It’s her choice whether or not to submit.

The choices are His way to Headship or the highway to ħɘll.

Readership: Married Men
Theme: Feminine Submission
Author’s Note: This post is based on a comment I left at Christianity and Masculinity.  It also compiles a few reader’s comments and a couple comments of my own.  Links to the original comments are embedded in the initial words.
Length: 1,800 words
Reading Time: 10 minutes

Withholding Sex is a very Destructive Form of Wifely Rebellion

Sexual withholding is a problem that all too many men suffer from that has been discussed at length before on this blog.  Christianity and Masculinity offered some insights to this problem in The goal for Christian husbands whose wives deny them should not be sex but their wife’s repentance (2019-10-29).  The main point of this post was that husbands should stay focused on their mission, do their best to love their wives as the bible commands, and not let their need for sex make them subservient to their wives.  Commenters Joe and Jonadab added some noteworthy points.

In itself, this is sound Christian advice.  However, there are a couple major hang-ups with this approach.

  1. A wife who is sexually disinterested or “sexually lazy” (to coin a new word: slazy) is actually weaving a subtle rebellion that works through attrition.  As such, it is very difficult for a husband to persevere in this condition because it’s much MUCH easier for an uninterested wife to refuse sex than it is for a husband to go long periods without.
  2. GreyGhost and Sharkly emphasized the valid point that a husband’s godly leadership (however you want to interpret that) doesn’t always lead to the wife’s repentance (in the form of creating attraction and/or increasing her interest in performing her sexual duties to her husband).

All this is to say that if a man’s wife is frigid for any length of time, for any reason, then the marriage has become a snare. The relationship will slowly drift off to hades, and take him along with it.  Instead of “fighting the good fight of faith”, the husband’s battle degenerates into the grinding daily task of just trying to keep his faith intact. Blue balled bitterness, frenzied frustration, and lecherous lust become the abiding battle for these husbands, such that the very idea of being obedient to God and loving a wife unconditionally becomes little more than an abstract ideal that cannot even be hoped for.  Being reminded of this by others only adds to the sting.  If this is a recalcitrant and recurring problem, and the wife has no interest in repenting of her neglect, then what hope is there to improve the union?

Sexual Withholding is only one example of Wifely Rebellion

All that said, I want to look beyond the issue of sexual defrauding for a moment and look at the larger picture.  Sexual defrauding is just one way a wife can be disobedient to God.  There are many other ways that wives regularly participate in active or passive rebellion.  But it is easy for married men to focus on the lack of sexual affection because that is a form of rebellion that affects them most sorely.  It’s easy for men to make it about sex (or the lack thereof), because that is what men want and need out of marriage.  But the real problem is not about sex at all.  It’s only about sex from the perspective of a sexually defrauded husband.  The deeper problem is an issue of the wife having a heart that has been corrupted by the things of this world (e.g. feminism, FOMO, liberalized sexual values and habits, etc.), and has given herself over to her inner Eve.

The Wrong Way to Respond to Wifely Rebellion

When we look around, we see many men who are living in a tedious marital situation of daily discord, tension, and wifely rebellion, and running on Autopilot for years on end.  The reason why wifely noncompliance continues indefinitely is because husbands buckle and revert to pedestalization and the “Happy wife” approach, which is a kind of feedback that places her in a position of authority, and this gives her enough control to value the relationship for what she can get out of it, and not for the blessings of having a Headship covering.

RedPillBoomer and Red Pill Apostle noted that some hopelessly Blue Pilled men tolerate their wives intolerable behaviors simply because they crave female companionship and are afraid to be alone, and they don’t have the courage to pursue their desires and/or follow God.

Of course, all these stances are a denial of masculine identity and an inversion of God’s created order.  There’s no way anything can work out.  The marriage becomes the Devil’s playground — an agit-prop theater of suffering and shame with no redemption in sight.

How should a Husband Respond to Wifely Rebellion?

It seems that the most important piece of information that is missing in the post at Christianity and Masculinity is not how to deal with the problem of wifely rebellion (because the Bible is clear on this), but how to deal with it effectively.

Trey emphasized the importance of discipline, and I agree.  There is a severe drought of information about how to administer discipline, and this is why I’ve studied this extensively and written many posts on the subject.

Of course, it’s better if discipline can be imposed in an encouraging way.  These positive reinforcements include things like Agree and Amplify, Command Presence, objectifying her in a playful way, pleasant surprises, and so on.  But a man has to be on top of his Game to pull that off, and she needs to be at least somewhat willing and pliable.

OTOH, often times people won’t learn until it begins to cost them and bring hurt and pain.  In this case, a husband can do things that ramp up the tension and press her into a decision, which basically amounts to a host of different approaches for which the appropriateness and effectiveness sharply hinges on the context.  Some of these negative reinforcements might include married Dread Game (e.g. spending less time with her), withdrawing emotionally (e.g. ignoring her, not taking her seriously), or humbling her (e.g. mocking her, giving her the dreaded smirk, etc.).  Snapper had some good comments about this approach that could be compiled into an essay.

Employing a mixture of positive and negative reinforcement will increase the drama which is known to hook women quite effectively.  Most women will get the message if the husband exerts Frame, employs a little Game, and sticks with it for a while.

The bottom line is that she has to respond, and she’ll do so either by submitting, or else she’ll have an affair, or start planning for a divorce.  But she’ll make a decision sooner or later because women cannot bear the stress, tension, guilt, and shame of living in rebellion forever.  If she can, then a man is probably better off to let that termagant go.

So if you have an immature or unbelieving wife who insists on being degenerate and feral, then you have to be kind of the same.  So play up the Game.  Otherwise, the marriage is doomed, and depending on how much you’ve got invested in your marriage, possibly your life and your children’s lives will be lost as well.  If she is particularly fractious and unruly, and a man is no good at Game, then a man may have to take deti’s nuclear approach.

It’s her choice whether or not to submit. But you have to give her that choice.

Conclusions

The unpleasant truth here is that it takes work to improve a marriage, and all of the burden is placed on the man and none on the wife.  But even if a man does the work, there’s very little likelihood and no guarantee of actual improvement — unless the wife can somehow come around to a broken hearted repentance.

If you’re a Christian man intent on achieving sanctification, then her non-repentance is totally unacceptable.  As important as it might be, the main problem with the husband attempting to solve this problem by being obedient (through cooperating with the work of the Holy Spirit) is that it doesn’t guarantee the wife’s repentance, which is taken to be a necessary condition for sanctification to occur.  If the wife is unresponsive to the Holy Spirit, and she really doesn’t care about spiritual growth, or the health of the marriage, then what can a Christian man do? In this case, a marriage to such a woman is little more than an open door allowing Satan into the man’s life.  The neglect of adopting appropriate gender roles and a wife’s lack of submission is exactly why the Bible warns us “Do not be yoked to an unbeliever”, and not so much because of a presumed difficulty in deciding whether to attend church as a family or not, as many have been led to believe.

Ultimately, as much as husbands would like their wives to be obedient to God and affectionate, respectful, and submissive to husband, God has granted women the free will to do as they please.  It all depends on how much she values the relationship, or more specifically, how much the feedback assuages her ego and self-image, and how secure she feels under his Headship covering.  Her decision on this is mostly out of his hands, really.  If she has already made up her mind to underprioritize or ditch the relationship, then any obedience to God on his part only postpones the inevitable and drags out the suffering.

As Thedeti wrote,

“At the end of the day, your Game, your charisma, and your efforts don’t matter unless the woman responds to them in some way.  There needs to be a change in her.  There needs to be a heart change from the inside out.  Yes, you can help influence that, you can express your desires, preferences and expectations; but none of that matters without her willingness, from the inside out, to at least try to respond to your influence and to meet your expectations.  In the final analysis it’s about whether she wants to stay with you or at least is willing to do what it takes to stay with you.”

“If she’s not willing to change, to be molded, nothing else will matter, and you’ll need to cut your losses and move on, no matter what that looks like.”

I know this may not sound like encouragement, but actually, it is.  And it all points back to what Deep Strength was saying in his post: Be obedient to God and follow your mission… whether or not the wife tags along or not!

But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.  But God has called us to peace.

1 Corinthians 7:15 (NKJV)

It’s her choice whether or not to submit. Trust God and don’t be afraid of giving her that choice.

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, Attitude, Boundaries, Calculated Risk Taking, Charisma, Collective Strength, Conflict Management, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Denying/Witholding Sex, Determination, Discipline, Discipline and Molding, Divorce, Enduring Suffering, Female Power, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Fundamental Frame, Game, Game Theory, Handling Rejection, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Identity, Inner Game, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Leadership, Love, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Moral Agency, Perseverance, Personal Domain, Personal Presentation, Power, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Self-Control, Sex, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to It’s her choice whether or not to submit.

  1. Oscar says:

    In other words, like I’ve been saying since I first stumbled upon the Androsphere, women are endowed with free will and moral agency, and are therefore 100% responsible for their decisions, their actions, and the consequences thereof.

    A husband can lead his wife, and she can (for an infinite number of reasons) refuse to follow, and no amount of “game” will change that.

    Yes, a husband can make it easier for her to follow with skillful leadership, but billions of women and men will go to their graves in rebellion against Jesus Christ. Is that because Jesus failed to lead them skillfully enough, or love them enough?

    Obviously not.

    You’re not greater than than Jesus Christ. If she refuses to follow, it’s not going to happen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      “…women are endowed with free will and moral agency, and are therefore 100% responsible for their decisions, their actions, and the consequences thereof.”

      Yes! Women are made in the image of God too. What we’ve done in the last 60 years or so, is create a culture that subtly, or not so subtly at times, says they are not 100% responsible; sometimes, not even responsible at all, i.e. the whole “victim” subculture. It’s not just women, it’s been infused throughout the whole freakin’ society, but it is particularly noticeable in our women.

      For example, when the 35 year old former CC rider gets on social media wondering, “Where have all the good men gone? What’s wrong with men that they won’t commit?”, she’s subtly playing the victim card, i.e. “Men are doing ME wrong.” The real question is, “Sweetie, what decisions have you been making the last 17 years in regards to men? It’s not men’s fault (yes, many are douche bags granted), however it’s YOU who has been 100% responsible for YOUR decisions, YOUR actions, and the consequences thereof.”

      All you have to do is listen to some old Kevin Samuels or Tom Leikyis conversations with women on YouTube and you quickly realize, they have NO CLUE that they are 100% responsible for their decisions, actions and the consequences thereof. NOT ONE CLUE for many of them. As much as I get it, i.e. why it is that way (enculturation, spiritual blindness, etc), it still amazes me when I hear it from their mouth’s, i.e. the cluelessness, or in some cases, utter refusal to accept ANY responsibility whatsoever. It’s all men’s fault or society or the way they were raised (their parents), etc. Never their fault.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Case in point — men who watch this short video…

        https://gab.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/posts/109242493389289345

        …. and immediately jump into white knight mode.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “Women are made in the image of God too.”

        LOL Maybe your goddess, but, not my God!

        1 Corinthians 11:7
        For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

        That’s where all the problem between the sexes now starts for Christianity. Originally the unanimous published belief of the early church for over the first 300 years was that only men were the image of our masculine Godhead. Once you make women goddesses then you’re back to Adam’s first sin of giving Eve the worth-ship to be obeyed over God. Remember! Satan tempted Eve to “become like god”.

        If men and women are both images of the Most High, then, by definition, in the highest possible regard both sexes are truly equal. And if men and women are equal then marriage is a form of unjust slavery where one equal subjects the other equal to serve him. And men’s headship is entirely by unfitting divine fiat without any natural merit.

        Wake up! If women are the image of your God, then the sexes are equal in their highest regard, and equality / Feminism is the fitting answer to the relation between the sexes, and God’s patriarchy is unjust by design.

        I believe God made Adam first, in His own image, and then he made a second class of human to serve the first. So men are truly superior. And it is naturally in everybody’s best interest for the superior to have the headship over the inferior, and our loving God made it so, and told us that.

        Early church father, Ambrosiaster, wrote:

        “Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man. […] A woman therefore ought to cover her head, because she is not the likeness of God but is under subjection.”

        Only the truth will set you free.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        I actually felt nothing for her when her head snapped back and she hit the floor. Mrs. Apostle cured me of empathy for women when they experience consequences for their poor decisions. In fact, I felt like he was restrained by using an open hand. He very well could have closed the fist and caused serious damage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        RPA,

        “I felt like he was restrained by using an open hand. He very well could have closed the fist and caused serious damage.”

        Exactly.

        Men need to stop rescuing foolish women from the consequences of their foolishness. Either women are fully adults, and therefore fully responsible for their actions, or they’re not, and shouldn’t be granted any of the rights or privileges of adulthood.

        Pick one.

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        She’s lucky to have little damage some blood and hurt ego. I was a bouncer for several years and women get involved even try to break up fights they get destroyed. Saw a group of big body builder types have it out and their girlfriends got the most damage they were hit with elbows and then trampled! Men who try to fight men out of their league 1 punch and an ambulance ride to get your face stiched together.

        Like

      • redpillboomer says:

        “LOL Maybe your goddess, but, not my God!”

        Okay, I’ll stand corrected on the “image of God” thing, however my point was really that she can’t DODGE responsibility for her decisions, actions and the consequences thereof.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        “I’ll stand corrected on the “image of God” thing”

        No need. The vast majority of Christians agree that all humans bear God’s image.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        The vast majority of Christians agree that Feminism is basically true, and God is a liar. That all started in earnest, shortly after Constantine, around 380AD, under Theodosius I, when Nicene Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire. In 391 he officially adopted Nicene Christianity as the Imperial religion and ended official support for all other creeds and cults. To appease forcibly converted Goddess worshippers they then forced women into the image of deity so that they could make a woman, Mary, equal to Jesus Christ as a co-redemptrix, and into a substitute goddess they could pray to instead of ones like their Magna Mater who were served by castrated Galli.

        No need to listen to the modern-day Galli who teach that the Father and Son and their masculine Spirit, who, Himself, impregnated Mary, is some hermaphrodite being, imaged equally by men and women. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Jesus came and was born a man, circumcised in Jerusalem on the eighth day. And he did not need a sister to fully image all of God. Jesus Christ carried all the fulness of the Godhead bodily in His masculine body. Don’t let these followers of newer church traditions, which now have become the rudiments of our Feminist world, fool you.

        Colossians 2:8
        Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

        FWIW, you don’t circumcise women to the true God, He gave women to be for men.

        If I can show you three verses that say men (not people) are the image of God, will you believe me?

        How many verses can Oscar show you where God claims that women image Him? LOL

        His new (circa 380AD) heresy is the foundation of all sexual equality and Feminism. Without that, men alone are the image of God, and thus are superior, and women should rightly reverence their husbands who image Jesus Christ, who is God, while their wives image the church, which ain’t God, and does not speak for Him neither.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ RPA & Locustsplease,

        This guy punched back with a closed fist.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar

        Re the video:

        If that had happened anywhere in the US, the man would have been in handcuffs and in the back of a squad car inside of an hour. Even with video proof that the woman was the aggressor and started it. Even though she slapped him first and he slapped her in pure self defense.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Deti,

        Not really. See the second video I posted.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I meant the first video. Second video with closed-fist punch – same thing there. Even though the woman was the aggressor and threw the first punch and started it, the man responds in kind, he’s in jail and probably will be facing aggravated assault charges and will do time for it.

        Even though she was the aggressor, even though she started it, even though she was literally begging for a beatdown.

        it’s “you can’t hit me cuz I’m a girl. I can hit you as much as I want as hard as I want and you can’t respond in kind.”

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        The guy in the second video (closed fist punch) was never charged.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        The discussion of the ‘news’ people in the closed fist strike video is interesting. One guy asks if this is a victory for feminism because law enforcement treated the incident like 2 men fighting and didn’t charge either participant. We have feminism to thank for this line of reasoning being “rational”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar

        Then he was lucky.

        Or, they decided there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute, or they decided the man would likely have good defenses (self defense; provocation).

        Or they decided their star witness/”victim” wasn’t sufficiently sympathetic to get a conviction. Their “victim” is an Insta-ho and thugette whom at least some people on a jury would decide had gotten what was coming to her.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        They had video showing the woman throwing the first punch, so it was a pretty clear cut case of self defense.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Scott says:

    This post and the one at Deep Strength’s you linked to are fine. There is nothing factually incorrect or non-Christian about them. Yet it still doesn’t set right. I can’t put my finger on it.

    Women use sex / no sex as a leverage point against their husbands and it’s because of one simple truth.

    They know damn well that any husband with have a brain can do EVERYTHING else for himself. He can cook, clean, do laundry, pay bills, lift / move / reach heavy / high objects, secure / protect the perimeter of the house, be successful professionally…

    But he cannot make love to a beautiful woman without the willing, enthusiastic participation of the beautiful woman. That’s WHY he got married.

    It’s not like withholding is just some annoying venial sin. Like, “Ooops! I forgot to pay the electricity bill have sex with my husband.” It’s a marriage ending train wrecking show stopper for any man with a drop of testosterone left in him.

    So just going about your day ignoring her cold, nonsexual attitude toward you for decades is just not a thing for most men.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Scott says:

      I mean really

      A situation like that is what lawyers refer to as an unconscionable contract. The idea is that no reasonable person would sign up for it and they are generally unenforceable.

      Husband you get ALL the obligations and bullsh!t of “marriage” and you forfeit the ONE perk that you need out of it if she doesn’t want to anymore.

      Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Gawd-dammit. This makes me want to reconsider RPA’s position that withholding of sex is a divorceable offense – the flip side of the coin of marital infidelity through cheating.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cam,

        If your wife ever withholds, and I mean really withholds to the point your are sexless for years, I think you’ll see that the point I make about withholding being a form of sexual sin that breaks the bond.

        There is no way to convey what it’s like, other than to tell you to imagine if you saw a video of your wife doing the horizontal tango with another man. That ache you’d feel in your gut is the same dead inside feeling as a sexless marriage.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        @Red Pill Apostle

        Since God’s Law is written in our hearts. That means frigidity is it’s own form of adultery. Therefore adultery can be passive as much as active.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @INFO that’s an interesting term. “Passive adultery.” Or, maybe, “indirect adultery.” In the same way you have passive or indirect aggression.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @cameron232

        Correct. Although I cannot like your comment technically unfortunately.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Cam

        A woman withholding sex is a form of cheating. It’s cheating the husband out of something that’s rightfully his.

        I don’t care what anyone says – it’s cheating, it’s grave, grievous sin; and it’s a divorceable offense. A woman’s willful refusal of sex breaks all bargains.

        I was surprised to see that in my state, one spouse withholding sex or refusing sexual relations is grounds for immediate divorce.

        Like

    • Scott says:

      This is why secular red pill gurus like Rich Cooper are also not wrong when they argue against engaging in anything like LTRs unless the woman can articulate strongly how she adds value to your already kick a$$ life.

      And if she doesn’t deliver—next.

      Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “That’s WHY he got married.”

      His ignorance. Most men get less sex when she goes from “girlfriend” to “wife.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        There’s even jokes about it.

        What he’s thinking at the altar:

        “Alright! Bl0w jobs forever!”

        Her:

        “I’m so glad I’m done with bl0w jobs.”

        Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “This post and the one at deep strength you linked to are fine. There is nothing factually incorrect or non-Christian about them. Yet it stil doesn’t set right. I can’t put my finger on it.

      Women use sex/no sex as a leverage point against their husbands and it’s because of one simple truth.”

      I have thought about this at length and it took me a good bit of time to put my finger on what did not sit right with me either. An article I came across (can’t remember the name of it for the life of me) helped me understand the odd feeling I couldn’t put into words and my wife’s actions before our 15th anniversary then confirmed it’s reality.

      The basis of the article is that God intended sex within marriage to be freely given in love. Done this way sex is the glue that creates the mysterious bond of the covenant. That sex is to be freely given, both by husbands and wives, is the basis of OT law on the subject that was at least in part the basis for Paul writing 1 Corinthians 7:1-8. When a wife withholds sex, when she could otherwise participate willingly, she is using sex for her personal gain on some level, whether what she desires is comfort, power, control, goods, or services. This is the definition of a common prostitute, and whether there is one John or one hundred, the definition holds.

      Personally, I would have been highly skeptical of the concept that I just espoused, except that I lived it for years and experienced one specific instance so blatant that I could not rationalize it away. Withholding sex had always been an issue with my wife, but after the birth of our second child the withholding crossed the line into clinical sexlessness and I basically gave up asking because the rejection hurt too much.

      Approaching our 15th anniversary she began saying she wanted to go on a trip. The marriage had been sexless (less than 5x annually) for over 2 years at this point and I told her that I didn’t want to go anywhere with her because we weren’t having sex. She said she’d have sex twice per week with me if that is what would make me feel happy enough to travel with her. She followed through with the goal in mind and then within a few months of the anniversary trip being over gave me some BS excuses and went right back to withholding. Common prostitute under the guise of marriage.

      Had I not experienced such an obvious case I don’t think I would have paid much attention to the article I read. But I did, so I gave it consideration and believe that withholding, outside of the exception Paul gives for prayer, is an act designed on using sex for personal gain. If you think about it, if the John doesn’t pay, the prostitute does not perform which is so, so similar to a wife telling her husband, “If you don’t ‘X’ you aren’t getting any.” Inherent in prostitution is performance for pay and also not performing for not paying.

      Chew on this a little and let me know if my thoughts resonate or not. This is line of reasoning on withholding is part of my basis for believing that withholding is a sexual sin that biblically justifies divorce.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Scott says:

        Absolutely.

        What you are describing is the sacrament of marriage.

        Both parties engage in acts that the other person is entitled to.

        Not because they “earned it” but because it’s part of marriage.

        Eating is part of living.

        Being wet is part of being water.

        Sex is part of marriage.

        NO CHURCH teaches this, not even confessional / sacramental ones.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        And it totally makes sense that you figured that out on your own given your experience.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Every husband who ever got up with the flu, after a night of arguing with his nagging wife and his kids being particularly unruly and went to work to provide is doing the exact moral equivalent of a wife who enthusiastically relieves her husbands stress by making love to him sweetly even when she has a headache.

        Both are acts of pure, perfect love.

        Unfortunately our debauched age and society are incapable of rising to that level of sublime.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        Sex is what makes marriage uniquely different than any other relationship either spouse will have. It is the centerpiece. I would argue that wives who refuse sex are committing a mortal sin, because they are refusing to become one flesh and they are breaking the bond that no one on earth shall break. It’s also why fornication outside of marriage is a sin; it cheapens the sacred bond. I think on some level women know all of this, but like Eve cannot resist the promise of power that is being put in front of them.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        BtM,

        “Sex is what makes marriage uniquely different than any other relationship either spouse will have. It is the centerpiece. I would argue that wives who refuse sex are committing a mortal sin, because they are refusing to become one flesh and they are breaking the bond that no one on earth shall break.”

        Men can connect with each other, understand each other, build together, form lifelong bonds of friendship that border on brotherhood, but what they can not do is create new life with each other. That is the unique feature of marriage and women for a man.

        I have spoken with men who, like me, were defrauded and stuck it out for whatever reason. Just because the marriage remains does not mean that the bond was not broken, or greatly damaged, and the effects of that breaking/damage aren’t there. The evidence of the bond breaking may be not be seen because it easy to cover up, but it is there.

        In my case the way I now think about my wife is much more utilitarian. She is the woman who needs thedeti’s “you do X or you don’t get Y” style of management, because that appears to be the most effective means to get her to respond correctly, and I don’t feel bad at all about this. The breaking of the bond means that much of the gentleness/tenderness that comes with cherishing gets debased and what is often left is a husband who becomes much less self sacrificial and much more quid pro quo.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        This is important RPA – that your wife is a certain type of woman in terms of what she responds to. Implying NAWALT. Not all women respond to threats/dread and I wouldn’t want a relationship where I had to do what deti did.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        cameron,

        “This is important RPA – that your wife is a certain type of woman in terms of what she responds to. Implying NAWALT. Not all women respond to threats/dread and I wouldn’t want a relationship where I had to do what deti did.”

        There is some nuance to what you wrote. AWALT when it comes to boundaries and consequences, which is really what you are describing as threats. If you think about behavior on a continuum, which is what it is, instead of as a binary yes/no observation the following makes more sense.

        All women respond to authority (husband) giving boundaries/consequences. They may not respond correctly, but they do respond. According to thedeti, Mrs. thedeti fell in line with much less resistance than my wife. My wife is harder case which means that I have more work than most and that because Mrs. A is to a further extreme when it comes to non-compliance it makes that aspect of her behavior easier to recognize.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        The issue that comes up the most for us is my very large appetite for risk.

        When I make a calculated error she has a strong temptation to second guess me in hindsight.

        Much of this easy for me to deflect by reminding that I bring in about 5:1 what she does.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        However, remember this my virtual friends…

        “Reminding her that you make most of the money” is one of the indicators of “financial abuse” according to Duluth.

        Employ with caution lest you suffer the fate of Jim.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        “NO CHURCH teaches this, not even confessional / sacramental ones.”

        And yet we just spent 6 hours of our Saturday in a marriage seminar at our church where this was explicitly stated and that withholding is sin.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Every woman there (with the exception of maybe you) heard:

        “Withholding is a sin!!”

        Asterisk

        Fine Print

        Read Carefully**

        Exception
        Exception
        Exception
        Exception
        Exception

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        “If I’m not feeling sexy”
        “If he hurt my feelings yesterday”
        “If he didn’t do enough chores so I could relax for 6 hours first”
        “If the kids are being difficult”
        “If he didn’t apologize for something I’m still mad about from 10 years ago”
        “If I have to get up early tomorrow”
        “If he doesn’t take a shower first”

        Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        More than that Scott, 1 Peter 3:6 was offered as read, without caveat or apology.:

        Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord…

        Wives were held to FULL ACCOUNT of Scripture’s commands as much as hubands were.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Holding husbands accountable to their obligation to have sex with their wives is like reminding the dog to bite the mail man.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        🤣🤣🤣

        “Holding husbands accountable to their obligation to have sex with their wives is like reminding the dog to bite the mail man.”

        Right, Scott. I mean account on the other stuff too. Submission, respect, etc. Not just sex.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        I only mention it because however small the remnant, there are a remnant of churches teaching truth on marriage and holding wives accountable same as husband’s.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        It would be interesting to find out (I’m not sure how) if it has ever “worked.”

        “Worked” in this situation, I think, would actually look something like:

        Woman hears the teaching and is convicted. She’s not super turned on by her husband (for the nauseating number of reasons covered in the manosphere). But she decides to try it. Just say yes. Tries to appreciate how strong his urge is. Tries to appreciate WHY sex is the primary vehicle for a man to feel close and loved (not his “stomach” as the stupid addage goes). Over time, she finds the relationship grows deeper and more emotionally intimate BECAUSE of the increased PHYSICAL intimacy. The marriage syncs up better, and she reports back to the group.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        However, remember this my virtual friends…

        “Reminding her that you make most of the money” is one of the indicators of “financial abuse” according to Duluth.

        Employ with caution lest you suffer the fate of Jim.

        At this point I don’t care. “We’re doing this my way, or we’re not staying together.” “I earn most of the money, and God puts it on me to make the final decision, so at the end of the day, I’m deciding, and whatever I decide is what we’re doing.”

        “If you don’t like it, leave.”

        “If you don’t like how I do things, get someone else, and get him/them to pay for it.”

        “I either get what I want and need from this marriage, or we will not be married anymore.”

        I don’t care. I’m either getting what I want and need, or I’m going forward alone.

        Like

    • locustsplease says:

      I wonder how long my wife would have survived the silent treatment. I’m pretty stoic but was way more stoic cold complete blank stare 15yrs ago. My frame broke a bit and she smashed it after. Could she take me ignoring her 1 night? Not a word. How long until she sits down “what’s wrong?” ” How can I please you?”

      Psssst I’m not taking blame for our failure. My blame belongs in other areas.

      Like

    • Jack says:

      Scott, RPA, et al.,

      “This post and the one at Deep Strength’s you linked to are fine. There is nothing factually incorrect or non-Christian about them. Yet it still doesn’t set right. I can’t put my finger on it.”

      Maybe it’s just the disconcerting facts of reality. To wit,

      — That it’s just so easy and so greatly rewarding for women to rebel.
      — That it’s nearly impossible for the average man to manage his wife well, or to even find a wife.
      — That men are punished and shamed for attempting to enforce Headship.
      — That the whole culture and even the church teaches and encourages all this.
      — That God allows debased marriages to exist, and in such large numbers.
      — That God allows this to go on for centuries, and to such an extent that the majority of men no longer have any clue.

      If you ever wonder why so many people doubt God’s sovereignty and can’t or refuse to trust Him, these facts will invariably come up.

      Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        @Jack

        I wonder how many of those Men cried out to the Lord? In my time on Dalrock I notice while many Men propose solutions too much doesn’t involve God in the process.

        God in many circumstances doesn’t actually get involved unless you pray. Deliverances from demonic oppression only stopped when I read that the person cried out to Jesus to save them.

        Same thing with Alien abductions too. Unless the person specifically cried out of Jesus then he/she doesn’t get saved.

        When the Israelites were hungry and thirsty. The people were meant to cry out to God for their needs. But Moses had to do it before God actually provided.

        If Men don’t cry out to God. Then God will only watch until the sins of the Nation becomes bad enough to force him to render Judgment.

        In the 4 centuries of Israel’s captivity Men cried out to the Lord before deliverance.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        And as the example of the Widow that Jesus told a parable about (Luke 18:1-8). If the cause is Righteous and Just and in line with God’s Will.

        And God doesn’t immediately answer. Then you have to Pray incessantly and keep bothering God about it as Elijah did before God answered him:

        James 5:16-18
        16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power to prevail. 17 Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. 18 Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth yielded its crops.

        When Israel was fighting Amalek Moses was with the assistance of Aaron and Hur continuously praying until total victory was achieved.

        In Prayer in regards to what we personally cannot control. We must vent our Souls and Hearts to God until we feel relieved.

        Again since no others have testified. Then I will. I have been praying incessantly about topics related to the Manosphere.

        And as I paid attention. I noticed more and more of our ideas becoming mainstream. I do wonder if my prayers actually bore fruit or its coincidence.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Info,

        “In Prayer in regards to what we personally cannot control. We must vent our Souls and Hearts to God until we feel relieved.”

        In many posts, I often write that prayer is perhaps the only recourse there is in certain situations. Personally, I have a vital prayer life, and I have seen many prayers answered, sometimes immediately. In some of my writings, I have described some of these situations and given credit to God for answering a prayer. But no one ever comments about this, and I seldom see any comments about prayer in general. Thank you, Info.

        Like

      • info says:

        About crying out to Jesus stopping Alien abductions:

        Like

      • info says:

        @Jack

        Indeed. It also brings to mind our Lord’s saying “Ask and you will receive, knock and it will be open to you”. With the implication that not asking will result in not receiving.

        As it is apparent with God’s actions. This is a fallen world and God generally isn’t a helicopter mommy protecting you from bad choices and dangers.

        This is a world of free will where choices matter. And God’s intervention in many cases has the prerequisite of prayer. One is pretty much on one’s own in many cases without Prayer.

        God will avenge all wrongs at the Great White Throne. But expecting God to automatically provide or help you isn’t the right expectation. People have the wrong impression that God provided Manna and water in the wilderness without Prayer first.

        As is your own experience those Men are quite likely unsaved or they didn’t even blow the silver trumpet(symbolic of prayer) incessantly.

        God will watch and eventually render judgment but he doesn’t intervene immediately unless it involves the necessary currents of history or Judgment on Evil.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Lastmod says:

    Well…your “Game” by the manuals, the books, the posters over the past two decades say “women don’t have a choice and cannot help themselves of who they fall for”

    but now they do???????? Hmmmmm, makes me wonder who was really “white knighting” over the past two decades or so

    Like

    • Jack says:

      LastMod, you are confusing ‘attraction’ with ‘submission’. I shouldn’t have to point this out.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lastmod says:

        Jack, a woman who is attracted to a guy will submit to anything he says or does. He could beat up the handicapped, steal from a Salvation Army kettle and she will say he’s “misunderstood”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        lastmod said:

        “…a woman who is attracted to a guy will submit to anything he says or does. He could beat up the handicapped, steal from a Salvation Army kettle and she will say he’s “misunderstood”.”

        By corollary, “A woman who doesn’t submit isn’t fundamentally attracted to him” (¬S⇒¬A ≡ A⇒S). Thedeti frequently claims that if a woman refuses relations, then she isn’t attracted to him (¬X⇒¬A). Attraction implies conjugal rights (¬X⇒¬A ≡ A⇒X). A lack of refusal is submissive (X⇒S). Therefore, attraction implies submission (A⇒X; X⇒S; ∴ A⇒S), as lastmod claims.

        Jack said:

        “you are confusing ‘attraction’ with ‘submission’.”

        For him to be wrong, either deti’s claim must be false (¬X⇒¬A) or giving sex isn’t itself a submissive act (X⇒S). Which is it?

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Ramman3000,

        I appreciate your abstract algebra, but I’m afraid the clarity it offers will be lost on the majority of readers.

        Set A: Ramman3000, deti, and LastMod are assuming that sex and submission are functions of attraction [S = f(A); X = f(A)]. I agree that this is the default state in a gynocentric / sex-centric culture. Furthermore, the assumed goal is to allow a direct corellation by removing anything that prevents it. CH’s 6 Harbingers of the Sexual Apocalypse are a thing because they essentially remove the key obstacles to this end.

        There are some caveats:

        Case A: Although it is true that (A⇒X; X⇒S; ∴ A⇒S), this does not automatically happen in every instance. IOW, women do not sleep with every man they are attracted to (although there are some who do, as I will describe in the next paragraph). This is true even when key obstacles have been removed. IOW, the function is highly context dependent, which is to say there are other variables that I have attempted to flush out, such as arousal, humility, trust, validation, etc. PUA style Game is intended to create a context that is conducive to attraction / arousal (A⇒S). LastMod’s testimony is proof that a belief in Game will lead to frustration if (A⇒S) cannot be proven true.

        Case B: Another thing to consider is somewhat of the opposite situation. Here, it is considered that women are sexual beings, and they will have sex just because they feeelz like it. In this case, the woman’s intrinsic Arousal is the independent variable instead of her extrinsic Attraction to a particular man. They feel randy and grab the most convenient d!ck they can trust. Hypergamy only comes into play if there is an immediate choice between 2 or more men. The prevalence of sex in the bathrooms and backrooms of bars and clubs proves this is true. In this situation, her inebriation leads her arousal, not a particular man, hence the enduring popularity of alcohol. I have seen statements from women to this effect as well.

        Set B: My observation is that there can exist another default setting such that attraction need not be the independent variable. It has been suggested by Scott and Elspeth that Submission leads to Attraction / Sex (S⇒A; A⇒X or more directly S⇒X). This carries with it a couple other possibilities to take into account:

        Case A: We might call this the Stockholm effect if it is driven by the social context.

        Case B: A Patriarchal social order enforces an environment in which women are more or less submissive to men, and therefore attraction happens through social intercourse, humility, love, and propinquity. I’ve witnessed this here in Asia. Arranged marriage is an example of this.

        Case C: Faith allows one to identify a suitable partner and submit to God. Feelings of attraction grow naturally if not disturbed by sexual sins. This requires a virgin marriage. This seems to be a lost art in the practical application.

        It continues to be debated whether or not a particular sequence of events can occur outside of a conducive social context like gynocentrism, Patriarchy, Stockholm, etc. I suppose this would be pure Faith. As it is, it appears that the social structure determines much of the process.

        It is also known that some women are not easily aroused and require additional context for (A⇒X). (Jill was given as an example, and I suppose this would fit into Set B, Case B.)

        That’s where we are right now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “I appreciate your abstract algebra, but I’m afraid the clarity it offers will be lost on the majority of readers. [..] Ramman3000, deti, and LastMod are assuming that sex and submission are functions of attraction”

        FWIW, I was just formulating the formal argument, but I don’t subscribe to it. Very recently I disagreed with Deti’s proposition.

        “Although it is true that (A⇒X; X⇒S; ∴ A⇒S), this does not automatically happen in every instance. [..] there are other variables that I have attempted to flush out”

        Yes, this is correct: Attraction may be a necessary, but insufficient, condition for seX and/or Submission. However, the presence of exceptions is not enough to disprove a general principle. That’s why I said…

        “For him to be wrong, either deti’s claim must be false (¬X⇒¬A) or giving sex isn’t itself a submissive act (X⇒S).”

        …because so long as attraction is necessary (even if insufficient), then the general principle still holds.

        “My observation is that there can exist another default setting such that attraction need not be the independent variable. It has been suggested by Scott and Elspeth that Submission leads to Attraction / Sex (S⇒A; A⇒X or more directly S⇒X). “

        Scott (and wife) and Elspeth (and husband) possess above-average attractiveness. Do their anecdotes really show S⇒A or S⇒X, or do they just show that A⇒X or A⇒S the majority of the time?

        “It is also known that some women are not easily aroused and require additional context for (A⇒X). “

        Right, but that also doesn’t really overthrow the “general principle”. After you suggested that arousal was important, there was a lot of disagreement in the comment section of your follow up post. In particular, in this comment deti holds to his general principle despite the evidence presented of Jack and Jill.

        So what I’m saying is that…

        “LastMod, you are confusing ‘attraction’ with ‘submission’. I shouldn’t have to point this out.”

        …you have not sufficiently convinced a portion of your audience that your argument is correct. I don’t think they are confused, I think they disagree with your fundamental argument. Your strategy of adding other independent variables (i.e. context) doesn’t help if A⇒X; X⇒S; ∴ A⇒S is allowed to stand as the primary general principle. I would say that ¬X⇒¬A (and thus A⇒X) is false, but I also have not been convincing.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “Scott (and wife) and Elspeth (and husband) possess above-average attractiveness. Do their anecdotes really show S⇒A or S⇒X, or do they just show that A⇒X or A⇒S the majority of the time?”

        Both, but the larger point is that their anecdotes show that only the best case scenario in Set A can produce the kind of interaction that is more common or even fundamental to Set B. Similarly, only the best case scenario in Set B can produce the intense raw attraction and arousal that is assumed to be fundamental to Set A. It stands to reason that Set A is more conducive to selective breeding whereas Set B is more conducive to marriage and Christianity.

        “…you have not sufficiently convinced a portion of your audience that your argument is correct. I don’t think they are confused, I think they disagree with your fundamental argument.”

        I am not surprised. It may be that this is one of those things that cannot be believed until you see it for yourself. You have a different view because of your experience in marriage, whereas deti and others have suffered and paid the cost of learning that Attraction is paramount. It is difficult to think outside the box or outside our own personal experience.

        “Your strategy of adding other independent variables (i.e. context) doesn’t help if A⇒X; X⇒S; ∴ A⇒S is allowed to stand as the primary general principle.”

        This is the primary principle in Set A. Set B is more or less the reverse. It should also be noted that this is a crude model, and it has to be crude because as hard as we might try, I don’t think we’ll be able to come up with a Schroedinger’s master equation for intersexual dynamics.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Scott says:

    There is a trait, nearly unique to men. Or at least the manifestation of it is.

    I call it “we love what we are charged with caring for” for lack of a more concise label. If it’s been documented and labeled, I’ve not seen it.

    Give a man something of intrinsic value and charge him:

    “This is the one and only of these you will get. Take extra special care of it. Protect it from harm, nourish it. It is very special.”

    And as he takes on this responsibility, he developes a true love of that object. It’s similar to a man who restores an old car — a project which can take years calling junkyards, scouring the internet for each part, etc. By the time he has built the thing, he “loves” it.

    In another lifetime, a man’s wife and children were his to care for, love and be proud of.

    I’ve seen this in only a biological sense from women — toward their own children. What I don’t get is why wives don’t reciprocate this. Extend it to the man they married. That is, a husband is a gift from God and He has instructed her to care for him just like he did her husband about her. If both parties saw each other as a prized irreplaceable possession imagine what marriages would be like.

    Yet over time she sees him as an annoying tag along. They even say, “This is my 3rd child” (when they only have 2).

    It’s really profound. A generalization to be sure, but one that holds true, I think.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Oscar says:

      “There is a trait, nearly unique to men. Or at least the manifestation of it is.

      I call it “we love what we are charged with caring for” for lack of a more concise label. If it’s been documented and labeled, I’ve not seen it.

      It’s called husbandry.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Jack says:

    “There is a trait, nearly unique to men. Or at least the manifestation of it is.

    I call it “we love what we are charged with caring for” for lack of a more concise label. If it’s been documented and labeled, I’ve not seen it.”

    “It’s called husbandry.”

    There were six commandments that God gave to Adam in the garden of Eden (Genesis 1-2):

    Eden – to live in communion with God.
    Work – to become what God made you to be.
    Care – to cultivate, and bring forth fruit.
    Guard – to protect, and to create a safe Kingdom for others to enjoy.
    Command – to teach, mold, and guide others in the ways of holy living.
    Observe – to recognize God’s sovereignty, keep His commandments, and walk in His ways.

    Men are happy and blessed when they adhere to these commands, so men will find ways to conform to these in some way.

    Husbandry encompasses all of these. But the usage and connotation of the word itself has become debased in our times.

    Liked by 3 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “Work – to become what God made you to be… Care – to cultivate, and bring forth fruit.”

      This is an interesting distinction to me. Biblical work seems different than what we think of work nowadays, i.e. a job or a career. Working to become what God made me to be is a larger context than just “work,” at least in my mind.

      So, I’ve been “working” for years (decades actually) to become what God made me to be in this world, and it is different from the “work” I did for 30 years as a career. Then “caring,” cultivating to bring forth fruit, would be the outgrowth or result of spending decades now to become what God has made me to be. Very different context Biblically speaking then what our culture puts forth.

      Seems like really subtle point, but the implications for a man’s focus, especially a Christian man’s focus, couldn’t be more profound; at least in my thinking.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        You’re absolutely right about the profound nature of work. That’s the foundation of what used to be known as the Protestant work ethic. The concept is that, because man is created in God’s image, and is therefore endowed with inherent worth and dignity, all moral, ethical work is inherently dignified.

        In other words, we bestow dignity onto our work simply by doing it. It’s part of our mandate to exercise dominion.

        Additionally, when we design and build things, we behave like our Father, the Creator. When we take old, broken things and repair or restore them, we behave like Christ, the Redeemer.

        This stuff gets really heavy when you give it a lot of thought.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @Oscar

        The converse of being made in God’s Image is that humans alone out of all embodied creatures get to be judged at the Great White Throne.

        And to share the fate of Satan and his Angels in the Second Death. No other Animal has the Dignity of Humanity to share such fate.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ info

        Correct, but unlike the fallen angels, humans get an opportunity for redemption. That’s also probably because we’re created in God’s image, and angels are not.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Oscar

        Angels it seems. Once they made a decision for or against God is incapable of repentance

        Because they have a more full knowledge of God. Their defiance is far more willful and irreversible.

        Hence the difference between “Elect-Angels and Demons”. As humans who choose God become “Elected”.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      Whereas, Eve got only one commandment: To help Adam. To be his helper and companion. That’s all she was supposed to do.

      Like

  6. Pingback: Sex and Biblical Law | Radix Fidem Blog

  7. Pingback: Repentance and Submission | Σ Frame

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

  9. Lastmod says:

    What is a normal “sex life” for a married christian couple?

    Three times a week? Daily? Taking sick time from work once a week to meet up at home and have a go? Twice a month? Who defines this? Who deems it “as such” and IF a couple doesn’t match the level of another couple….are they now not as “holy” as the other couple that has a more frequent sex life?

    This is what Game has done even to people in the bedroom who are married. Its a freaking competition…….it makes it a “game” for everything.

    If I were married, I can tell you this. No one. In church. At work. In a social circle would know if it was 10X a day or thrice a month, or once a year. Why? Its none of their business to know. What is deemed good for one couple in these very private matters may not be right for another.

    Through this thread I gather:

    Basically, wife must have sex anytime the man wants, or its ground for divorce!

    Women evidently like sex ONLY before marriage, but not after.

    Also, I am 100% positive if your wife is honestly not feeling well. Is sick. You don’t demand sex. You take in on the chin and know it will come around sooner than later.

    Like

  10. thedeti says:

    It just isn’t possible to overstate how destructive a wife’s refusal to submit and withholding sex are to her marriage and to her husband.

    The consequences are

    –the bonding that was supposed to happen early in the marriage never happens

    –he never bonds to her

    –he doesn’t trust her

    –he doesn’t care about her

    –he remains closed off to her emotionally (the vaunted, vilified “emotional unavailability” that women complain about all the time)

    –he must lead her with strictness and harshness

    –long term anger, resentment, bitterness

    –he retains control over items and activities he otherwise might entrust to his wife if she had taken a proper attitude toward her wifely role. Because she did not, he doesn’t trust her with those items

    –he ends up treating her like an arms-length acquaintance: He will deal with her, but only on his terms and with limited emotional involvement

    The pain, resentment, anger, and bitterness this causes lasts for a long, long time, even when the woman stops the offending behavior and really does try. The damage a woman causes is severe, and it takes years to repair – if it even can be repaired at all.

    And none of this is his fault.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      thedeti,

      O.M.G. and holy excrement!

      –the bonding that was supposed to happen early in the marriage never happens
      (YES and because this is true the cascade )
      –he never bonds to her
      (YES)
      –he doesn’t trust her
      (YES)
      –he doesn’t care about her
      (YES, it’s not that you don’t care at all because she is another human, but the emotional attachment that would make losing her heart wrenching isn’t there. I’d liken it to the way a person feels when learning that a friend lost a relative. Empathy exists for the friend, but it doesn’t change the person’s life all that much.)
      –he remains closed off to her emotionally (the vaunted, vilified “emotional unavailability” that women complain about all the time)
      (YES)
      –he must lead her with strictness and harshness
      (YES, happened this morning more below)
      –long term anger, resentment, bitterness
      (YES)
      –he retains control over items and activities he otherwise might entrust to his wife if she had taken a proper attitude toward her wifely role. Because she did not, he doesn’t trust her with those items
      (YES, shows up as him overseeing her in a manner similar to the way he’d oversee one of his children)
      –he ends up treating her like an arms-length acquaintance: He will deal with her, but only on his terms and with limited emotional involvement
      (YES, shows up as intolerance of certain behaviors that might otherwise been treated with more grace and a general feeling of distance even after the defrauding has stopped and she is more compliant.)

      Here is what happened this morning that is a very telling picture into the emotional damage that defrauding and contentiousness does to a man, should he stay married to his wife. This is why if a man’s wife starts with these behaviors early in the marriage he has to nip it in the bud and then break it off with her if she remains rebellious.

      It’s time to pick benefits and the medical insurance plan we are switching to has lower deductibles and co-pays. Mrs. A tells me that with the new plan I can get a vasectomy because it will be covered, where before it was 100% out of pocket for me.

      When I told her that I would not get one she inquired why and I answered honestly. I have firm boundaries on her, that should she cross them will result in me filing for divorce. I don’t trust her explicitly not to cross them. Should that happen, I am not necessary against meeting another woman where having children could be part of the plan, so I don’t want to be sterilized. I did not have an emotional reaction when telling her. It was rather matter of fact.

      So what was on display? Lack of trust for certain, some harshness in leading, limited emotional connection/bonding … I’m sure other apply but y’all get the idea.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        good example.

        At the end of the day, with a woman who was rebellious and unloving and withholding early in the marriage, there is always distance. There is always detachment. There is always guarding, vigilance, reticence.

        I don’t fully trust her. That trust has been broken so many times, and I’ve been hurt so many times, that I don’t believe I ever will fully trust her. I keep her at a distance. Perhaps not fully arm’s length, perhaps something less than that, but it’s not all the way in. I don’t fully trust her. I probably never will. The damage is just too severe.

        George Bruno put it this way: You had a nice vase. You dropped it and broke it. You were able to put the pieces back together. It works as a vase. It still looks nice. But it doesn’t look as nice as it did before it was broken.

        There are fractures and fault lines in the vase. There are cracks. When you look carefully, you can see the cracks. Maybe you’ve fixed the vase so well that you have to look really closely to see them and others can’t really see them. But you know the cracks are there and you know where they are.

        No matter how well you fixed that vase, it still has cracks. It still has fault lines. And you can still see them, no matter how well you fixed it.

        Because it was broken before, it won’t take much to break it again. Yes, it’s fixed, and yes, it holds together. But it’s weaker. That vase is even more brittle and fragile now than it was before it broke. It would take less force and damage to break that vase again than it took to break it the first time.

        So it is with a marriage when a wife withholds, rebels, and injures her husband. It’s put back together. It’s holding together. But the fault lines are there, you know where they are, it’s weaker and more fragile, and it will take a lot less to irreparably damage it now than it did before.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        thedeti,

        Because defrauding is a sin that hits where the closest connection is supposed to be I have noticed some side effects.

        When the feeling of closeness post intimacy wears off, instead of just the itch to be intimate again, there is a bitterness. The foundation is the feeling of old hurts and when the salve that intimacy provides wears thin the foundation is exposed.

        Any inkling of arguing and contentiousness also exposes that foundation and there is no benefit of the doubt that she’s not arguing or being contentious. The assumption, and how it’s dealt with, is that she is arguing.

        At this point I state what I would like and if she does not give a reasonable effort towards those, then I make my “management” decisions from there. The boss aspect of being husband is much more prevalent and the tender and caring part is diminished.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Pingback: Men’s Role in the Mess | 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