You are married to her.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Read below. Maybe a natural/pagan marriage not sacramental.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Sounds like you’re legally married, even if you might not be “Catholic-ally” married. Consult a priest, then a lawyer.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I don’t want to get legally divorced – wouldn’t ever remarry. If I get 49% of the vote and I constantly get pushback instead of cooperation on things I see as important then I don’t want to raise kids. She asked earlier if I still want to sell the house and move back. What I’m thinking today is I want to move back home alone and send 1/4 of our modest bills (mortgage, utilities, etc.) to her. The adult boys should be paying rent to us anyway. 1/4 per adult.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        And if we’re not sharing a bed.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        OK dude, this is serious. You need to go see a priest and a lawyer. Not necessarily in that order. Godspeed and good luck.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cam,

        Regardless of whether the Catholic church recognizes your marriage, based on what you have written over the years God sees you as married. Your wife may have behaved in such a way that you could be biblically justified in getting rid of her, but that is a different conversation.

        In another comment you mentioned that your wife has not slept in the same bed with you for over 3 years. That is an issue that should end immediately. If I were you I’d say and then follow through something like what follows.

        “I’ve let sleeping in separate beds happen and I should not have. It ends tonight. I expect you to sleep in our bed with me starting tonight and moving forward.” She’ll most likely argue with you to start a fight, but don’t fall for it. Go about your day. If she’s in your bed at night, take the win. Most likely she’ll fitness test you and keep doing what she’s been doing. Grab your pillow and go snuggle in with her wherever she is. When she protests tell her, “I wasn’t joking. Love you. Sweet dreams.” And go to sleep.

        Few words with gentle, consistent, iron willed actions is what you’ll need to do. It may take some time so be mentally prepared to outlast her. When she finally comes around and you find her asleep in your bed one night you will have won the opening round of the most important game in your children’s lives (even the adult ones).

        The end goal is a submissive obedient wife and the only way to get at this point in your life is to make one through setting standards and being consistent with actions that uphold those standards. It’s like breaking a wild horse or an ill trained dog in that it takes time for the animal to realize you are serious and start complying. There’s a reason men in marriages are called husbands.

        If you choose to take action, know that you are going to have to apply a heaping dose of outcome independence. You are 100% right for wanting your wife to sleep in the marriage bed with you, remember that when she pitches a fit, because she will, and hold course no matter what she does.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. cameron232 says:

    Catholic/sacramental marriage is created by the consent of the will of both to God’s definition of marriage. We married as non baptized, non Christians in a ceremony with some generic goofball evangelical pastor we found. Don’t even remember the exact vows.

    Presumably such consent would be ratified (probably not the right legal word) when we were validly baptized in 2007.

    I have reason to believe she did not consent to God’s definition of marriage. When we had marital issues in 2013, she decided for a while that we were not married but rather friends. She changed her social media status to “single”, etc. I could chalk it up to a different state of mind then vs. when we married, except that she never repudiated this view later when I brought it up.

    I suspect, like most women, she considers the reality of the relationship to be based on her feelings for me and her feelings of being loved by me.
    These Christian rules about marriage aren’t what’s real, her feelz are what’s real.

    I plan to explore this with a knowledgeable priest. If we’re not sacramentally married, I don’t have to marry her.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “Presumably such consent would be ratified (probably not the right legal word) when we were validly baptized in 2007.”

      Convalidated. Catholics married as nonCatholics are considered to have their marriages convalidated in the Catholic church so long as all the other essentials are there.

      Well, I wish you the best here, Cam. If your relationship is coming apart, I understand. She might very well not meet the “consent to Catholic marriage” requirement. However you proceed, do so prayerfully, soberly, realistically, and with determination to do what’s good and right in God’s eyes and for your children.

      Like

    • surfdumb says:

      I hate hearing this, and am sorry she gets to have and exercise such destructive powers over her God-given head and husband….at least in this world, for a time, she gets to succeed at benefiting herself from being a destroyer.

      Like

      • feeriker says:

        Hell’s largest ghetto is going to be inhabited by rebellious women who dared to call themselves “Christian” in this earthly life.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Oh she’s not that bad. I resent that she ignores me on things that are important that she expects me to bring home the bacon but doesn’t feel the need to listen, that she all to often resists rather than cooperates, that she’s slept in a different room for 3.5 years, etc. And I’m one of the lucky ones.

        Don’t marry a woman who isn’t quite submissive is my take.

        Like

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