Laying out Expectations

…is a powerful way that men install boundaries.

Readership: Married Men; Marriage Minded Men; Domain Minded Men;
Theme: Feminine Submission
Author’s Note: This post is based on a conversation between Jack, Red Pill Apostle, Oscar, and Femmy under No More Mrs. Hot Mess! (2021/11/29). Links to the original comments are contained in the initial words.
Length: 1,900 words
Reading Time: Possibly the most important 10 minutes of your marriage!

Laying out Expectations

In yesterday’s post, Laying out Boundaries (2022/10/19), Red Pill Apostle made reference to the blessed peace and order that results from establishing boundaries within a relationship. Men, especially married men, may now be wondering, “What are boundaries?” “How can I go about creating boundaries in my own relationship?”

RPA tells us that one way to do this is by clearly stating your expectations for her and the relationship.

“What I should have done differently many years ago was to lay out specific expectations of behavior from her. It may not have fixed things, but she would have had a standard against which to judge her own actions and that may have been enough to let her know where she stood with me.”

A couple years into his marriage, Jack laid out very specific expectations for his wife. Here are a few of them.

  • I expect you to show respect to me at all times, no matter what I’ve done or how you’re feeling.
  • I expect you to seek out my opinion, and value it once it is given, even if you disagree with it.
  • Whenever I am talking, I expect you to listen carefully and without interruption.
  • I expect you to consider my interests above anyone else’s, including your own.
  • I expect you to be able to give an account for any money that you might spend.
  • I expect you to ask my permission for any expenditure over $100.
  • Whenever you need to wake me up, I expect you to do so with a tender touch instead of words.
  • I expect that you will not make loud noises or have busy activities before 10:00 am.
  • I expect that when I come home from work you will greet me at the door with a passionate kiss and you will allow me half an hour of quiet time to rest before you present your concerns of the day to me.
  • I expect you to stay under 55 kg.
  • I expect that you will never cut your hair shorter than shoulder length.
  • I expect you to dress appropriately and attractively whenever we go out in public.
  • I expect you to wear something sexy or nothing at all while we are at home (alone).
  • I expect you to be ready to have sex with me any time I get an erection, and that you will have sex with me at least once every day.

For a long time, Jack’s wife complained about these expectations, saying that he was too controlling and demanding. Mrs. Apostle was the same way. This is normal. Most women would look at Jack’s list and would scoff at it. But within a period of time (about 8 months for RPA’s wife, and one year for Jack’s wife), they complied.

Jack’s Home: “I expect you to wear something sexy or nothing at all…”

Derek (Ramman3000) had it a little easier, because from the onset, his wife agreed with his list of expectations in marriage, given as follows.

  • We would first and foremost have a devout Christian home, with regular and active church attendance.
  • We would be united as one flesh. Decisions would be made together in unity of purpose. We would always communicate. There would be no prioritization of “his” or “her”, for one cannot separate what has been cleaved together as one.
  • We would never lie to one another or keep secrets. Complete trust was required. We would keep things in common (finances, email, etc.) because there could be no secrets.
  • Our friendship would always be of critical importance.
  • Divorce was condemned (and thus, no prenups allowed).
  • We would have a minimum of one child, with the expectation (but not requirement) of two. When one person felt it was time to have children, then the other partner could not refuse. To do so would be cheating the spouse and grounds for annulment of the marriage (which was never going to actually happen).
  • We would not go to bed angry.
  • We would never contradict one another in front of the children. If we had a disagreement, we would discuss it without the children present.
  • We would both finish school, get jobs, and do international travel.
  • She could wear makeup, but only rarely for special occasions. Jewelry must be modest. Hair should be at least shoulder-length.
  • We would never have extra-marital sex.
  • We had few other expectations regarding physical intimacy other than that when two people meet intimately for the first time, they must grow together physically however they see fit, adapting together to each person’s needs. We agreed that the details would never be shared with anyone else, and it never has been.

Derek concluded,

“We’ve been married two decades. This list has served us well. I would not change the relationship’s focus on unity, trust, and friendship for anything in the world.”

Derek’s Home: “Our friendship would always be of critical importance.”

A man’s clearly stated expectations establishes the wife’s spiritual boundaries

Wives may not do all that their husband expects, but they will usually come pretty close.

We might wonder, why do wives eventually conform to their husband’s expectations, but only after a year or so, and then only loosely?

The reason is because if she disregards these expectations, then she is not only casually disobeying and/or actively rebelling against her husband, she is also sinning by breaking God’s instruction to wives (1 Peter 3:1-6, Ephesians 5:22-33, and Colossians 3:18).

You see, once these expectations/boundaries are in place and are shown to be sufficiently rigid, women can feel those boundaries, and it affects their consciences if they cross them. They do not respond immediately because it takes a while for wives to realize in their hearts that these boundaries are not merely their husband’s preferences, nor are these boundaries limited to the home nor even their marriage, but in fact, these boundaries envelop her whole social and spiritual identity.

Case Study 1 — Weight no more!

For example, if Jack’s wife really wanted to please him, then she would stay under 55 kg. as he stated. But she’ll stay around 58 kg., not because she is lazy or wants to test Jack’s boundaries, but because she feels guilty or ashamed to go over 60 kg. After she became familiar with this reality enough for her to take responsibility for it (which took about 4 years), she decided to become a vegetarian who occasionally indulges in playfully stealing shrimp and chicken nuggets from Jack.

Of course, it would be much harder for a man to state such an expectation when his wife weighs twice what she should, and it would take longer for her to fall in line and reduce her dress size. But by faith in the power of God, I believe the results would be very similar. It is not really the wife’s fault either. The husband can only blame himself for neglecting to exercise his God given authority and letting the bulge grow out of hand for so long.

Case Study 2 — The Glorious Covering of Hairship

Here’s another example. One time, Jack’s wife cut her hair shorter than shoulder length. She argued that having long hair required work and sacrifice, i.e. she has to spend more time to wash and care for her hair each day, and she has to endure criticism from other women who are envious of her long hair. Jack expressed strong disapproval, and this made her angry, and then they had a cold war for a couple weeks. But she never did that again, and it’s because she felt guilty for not loving herself more, not because Jack said it made her less beautiful. After a while, the hamster caught up to ground speed, and she began to recognize the importance of submitting to Jack’s requests to present herself as a beautiful woman.

Conclusions

A man can build a house, but a wife makes it into a home. Wives cannot build, nor can husbands feather the nest.

When a husband tells his wife his expectations, he paints a detailed portrait of a glorified life together. Metaphorically, he shows her the blueprint of a house and plants a seed of hope in her heart.

Once a wife gets into the practice of fitting into her husband’s expectations, she begins to form a new life for herself within the boundaries proscribed by her husband. When she catches his vision of a Life shared together, she carries the hope of realizing that. This hope is bolstered as she sees progress in building the house and she is inspired to feather it into a home. At this point, she takes joy in her husband’s covering hedge, because she knows how to do well and how to please God within her domain. Her joy then spreads throughout the home and the family.

So you see, the reason why wives conform to their husband’s expectations is not simply because he asked her to do so, nor does it need to be her motivation to please him. The reason she never quite matches his expectations is because it is not her purpose to do so. Her goal is to feather the nest and her purpose is to achieve the dream he imparted to her conscious awareness. She is thereby motivated to cooperate with him towards fulfilling this hope. If she gets too far away from the vision her husband gave to her through his expectations, then she will feel ashamed, guilty, and/or regretful.

The things most men don’t understand are that…

  • They need to have a vision of a blessed and glorified Life to share with the wife (and family).
  • They need to continually reinforce the wife’s understanding of this vision.
  • The husband’s word carries spiritual force over his wife and home.
  • God has granted Men this spiritual authority over their wives and homes.
  • Wives can actually feel in their hearts that disregarding their husband’s boundaries is sin.
  • Wives get confused and become disobedient when the husband’s expectations are not congruent and/or do not contribute towards the vision of a blessed Life together.
  • Wives feel motivated to avoid the guilt and shame brought on from moving too far away from her husband’s expectations / vision. This internal conviction in the wife is enforced not by the husband’s character, discipline, nor love for his wife, but by the power of God.

Moreover, stating expectations is an important part of the feedback that women need, which I’ve described in the following posts:

It’s also important for fathers to state expectations and give feedback to daughters too, and this needs to be done before they start to adopt the false hopes and dreams offered by the world.

Men need to teach those within their domain of influence (e.g. male friends, children, and those we mentor) to become comfortable stating their expectations clearly, specifically, and confidently. It’s better to break up before marriage because the couple’s expectations / values / visions diverge intolerably, than to get divorced for the same reason, or to be stuck in a miserable marriage for that reason (AKA incompatible differences).

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Boundaries, Calculated Risk Taking, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Clothing, Collective Strength, Communication Styles, Communications, Conflict Management, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Desire, Passion, Discipline, Discipline and Molding, Ethical Systems, Female Evo-Psych, Female Power, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Fundamental Frame, Game, Game Theory, Glory, Headship and Patriarchy, Health and Fitness, Holding Frame, Identity, Inner Game, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Joy, Leadership, Love, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Parenting, Perseverance, Personal Domain, Personal Presentation, Persuasion, Power, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Sphere of Influence, The Hamster, The Power of God, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Laying out Expectations

  1. ramman3000 says:

    Jack said:

    “…his wife agreed with his list of expectations in marriage.”

    …and I said:

    “…my wife and I came to an agreement on a number of terms.”

    These are not the same thing. Our agreements were mutual, as between two normal people deciding to do something together and actually doing it. It cannot be described as my list. I gave it to highlight what I think are important elements in a marriage (contrasted with Jack’s list of elements), not to highlight that it was a list or suggest that people should turn into Pharisees. It’s only a list in my head, because I like abstractions.

    Anyway, I do think that expectations should be clearly stated. I know of one couple who didn’t discuss children before they were married, because it would have caused them conflict. They just deferred the conflict to after they were married. This is, frankly, fairly insane. The key is not to go into marriage blind.

    “[Spouses] may not do all that their [spouse] expects, but they will usually come pretty close.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      ramman3000,

      “Our agreements were mutual, as between two normal people deciding to do something together and actually doing it. It cannot be described as my list.”

      Had your wife disagreed with you over the key elements of the list, would you have still married her?

      Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        “Had your wife disagreed with you over the key elements of the list, would you have still married her?”

        No. We each had one or two deal-breakers that would have meant no marriage if we had not agreed. Nonetheless, most of the items were not key, but were more like guidelines, wise things to do and were expected to be done, but may possibly have exceptions or be subject to change. A couple of them were merely a respect for preferences, not rules as such.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        On the other hand, I know my own weaknesses, and I would have settled for less. I didn’t have to, but I probably would have in that alternate universe where that was my choice. You said…

        “Men make all sorts of errors, almost exclusively emotionally driven, trying not to lose something instead of making a rational evaluation that is congruent with their objectives.”

        …and I agree. It is very hard to evaluate a relationship under strong emotional influences, especially if you are young.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “Had your wife disagreed with you over the key elements of the list, would you have still married her?”

        “No. We each had one or two deal-breakers that would have meant no marriage if we had not agreed.”

        So you, as the person in control of commitment, had a list with items on it you would not compromise. That’s a man’s list of expectations, just like Jack said. That your wife concurred with your absolutes for makes your marriage easier because she naturally complies, but her naturally conforming to you does not make your list mutual. That your wife had her own list in no way invalidates the fact that you as the man had one.

        That y’all mutually agreed on your lists is a sign of God’s grace in your marriage. The vast majority of men in the west have not been given that grace and have a more difficult task getting their wives on the same page. My intuition is that because you and your wife were more in agreement, and from what you’ve written she seems to have been honest in that agreement, you have been spared from seeing her more sorted elements of base female nature come out in a wife that is he!! bent on control. At times I believe this hinders your ability to understand what a significant portion of marriages go through as well as see some of the hard truths that marital discord and pain have a tendency to reveal. The nitpicking Jack’s take on your list is one example of this.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “as the person in control of commitment [..] That’s a man’s list of expectations [..] with your absolutes”

        No, I did not say that.

        “…lists…”

        It was two adults having conversations and making decisions about important issues. The list is from an abstraction that exists only in my head, an historical summary as it were.

        “At times I believe this hinders your ability to understand what a significant portion of marriages go through as well as see some of the hard truths that marital discord and pain have a tendency to reveal. The nitpicking Jack’s take on your list is one example of this.”

        I understand why he has the list he has. I don’t consider it nitpicking because it is a different paradigm. He and you do not really understand what I’m saying, and I’m unable to communicate it effectively.

        Jack somewhat reminds me of Timothy Keller, in that Keller tries to find his “unified field theory of X.” Keller tries to take science, religion, social movements and make a tent for everyone. For example, he frequently positively cites Catholics and Marxists. It’s almost a kind of “Love Wins” universalism. He cherry picks scriptures and interprets them to fit his narrative—even when the context doesn’t allow it—and discards anything that can’t possibly fit that narrative (e.g. the last two chapters of the Book of Esther). But in the end he finds a way to reconcile the irreconcilable, and he is very popular for it.

        I don’t assume our respective lists are reconcilable. I expect that they represent different incompatible underlying paradigms. Anyone can take what I say and try put it into a patriarchal frame. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t. But I’m not encouraging anyone to do that and they shouldn’t assume that I did.

        “a wife that is he!! bent on control. [..] At times I believe this hinders your ability to understand”

        It’s like I’ve said in the past, I can point to dozens of successful marriages that do not follow the advice on this forum. They don’t have wives that are hellbent on control. How is this possible?

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I’ll put this simply and concisely.

        The lists are not separate paradigms, you just appear to have a wife that naturally satisfied your expectations. That you had items on your list that would have ruled out your wife had she not been in compliance shows they are not separate paradigms.

        To answer your last question, some women are naturally passive making it easier on her husband and some men are naturally more dominant and his wife stays in line. That’s how you can have marriages that look happy and with the wife not appearing to suffer the curse of Genesis 3:16 as much as other women. For a majority of marriages this is not the case and men suck it up and deal with his choices because that is what men do.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Red Pill Apostle says:

    “It’s better to break up before marriage because the couple’s expectations / values / visions diverge intolerably, than to get divorced for the same reason, or to be stuck in a miserable marriage for that reason (AKA incompatible differences).”

    This is the where Rollo and other PUA types admonitions to have an abundance mentality has real benefits for Christian men. If a man is seriously contemplating marriage, he should be more wary of getting the choice wrong from a compatibility standpoint than he should be about losing the girl. Men make all sorts of errors, almost exclusively emotionally driven, trying not to lose something instead of making a rational evaluation that is congruent with their objectives.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      St. Roissy, Commandment 16:

      XVI. Never be afraid to lose her

      You must not fear. Fear is the love-killer. Fear is the ego-triumph that brings abject loneliness. You will face your fear. You will permit it to pass over and through you. And when your ego-fear is gone you will turn and face your lover, and only your heart will remain. You will walk away from her when she has violated your integrity, and you will let her walk when her heart is closed to you. She who can destroy you, controls you. Don’t give her that power over yourself. Love yourself before you love her.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Ah Roissy … I probably reference the 16 commandments once per month. They are irreverent, immoral in many cases and, with the tweaks needed to bring the fornication parts into line with the Bible, they are the most effective guide to finding and building a healthy relationship I’ve come across.

        Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “If a man is seriously contemplating marriage, he should be more wary of getting the choice wrong from a compatibility standpoint than he should be about losing the girl.”

      Yes, completely agree! In looking back this is exactly the point I reached with the two women I could have married, and the one I did. I’d like to say it was me being a logical man and running some sort of “marital expectations checklist” on the three women like this blog post describes; however to be perfectly honest about it, I can look back and see that God was doing this for me. I was in an emotional realm of decision making with a little bit of logical thinking entering the decision making which in hindsight, I believe God was prompting in me. IOW, He was breaking through the emotional fog and getting me to think somewhat clearly.

      So, these were all Christian women of varying degrees of development in their faith, so it would have been easy to say to myself, “Hey, we’re all Believers so any of them would do.” In looking back, the guy with no marital expectations list (me), did in retrospect (with God’s guidance), use “deal breaking” methodology. IOW, I was considering, “Is this mindset or behavior deal breaking?” I recall the exact language I used at the time was, “Can I live with this?”

      In one case, it was her weak faith and rejection of walking close with God, in favor of Churchianity and a feminist life script, primarily the career aspect of the script. I knew, as much as it was breaking my heart, I had to let the relationship go and was dragging my feet about it. Fortunately, she did me a favor and beat me to the punch and rejected me. Result? Broken heart for about three months, then I pulled out of it (again, with God’s help) and got back out there dating again.

      In case two, the issue was not her faith as much, it was more her mental state. I think she was bi-polar or something in that realm. Loving one minute, the next ready to “tear my eyes out.” I knew it wouldn’t work out in the long run, even though I hated to give up her looks and especially her body which was voluptuous. I finally reached a conclusion, “No matter how much a turn on she is, I’m going to live in some sort of emotional ‘hell’ with this girl?” I remember the language I used was, “She’s a Jekyll and Hyde girl.”

      The one I married was closer to God than the other two, although she was a few years younger and still growing in her faith, but she was more “mold-able” in that she wanted to grow spiritually and looked to me to lead her in that area. She was also attractive too, and close enough to woman #2 in body type to easily pass the boner test.

      My point in all this? Well, most men, especially young one’s, will not have a list for marriage like the one’s in this post unless they are taught it ahead of time. In lieu of a list, the next best thing is to be on the look out for “deal breakers.” For me, a deal breaker is a red flag that once examined proves to be a “no go” for marrying that woman (same thing works in reverse for the girls).

      In retrospect, God had me using a deal breaking list as opposed to a marital expectations list because that’s about all I could understand at the time. It was the limits to my relational understanding as a 29-30 year old man. Remember this was 33-34 years ago, many (most?) 30 year old guys at the time, because of cultural conditioning, I.e. “make something of yourself,” were “on their purpose” in life or at least up to something worthwhile job/career-wise and maybe a bit more mature than today’s 30 year old men. I don’t know, just seems that way when I deal with today’s late twenty something to early thirty something males in my men’s team work.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Lastmod says:

    Did you sign an agreement with her, with all your expectations? Have a lawyer go over it line by line. Have a witness sign it? What if she didn’t follow one exactly? Was she “punished”?

    How does a man find time to work, build his “masculine hobbies” and be a natural leader in church and the community and have time to do thing around the home (fix that leaky tap, change the oil in the car…) while enforcing your “just a few of you expectations that are listed above” sounds exhausting. Sounds not like a loving marriage. Sounds like, “do as I say, or I will justify divorce, even though the Bible says you really cant do that”

    And you did this into a few years of your marriage??? Most men will not have that luxury. Most men would be in front of judge, being divorced, having his children (if any) stripped from him and forced to move back to his teenage bedroom at his parents home because he cannot afford anything except for child support, court fees, and maybe his car payments / insurance.

    Again, you make it simple “men need boundaries with their wife / women. How? Here are just a few of mine, presto!

    Most men are not natural leaders, most men cannot do the work you do, or have the “value” in provision / intellect /status that you have (and never will).

    You may be able to have to ability and luxury and all the gifts god gives to do this. Most men don’t.

    Divorce is high today, and its not just because of social media and feminism. Our hero Ronald Reagan made it EASY to get. Marriage isn’t working? Not happy? Leave. Over the decades the additional cash n’ prizes slowly were added to what we have now.

    Hence most men, unless they are you, and a few others here….don’t have the means or the “bullets” to back this up. They don’t.

    The average guy who volunteers on Sunday at your church, and is deemed by men like you to “go stand in the parking lot and direct traffic, we’ll pray for you while we get fed”

    That guy wont be able to put these “boundaries” on his wife. A man like that and his wife are sitting over the dinner table after the kids are in bed wrestling with the budget, wife wants to take a class to get better work, the man is considering to take a second job on Saturdays…..they don’t need boundaries because they both understand at this point in their marriage, they have to make it work. A divorce would ruin both of them.

    Hence why marriages “had” to work pre 1970 in many cases. Both just had to “make do” and fix it.

    Boundaries like you mention, I suppose are needed in a general sense but its again a LUXURY for HIGH VALUE men. Not most of them.

    Like

  4. thedeti says:

    “You will do what I want/give me what I want, or I won’t have sex with you.”

    Women have no problem telling men this, or at least strongly implying this in word and deed. Women are stating their expectations.

    So I don’t see a problem with men saying, clearly and explicity:

    “I expect X, Y, and Z. If you fail to meet these expectations, we’re done.”

    Too many times, the problem with men’s expectations is not that men have expectations, but that men fail to state their expectations explicitly and to condition their continued commitment on their women’s meeting said expectations.

    Yes, I understand that Duluth labels it “abuse” when a man “threatens” to break up with/leave/divorce a woman if she fails to do what he says/wants. (“Threatening to leave her” is considered “abuse” and “physical violence” under Duluth.) It’s not. It’s clearly stating expectations.

    Under Duluth, any expectations a man has for a woman can be considered “abusive”. Go look at the Duluth “wheel of power and control” and you’ll see it there. Any expectations you have are “abusive” if she deems them so.

    You just need to state your expectations clearly from the get go, and then end the relationship if she fails to meet them. Done and dusted.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “So I don’t see a problem with men saying, clearly and explicitly”

      The way to phrase the idea of expectations and the consequences of not meeting them is to put it on equal footing. How you express and frame the following matters.

      “You have your things that you are not willing to do because you don’t like them all that much or they make you uncomfortable and that is a perfectly reasonable. I won’t begrudge you those because why would I want you to be uncomfortable? There are things that you want me to do that I don’t like, I’m uncomfortable doing or prefer not to and our relationship will be better if we’re not expecting each other to do things that cause us discomfort. So if you rightfully don’t want to do x, then I rightfully don’t have to do y and we’ll be better off for it.”

      There are always a host of things that the wife expects the husband to do for or with her when he’d rather be doing something else. I had this basic conversation with my wife last month. There are things that are really important to me that she’s not willing to do and now I don’t have to do things that she really wants that I’d rather not do.

      For me, I maintain the status quo of life while removing things I’d rather not do which is a net positive for me. This misunderstanding of what husbands put up with is the strategic error of the modern woman princess. She has high expectations of her husband but low expectations of what she must contribute to the relationship. If your wife ever asks or expresses a sentiment such as “Am I not good enough the way I am” or “But this is who I am” when you ask her to change something for you, she is most likely a modern woman princess and the “uncomfortable” logic I outlined is strategically in your favor.

      So men, if you take thedeti’s direct wording she and her friends will probably call it emotional abuse rather quickly. But if you word your position to expose the base nature of what she is doing, which is setting a boundary of uncomfortable/rather not for herself, and then take the same position for yourself, it’s a perfectly reasonable stance that your emotions are equal to her emotions.

      If she changes her mind on something and starts doing it for you, then you can say something like, “It really means a lot to me that you are willing to do X for me even though it’s not your favorite. It really made me feel loved and I’d like do Y with/for you hoping that you’ll feel the same from me.” Logically, there is nothing different between thedeti and I are saying. How something is communicated matters though and probably more than you think.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        So men, if you take thedeti’s direct wording she and her friends will probably call it emotional abuse rather quickly.

        Maybe. But if this

        “You will do what I want/give me what I want, or I won’t have sex with you”

        is acceptable; then this

        “I expect X, Y, and Z. If you fail to meet these expectations, we’re done”

        must also be acceptable.

        If the man’s statement of “meet my expectations or I’m done” is “abuse”, then the woman’s statement of “do what I want or no sex” is “abuse” as well.

        Withholding sex is abuse. Using sex as a weapon is abuse.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        thedeti,

        “But if this

        “You will do what I want/give me what I want, or I won’t have sex with you”

        is acceptable; then this

        “I expect X, Y, and Z. If you fail to meet these expectations, we’re done”

        must also be acceptable.”

        100% true and logical. My phrasing is taking your logic and selling it in a way that makes a woman understand without her feeling that the man is being overbearing. Sales are generally made on emotion, not logic.

        Liked by 3 people

  5. Sharkly says:

    “Wives feel motivated to avoid the guilt and shame brought on from moving too far away from her husband’s expectations / vision.”

    LOL Must be nice to have the sort of wife that lets blue-pilled thoughts like that persist in your head. NAWALT

    Like

  6. Oscar says:

    Okay. A man clearly states his standards for her weight before marriage. She pretends to agree. Once married, she gets fat anyway.

    He reminds her of his standards and her agreement. She makes excuses, and doesn’t lose the weight.

    Now what?

    Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “He reminds her of his standards and her agreement. She makes excuses, and doesn’t lose the weight.

      Now what?”

      The man enforces whatever it was he said he’d do when he told her what would happen if she got fat. If he doesn’t she knows his rules are arbitrary and she’ll do whatever she wants just like a child testing a parent. In fact, if he set the expectation that she stay slim and she goes full wifopotamus after the wedding, she knew he was weak from the start and wouldn’t enforce his expectations.

      His options are enforce expectations and live with the consequences or be weak and live with the consequences. It will come down to the man being serious about what he said and having the will to enforce what he said.

      This question is only difficult to answer if the man does not have the fortitude to keep his word.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Maybe he said he’d divorce her if she got fat.

        Her getting fat isn’t biblical grounds for divorce. So, he can divorce her legally, but ontologically he’s still married to her and he cannot marry another. So he has to be alone. So does she.

        If she relents, and comes to him and says she’ll comply, and she does and she loses the weight, and demonstrates she’ll do what he wants her to do, he has to take her back.

        Maybe he said he wouldn’t take her on vacations if she got fat. Then, no vacations for as long as she’s fat. The consequence is imposed for as long as she fails to comply or as long as he said he would impose the consequence. She loses the weight and shows she’ll do what he wants, then he can take her on vacations.

        Liked by 1 person

    • locustsplease says:

      Question everything she eats jokingly they hate this. Doritos again huh? They can only take it a little while.

      Like

  7. Scott says:

    All this stuff about bargaining points and all is sad to read.

    Dalrock often wrote about women being stingy with love, which I found to be one of the most insightful points he hammered on.

    I understand the evolutionary psychology of it. I understand that women of ancient pre-history had to be very careful who they gave it up for. This was a survival mechanism and it is hard-wired now.

    But we are Christians. We are supposed to be able to short-circuit that stuff, and do it with grace. Imagine the power of witness we would have on non-Christians if we could get this right.

    If I was a preacher, I would preach this sermon once in a while.

    Ladies. It is in your nature to withhold affection from your husbands. It is as strong an urge as anything else you have going on. You have to fight this urge. Just as I preached last week against the man’s urge to impregnate everything around him that moves, you must also fight your nature. Being stingy with love and affection is the antithesis of what Christ taught about love. He showed us that it is a never-ending font that we pour out on others. It costs you absolutely nothing to do that. You must crush your fear that somehow you might not get a fair share of whatever it is you think you need in return.

    When he comes home lick him from head to toe! Pour your affection on him like a teenage girl with a new boyfriend. Think of ways every day to pour that love on him as if he is the most wonderful provider, king of the castle, hard-working sexy husband on earth. Do not let him wonder about that for one second. Do this with words, with cooking, with praise, in the bedroom, whatever. This is your marital obligation and it is not something your husband has to earn. Did Christ love with a price like that?

    I won’t promise you that you will ‘get something’ in return, but I promise you this. Here is how men think. When you show that level of affection to a guy, he thinks, “Holy crap! What did I do to deserve this?” and then sets himself upon the task to do even better tomorrow. I swear. We are really that easy. What do you have to lose? Once you let him into your life as husband, the testing him for whether he “deserves” it or not ended, full stop. Just love. Period.”

    Liked by 7 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      This would be a church husbands would want to bring their families to.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Too many churches do this already “families / marriage / the children / the youth” and look how that is working? Every church claims to be “all about jesus” and usually that means families.

        There are more single than married now, I would prefer a church that actually wants to build disciples, actually BEHAVES as Jesus did, or at least really strives to that (never seen a church that does this, all claim it…). Church today is a club. You’re in? “Huh? whats the problem, we are such a caring, amazing, loving church that says come as you are!”

        Not in?

        “You need to repent / wait on god…go sit over here and stay there / need to be a provider / accept where god has placed you / who do you think you are, you dont run things here…I speak greek, went to this school, took these classes, married longer, have more gifts, god talks to me personally…”

        Scott, I would like to hear more sermons in that vein, but you won’t. The church has itchy ears (and its always the most devout or ‘holier than thou’ that embody this) and people make themselves to be saintly and others to be dirty

        Reminds me of this, hilarious…but kinda-true

        Liked by 1 person

    • naturallyaspirated says:

      For starters I’ll just take a church that admits men and women have different needs, are wired differently, and those wiring differences need to be taken into consideration when counseling or preaching on relationships and marriage.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        I believe this a primary cause of the churches failure on marriage.

        If leadership would simply acknowledge the unique challenges that BOTH parties have to making marriage work — that are INNATE to their sex — and do not let up pressure on them to rise up and meet those challenges it would go a long way.

        Hold feet to the fire, individually and collectively. Give them hope that they can actually do it. That they can love each other exactly the way they are required to, even on the days when the other spouse doesn’t “deserve” it. In fact, especially on the days when they don’t.

        Currently, and for every generation alive today, we have been taught that ONLY men have to fight their nature and that women are perfect for just showing up with a vagina. There is no way that doesn’t turn out with the mess we have now.

        Liked by 4 people

      • info says:

        @Scott

        Its a deep seated problem once Bridal Mysticism which treats Jesus as a Husband/boyfriend started driving men out of the Church in the West. Imbuing women with the Aura of natural Sainthood far better than the Men.

        If women pray more, more outwardly religious. That is somehow tantamount of them being inherently Good.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Joe2 says:

      “Ladies. It is in your nature to withhold affection from your husbands. It is as strong an urge as anything else you have going on. You have to fight this urge.”

      It’s not in their nature.

      They withhold affection or lack affection because they are not sexually attracted to their husbands. Those husbands they find sexually attractive receive affection in spades.

      The first hurdle is to train, teach, convince — if that is at all possible — the ladies that they are sexually attracted to their husbands and everything else will fall into place.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “The first hurdle is to train, teach, convince — if that is at all possible — the ladies that they are sexually attracted to their husbands and everything else will fall into place.”

        This is only the first hurdle in dealing with a woman who is already defiled.

        You see, the blood covenant of virgin sex is intended to be God’s way of creating this attraction to husband. But if Chad gets the honors, then other than Chad, only SuperChad Game Master can create Attraction / Arousal in her. This goes back to Deep Strength’s post about Why expectations of men and women are out of control (2022-10-14), which was expanded upon in The Wages of Sin are Paid in Marriage (2022-10-15). So the first hurdle is preserving virginity for the wedding night. But even so, women will still want to withhold affection as a form of control, as Scott described.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Lack of sexual attraction is always the problem; and it’s always at the root. When you get all the way down to every marriage problem, it is about lack of sexual attraction. Either it used to be there and it’s gone; or it was never really there in the first place.

        Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “But we are supposed to be Christians. We are supposed to be able to short-circuit that stuff, and do it with grace. Imagine the power of witness we would have on non-Christians if we actually WERE Christians, in deed as well as word and could get this right.”

      FIFY.

      This is the source of the problem, especially where women are concerned.

      Like

    • Kentucky Gent says:

      “I understand the evolutionary psychology of it… This was a survival mechanism and it is hard-wired now.”

      Scott is revered and esteemed here in this forum. Who am I, a newcomer and socially awkward, to argue? No one, that’s who.

      Respect to Scott.

      But I categorically reject evolution. It’s preposterous on the face of it, and should be rejected by every true Christian. This absurdity of Modernism is not just an absurdity, but a travesty, a heresy, and a red herring from Satan.

      So many evils from the 19th century are perpetuated to this day. This is just another one of them. Thank Karl Marx for Marxism. Thank Lenin for Leninism (and Feminism, if you didn’t know). And thank Darwin for Evolution. It is all — all — man-made lies.

      Like

      • Jack says:

        Kentucky Gent,
        Around here, evolutionary psychology is taken to be a theoretical model for better understanding human behavior. Biblical Christianity can also be used as a model for understanding human behavior. Reality doesn’t fit either model perfectly. But the man of faith will see the correlations, get a better understanding of things, and adjust his ways accordingly.

        Like

    • Rowena says:

      In response to Scott sir’s first post about wives loving their husbands…

      Ephesians 5:33 (NKJV)
      …let the wife see that she respects her husband.

      I will add… “RESPECT no matter what!” This is easy to do when he does things that are respect worthy. But in the course of a lifetime of marriage he WILL fail. He will do “You are kidding me, you did WHAT!!!!” He WILL mess up. He WILL have setbacks — and some of those will be because of decisions you were NOT on onboard with, NOT in agreement with, but chose to submit to. You have to resist the base nature in you that CRAVES to say, “I told you so!” (putting tongue between teeth and biting it really hard helps). You have to choose to ACT respectfully toward him — keep the list of disrespectful behaviours on hand and hold yourself to the standard that you will not indulge in even one (Prayer helps here) and then HELP him. So the ship is going down? No point in whining and complaining. What does he need NOW? Do you need to call the bank, accountant, fire department???? Water needs to be bailed; lifejackets out — whatever — you are in this TOGETHER even if it ends up you are going down TOGETHER!

      And then assuming you make it — and he gets a new ship; resist EVERY single cell in your body that CRAVES to take control. TO be the one in charge now. You are not. He is in charge. Always was. Always will be. He is the captain. Hopefully — a better one now. But you do not get to take over now. He will need you to believe in him. To encourage him. To keep helping him. Ask him what he needs NOW. Comply. And pray — God will change whoever needs to be changed so there is unity between you. (Because surprise! surprise! Practically all the times I pray that — I find out God tells me I am the one that needs to change to what my husband wants. Go figure!)

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Name it to Change it! | Σ Frame

  9. Pingback: Expectations and boundaries | Christianity and masculinity

  10. Kentucky Gent says:

    Scott says:…

    “But we are Christians. We are supposed to be able to short-circuit that stuff, and do it with grace.”

    Hmm. This suggests that evo-psyche is bunk, if Christianity can short circuit it. (It’s not “hardwired” in that case!) In other words, truth trumps propaganda… yet again.

    Methinks you hit the nail on the head with this shot.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Scott says:

    “Around here, evolutionary psychology is taken to be a theoretical model for better understanding human behavior. Biblical Christianity can also be used as a model for understanding human behavior. Reality doesn’t fit either model perfectly. But the man of faith will see the correlations, get a better understanding of things, and adjust his ways accordingly.”

    This is about as close to where I am on the issue as I could do myself. As I have written elsewhere, a model that cannot describe or predict human behavior is a pretty useless theory. Evolutionary psychology does a pretty good job of both, in matters that men really care about.

    When I look out at the world and observe things that tend to run aground of literal dogmatic interpretations of scripture, my general reaction is to put on a pause on myself and ask more questions. For example, I think its been a while since I believed in a literal 6-day interpretation of the creation of the world. But I also don’t see how it matters in my daily life.

    If God took 450 million years (or 6 days) to get us to this point, or 6 does it make it any more or less awesome?

    Likewise, if everything about the way men and women interact can be explained by a curse they received upon being ejected from the Garden of Eden and the way that curse was achieved was something like evolution, then its still true. I file these conundrums under the label, “Stuff God did that I will never fully understand the mechanics of.”

    I was watching the movie “Contact” again a few days ago and the same thing occurred to me that always does. “Why would the discovery of aliens in outer space PROVE the non-existence of God to so many people?” Wouldn’t it just be that God created them too? In fact, to his credit, Carl Sagan handles this problem with great sensitivity in the book/film. He puts Ellie Arroway in the position of having to convince everyone else on faith that she had an experience that not one other person on earth saw. Even when she asks the hologram representation of the alien if they were the ones who built the worm-hole highway system, he says, “No, it was here long before us.” So even the aliens have no idea how everything got there.

    In fact, I have so much faith in this that I would be willing to bet the following: If an advanced civilization was found on some distant planet, it would consist of believers and non-believers. They would not be some monolithic culture of individual entities who all believe basically the same thing, as portrayed in almost every science fiction movie about aliens ever made.

    The noise in the variance causes everyone distress. It’s how they deal with it that differs.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      The relationship between science and faith has always been an ongoing point of interest for me. In fact, I intentionally chose to attend a certain college specifically because the Mathematics, Chemistry, and Physics professors were Christians. One of my Physics professors had a habit of quoting a passage of scripture at the beginning of every class and entertaining any questions from the class about it. On one occasion, I heard this same professor recite the entire book of Ephesians from memory — word for word! And on another occasion, he recited the entire book of Philippians — again, word for word! I have one older post that is an essay written by this particular professor on the topic of Science and Scripture (2009-11-20). Those readers who share my interest in this topic may enjoy reading his words.

      Coincidentally, Catacomb Resident wrote of closely related things in his latest post, Recycling the Earth (2022-10-24).

      Like

    • Kentucky Gent says:

      “When I look out at the world and observe things that tend to run aground of literal dogmatic interpretations of scripture, my general reaction is to put on a pause on myself and ask more questions.”

      Everything I’ve learned about Christianity points to “literal dogmatic interpretation of all scripture” as being a dangerous heterodox innovation. In other words, (and paraphrasing Dr. David Anders) scripture is inerrant allegorically, morally and anagogically, but not necessarily historically. And the OT should be interpreted in the light of the NT, mainly that God is love.

      “For example, I think its been a while since I believed in a literal 6-day interpretation of the creation of the world. But I also don’t see how it matters in my daily life.”

      Exactly. Probably why I wouldn’t make a great apologist. Worrying about where Cain got his wife is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I suspect the people who reject the faith based on such trivialities are really just trying to justify their refusal to set aside their own will in favor of God’s will.

      Like

  12. Pingback: Game is an invitation to Humility | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Very few women can be Molded. | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: What we’ve learned about Feminine Submission | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Men’s Role in the Mess | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Expectations (for LTRs) | 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