Expectations (for LTRs)

A man’s expectations need to be fully in line with his Mission and Purpose.

Readership: All
Theme: Consolidating Masculinity
Length: 600 words
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Misguided Expectations (for LTRs)

One of the biggest problems in marriage today is that people have misplaced expectations.  For men, it is expected that the wife should be a monogamous s1ut, SMV > 8, who stays thin and youthful in perpetuity. For women, the husband should be a 666 Tingletron who cooks gourmet dishes, does housework, and never shows any weakness.

Thus, the questions being asked by matrimonial hopefuls are misguided.

  • “Do I Lurrve him/her?”
  • “How does he/she make me FEEL?”
  • “What is the SEX going to be like?”

Meanwhile, questions about household duties (“Who will do the dishes?”), finances, roles, and responsibilities never come up.

The attitudes and moods behind these questions are half-baked and naive. These expectations / questions do not stand up to the storms of life, and that is why there is so much discontent.  Whenever the winds of change or the waves of doubt come upon them, these expectations are tested and discontentment strikes.  Women have an especially particular difficulty in attaining contentment as Rollo has discussed at length (see links under Related).  Some women even find a perverse form of power in discontentedness and will hold onto this attitude at all costs.

Having unrealistic expectations should not be confused with Laying out Expectations, which I wrote about before.  If people took the effort to lay out their expectations, then they would eventually realize any unrealistic expectations in the mix, and come to a more realistic set of expectations.  But this seldom comes up, because people do not lay out their expectations, and instead, they keep those questions pent up in their subconsciousness – similar to a Covert Contract.

When HIS expectation is to meet HER expectation!

The Current Challenge (for LTRs)

For a relatively brief time in Western history (the 20th century), one could get away with prioritizing love and sex and still expect a modicum of contentment, largely propped up by the widespread material abundance.  But over time, this self-worshipping prerogative took its toll on society.  The flames of unbridled passion burned up the MMP and it disintegrated into ashes shortly after the turn of the century.

Today, because of societal and legal restrictions, the only way for Men to find contentment is in knowing his Mission and Purpose and striving for it. As we have seen over the past 5 or 6 years, many men are finding it much easier to focus on their Mission and Purpose by going MGTOW, or by taking the Black Pill and then resurrecting their self-concept. Most of the men who do so have no other option. Fewer men are finding a woman worthy of being a wife, much less attracting her into his life.

But no matter whether a man is single or married, his MISSION is what will propel him forward, both in life, and with God. If a man is to marry, he’d better be damn sure his wife is fully on board with his Mission.

For a woman, the way to godly contentment is either (1) settling down with a man early in life (foregoing the carousel and before hitting the Wall) and applying herself to be his helper in that MISSION.  Or, (2) staying in her father’s household and helping her family in various ways. Other paths might bring a sense of contentment, but it won’t be holy. Nor will it be everlasting, maybe only 10 years at best, followed by 40+ years of cats, wine, and slaving their lives away for the corporation.

For the married, contentment is found when both husband and wife share a common PURPOSE on a COMMON MISSION — to be fruitful and multiply — to do life TOGETHER. To raise a family TOGETHER. The attitude is, “It is US TOGETHER against whatever life throws at EITHER of us.”  And if you have been married for any length of time you will know — there will be lots of stuff life throws at you.

Failure (of LTRs)

Marriages fail when married couples lose their commonality of PURPOSE and turn against each other in various ways.  This turning usually doesn’t happen dramatically nor willfully, but rather through a gradual attrition of charity and congeniality that tends to occur under the duress of life.  Most notably…

  • Failing to conform to a Headship structure of authority.
  • Failing to love or respect one another.
  • Failing to remain humble and graceful.
  • Failing to appreciate each other.
  • Failing to respond to the other’s accomplishments and bids for attention with enthusiasm.
  • Denial of sex within marriage.
  • Debasing marriage with illicit sex, before or after marriage.
  • In sum, a failure to place God first.

As these habits become entrenched, that is when discontentment rears its feral head and will tear them apart.


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, Calculated Risk Taking, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Collective Strength, Communications, Conflict Management, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Denying/Witholding Sex, Discernment, Wisdom, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Identity, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Male Power, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Parenting, Personal Domain, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Sex, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, The Power of God, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Expectations (for LTRs)

  1. info says:

    Its like a Captain and his First Officer having to sail through stormy seas.

    Troubles are shared. And problems multiply. But also the support if they back up one another.

    Greater comradery should be the result.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Grifter Shifter says:

    Since both partners in an average couple have to work outside the home in today’s economy if they want to live in a safe, well-kept, middle class area I think it’s just assumed without saying that both of them will share in household chores.

    If a woman is marrying a rich man it’s just assumed by both that domestic help will be hired, because that’s what wealthy people do.

    I think the expectation of a sexual utopia after marriage is an idea planted by the Church into young people’s brains. We are told that if we save ourselves for marriage God will reward us by making sex life with our spouse the most beautiful, satisfying thing ever.

    Then the wedding night comes and it’s … awkward at best.

    To go from zero to fireworks is unrealistic and the Church has a lot to answer for when it comes to bad sex in marriage.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      This is something Jack has referenced before: this idea that God is just going to place the perfect situation in our lap, if we just wait on Him to do it. Doesn’t work that way. We have to participate too. If both the man and the woman are sitting there waiting for God to signal the other one into action, a relationship will never get off the ground. Ditto for conflict resolution, sex, etc.


    • locustsplease says:

      Women are the ones stepping out of their roles with house hold chores. Therefore they should step back into them preferably with some lingerie on. It’s not men’s job to do womens roles and make feminism work for them. Nobody can. If im cleaning my house cooking and doing my dishes and laundry its gonna b alone. Nor is it’s men’s job to crawl into the top 1% financially or b disrespected ultimatum.


      • Grifter Shifter says:

        Forget about top 1%. Just to afford a regular middle class life in a safe neighborhood with some trees and parks and decent schools takes two people working full time. Hiring maids and cooks to allow the pair to unwind after a long day is out of the question for the ordinary middle class. So inevitably the couple has to do that on weeknights and weekends. Add kids to the mix and … working couples today have so much pressure.

        I also think reintroducing monastery culture could help alleviate young men’s stress and pressures to compete in today’s career market and today’s dating market.


      • locustsplease says:

        To afford a reg middle class life you need to b a reg middle class person. Nothing more. They all have 1 friend living the lifestyle they want that’s the standard anything less is failure. Why would a cook come make u food? Why would you b stressed from work? Especially a laughable 40hr work week in air-conditioning. Work is part of life don’t bring it home with you and do double shifts. Women need jobs to afford designer clothes and lifestyles to compete with other women. Not for necessities.

        My ex wife wanted to b a sahm and I didn’t mind. But I told her you blow all your money on clothes and mystery spending I literally cannot track down on paper where in the hell your money goes nothing to show. So if I’m working you only spend money when I say it’s OK and live frugal otherwise. No shopping sprees. I already paid every bill kid home groceries. She said no i said keep your job then she looked dejected its not complicated. I buy myself a few hundred worth of clothes per year. She’s spending 10s of thousands. They have a spending problem. I know a middle class guy with sahm and 8 kids he’s got a house 2x the size of mine new vehicle. Not stressed out work save live frugal.

        Working couples don’t have any pressure. Become a divorced dad handing over 10k per year tax free to my ex which she spends on nice vacations with kid to rub in my face and then having custody of your kid part time. Plus paying every bill no back up. I paid my ex nearly 2k a mo for 3 years. I’m fighting persecution and potential homelessness from my own govt and co parent while keeping a smile.


      • Grifter Shifter says:

        “Therefore they should step back into them preferably with some lingerie on.”

        That’s porn influence.

        Sorry to hear about your predicament post divorce. Those are some reasons I advise young men to go “monk mode” and become actual monks. Failing that I think single men should just bundle together and get a home to share and live out their lives in brotherhood til old age and death. It’s better than dying alone.


      • Jack says:

        “Therefore [women] should step back into [their roles] preferably with some lingerie on.”

        “That’s p0rn influence.”

        No. P0rn makes a business out of appealing to men’s (and now women’s) basic instincts. Every married man wants his wife to be his personal p0rn star in the bedroom. Sex play is important to marriage. Husbands and wives would have much livelier marriages if they had a healthy appreciation for sex and used their sex appeal to feed their mate’s basic instincts — which is one of the purposes for marriage in the first place. If wives gave hubbies an enthusiastic tittie show every day, then p0rn usage would drop. Instead, many wives starve their husbands out, and thereby inadvertently feed the p0rn industry.


      • Oscar says:

        “Just to afford a regular middle class life in a safe neighborhood with some trees and parks and decent schools takes two people working full time.”

        As I’ve said here before, that was a lie when I first heard it in the ’90s, and it’s still a lie. My family is living proof that it’s a lie, as are the families of other brothers who post here.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Grifter Shifter says:

    Bardelys, the problem with religious youth is that we are given zero sex ed. Our parents don’t want it in schools. But then they don’t want to talk about it at home either and the Church certainly isn’t talking. We are told exploring our own bodies is a sin so if we follow all of this our only exposure to sex ed is porn which is perverse. So we either go to our wedding night knowing nothing or knowing perversity.


    • info says:

      There is a good reason NoFap is a thing if that is what you include in the description.

      But I am sure there is a chaste way for them to find out the mechanics.


      • Grifter Shifter says:

        I’m not advocating for masturbation. I realize some religions consider it a sin, although there seems to be some nuance even amongst them. Male anatomy is more straightforward but for some women self exploration may be the only way they can learn what gives them pleasure in order to later communicate that to their husbands.

        Men sometimes complain that their spouses don’t want to have sex. I think a part of it can be due to them not knowing their own bodies and how to experience pleasure and communicate that, if they were amongst women who were browbeaten about the sin of masturbation and actually never did it. There are also a lot of other things that can prevent women from enjoying sex, such as vaginismus (which virtually nobody has even heard of). And sometimes vaginismus is due to shame around one’s own sexuality.


      • thedeti says:

        Vaginismus is essentially “I’mnotattractedtohimitis”. It’s little more than a woman’s involuntary response to sexual repulsion. It’s simply nothing more and nothing less than her lack of attraction to a particular man.


  4. Grifter Shifter says:

    thedeti, you are absolutely wrong about that. And this is exactly what I’m talking about. Sometimes we Christians are so woefully ignorant about health, human anatomy and sexuality that it is beyond embarrassing. Especially in the 21st century when education can be found at our fingertips. Many women who are crazy in love with their husbands suffer from vaginismus and it leads to frustration, depression, even suicidal thoughts. Do some learning about this, and if you have kids, educate them on it too.



    • thedeti says:

      Yeah, no. I call BS.

      “In love” and “sexually attracted” are two very, very different things.

      Let’s take our vaginismus-afflicted woman who’s “in love with” her husband and put her next to a hot guy; and we’ll see just how quickly her condition gets cured.


    • thedeti says:

      “Vaginismus is the body’s automatic reaction to the fear of some or all types of vaginal penetration. Whenever penetration is attempted, your vaginal muscles tighten up on their own. You have no control over it. Occasionally, you can get vaginismus even if you have previously enjoyed painless penetrative sex.”

      That’s the NHS’ definition.

      Yeah. You know why the woman who previously was OK with sex, now isn’t? And why her body resists vaginal penetration?

      Because she’s not sexually attracted to the guy who’s trying to penetrate her, that’s why. She’s tensing up because a guy she doesn’t want to penetrate her is trying to penetrate her.


    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      thedeti is much closer to reality than GS. While the outward expression of vaginismus is pain during sex, it looks a whole lot like the cause is between the woman’s ears. It’s basically a mental/neurological condition that results in the tensing of vaginal muscles, making pain during a sex a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      For women who have pain during sex, the solution is often training their nervous system to recognize that items in their lady bits don’t hurt. Dilators are used in progressing diameters to help the woman’s CNS learn the varying sizes do not hurt. Once she’s learned Richard won’t hurt, viola!, it often doesn’t and she can relax which makes sex better.

      Which brings us back to thedeti’s point about the possibility of vaginismus being linked to attraction. Given the psychological nature of the affliction, it stands to reason that a woman marrying a man she thinks is icky, but that his provision is worth closing her eyes and thinking about his paycheck for 15 minutes, might just tense up during sex. There is only so much closing of her eyes she can do before she can’t take anymore and starts to tense up. To me this is highly plausible as does the idea that a woman who is not attracted to her husband, might, just maybe, but only once or twice when she really doesn’t feel like it, LIE and use vaginismus as an excuse to defraud her husband.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Grifter Shifter says:

        RedPillApostle, nah. Otherwise the same women with vaginismus would not be able to feel pleasure with clitoral stimulation.


      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        You have to make a better thought through argument than that. My position is that women tensing up from the idea of penetrative sex is driven by the mind body connection (this concept is part of the videos you linked to up thread). I then make a very logical step and say that women who are not attracted to their husbands may tense up during sex, which can cause discomfort. The train of thought is at worst plausible.

        Your reply to disregard my logic is that women can experience pleasure by diddling their happy button. So what. The ability to have an orgasm and fear or disgust based tensing that leads to pain during penetration are not necessarily related. Also, the psychosomatic nature of vaginismus is actually discussed by medical providers in the videos you linked to. You’ll need to do better either in logic, your explanation or both. Hopefully you will because your comments will be less of a distraction that way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Grifter Shifter says:

        RedPillApostle, you wrote,

        “To me this is highly plausible as does the idea that a woman who is not attracted to her husband, might, just maybe, but only once or twice when she really doesn’t feel like it, LIE and use vaginismus as an excuse to defraud her husband.”

        I’m not talking about lying here. I’m talking about the real condition of vaginismus. And the idea that vaginismus means she’s not sexually attracted to her husband doesn’t fly because the same woman very often is able to feel pleasure when her clitorous is stimulated by that very same husband.

        This condition has caused a lot of distress to women who were looking forward to enjoying a satisfying sex life with their husbands who they were and are crazy sexually attracted to.

        The Church lies to young people telling us if we just save ourselves for marriage that God will reward us with utopian sex lives full of mutual pleasure and intense spiritual bonding. The Church is full of ignorant people who might mean well at best, and downright liars and deceivers at worst. They don’t prepare us for marriage or sex at all, then after marriage the “counseling” we might get is wrong, wrong, wrong.

        Vaginismus is not the only thing that can “go wrong” down there and result in painful or no sex. And men can also have physical or mental/emotional issues that can result in painful sex, prevent them from having sex altogether or experiencing full pleasure when they do have it.

        Who’s educating Church kids on this stuff? The Church isn’t. Our parents are not. And Church parents are against sex ed in schools also. They even actively fight against it with meetings and protests and you name it. Even sex ed in schools probably doesn’t get this deep anyway. So our old friend the internet remains the only place young people can learn what’s what. I think that’s sad.

        Anyway, there are solutions to sexual problems with couples but the Church needs to stop peddling the lie that saving ourselves for marriage is going to do anything to boost a bond or pleasure or anything practical.


      • info says:


        Actually it’s not a lie. If there are no medical issues. Then sex is something to practice with a spouse who genuinely loves you. And since both are virgins, then their ability to bond hasn’t been fried by promiscuity.


  5. Grifter Shifter says:

    Take some time and go through the videos I kindly linked you to. Vaginismus is a physical condition. Sometimes it can be linked with sexual abuse and trauma, but most of the time it isn’t. And it has nothing to do with attraction. Would you have more compassion to learn that there is a somewhat parallel male condition as well? No, not ED. But CPPS. This is the problem with Christians in the Manosphere. They go from knowing nothing about sex to regurgitating Red Pill b.s. about sex.

    And by the way, I said, “crazy in love” (like the song) not, “Honey I love you but I’m not in love with you.” There’s a difference. Big difference.


    • thedeti says:

      Yeah, I still call BS.

      “Crazy in love” is not the same as “crazy sexually attracted”.

      I’ve been around too much, seen too much, and talked with too many women, to believe this BS “vaginismus” is anything other than a woman who just doesn’t want to have sex with a particular man. And then when these women divorce and find other men; or simply have sex with other men, their “conditions” are miraculously cured.

      I call BS.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Grifter Shifter says:

        You can “call” it whatever you want, but you are wrong. I don’t blame young people for having zero interest in the Church. This is the ignorant crap we learn about sex. The resistance to facts is unbelievable.


      • Red Pill Apostle says:


        It is possible that if a woman is timid about sex and has her friends tell her sex the first time is painful, that she tenses and sex is in fact painful. It’s akin to not warming up enough before an athletic event. The muscles are tight and what should be fluid athletic moves are not comfortable to make. Except in the case of vaginismus, the warm up is less jogging and stretching and more like a few margaritas to get her to relax and get into the fun.

        Liked by 1 person

    • naturallyaspirated says:

      Why are we talking about a rare condition like vaginismus? Men are not frustrated in dead bedrooms because of an epidemic of vaginismus.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Grifter Shifter says:

        It’s actually not that rare, just un talked about. Many women suffer in silence. Many go undiagnosed. Many go misdiagnosed. There a number of reasons women many not want to have sex. However, if she’s young, healthy, hormones are balanced and has at least a moderate libido, and has a healthy sexual self esteem (despite anti-sex Church indoctrination) if she is does not show interest in sex I would question my bedroom skills as a husband. Many men “who lead in the bedroom” lead the woman straight into bad sex. This is especially true for men who have been given bad sex advice from some family member or “elder” in the Church. And the ones who don’t get bad advice from family or Church, get bad ideas from porn. There’s really no healthy sex ed in a Church boy’s life. Prove me wrong.


      • naturallyaspirated says:

        There are commenters here who work with couples, many of whom are struggling with sexual intimacy. Vaginismus has never come up as a common cause in previous posts as far as I remember, but maybe I missed that the day it was covered.


      • info says:

        @Grifter Shifter

        Then if its a medical condition then it ought to be treated that way.


      • Red Pill Apostle says:


        “However, if she’s young, healthy, hormones are balanced and has at least a moderate libido, and has a healthy sexual self esteem (despite anti-sex Church indoctrination) if she is does not show interest in sex I would question my bedroom skills as a husband. Many men “who lead in the bedroom” lead the woman straight into bad sex. This is especially true for men who have been given bad sex advice from some family member or “elder” in the Church.”

        Forget entirely the discussion about sex and concentrate on the shifting of responsibility. My wife was a Jedi-Ninja-Special Forces warrior at doing just what GS did in making bad sex the man’s fault.

        Bad sex is just as much about her as it is about him, so let’s not have women ditch ownership of the problem. He is not a mind reader so she needs to be much better at communicating. Also, notice how if the woman doesn’t show interest in sex it does not absolve her from having sex with her husband any time he wants. The opposite also applies.

        The comment is from the perspective that a wife is devoid of personal responsibility and accountability for herself. I understand a woman may not be interested in sex for various reasons but if she is not willing to figure out what is causing her lack of interest and fix the issue that is a big problem. And it is her problem to solve because she made a vow before God to be her husband’s lover. He can help her but she’s got to do the work.

        Jack – I kinda like GS’s comments because they are a case study in assumptions and assertions that men need to recognize and understand. Distracting from the main point of the post at times? Yes. But the comments are basically transcripts of the way women think about relationships and marriage complete with the biases men need to be on the lookout for, effectively making them a mental workout to keep husbands sharp.

        Liked by 2 people

    • locustsplease says:

      They have headaches. Not enought benjamitis frankolinis syndrome.

      If some woman has a problem she doesn’t want to solve that is your answer. 1 quick Google search or Dr trip. I get a cramp during sex I’m not like oh boy what was that I better never have sex again I’m so scared right now!!!

      I am not a gynecologist that’s not a requirement to post. This boils down to your woman pleasing attitude. If a woman doesn’t do something she must b pleased to do it so you didn’t do your job wrong! I gave my ex wife O,s on command had her figured out. Women don’t do things because they don’t feel like it. They love the power of denying you more than simple short term pleasures of orgasm.


  6. Lastmod says:

    Young people don’t have any interest in church…..

    Agree in theory. When it comes to “sex”, the problem is that it’s excused or allowed “depending on who it IS in church.”

    Is it the pastor’s son or daughter? The Elder’s daughter gets knocked up? “Oh we can’t judge! This is us having to demonstrate Gods love and Jesus’s forgiveness! God is working on his or her heart. God knows they didn’t mean to sin. He knows their heart and intent.”

    Most other young people see this blatant double standard. It sticks with them.

    However, most young teen guys in the church are not attractive to the “holy” church girls, so it doesn’t make them too mad, many are already jaded on ‘bold n’ biblical’ church culture. Most go because of tradition, or they are trying to keep mom and dad happy because they live at home. (Sky high rents in most cities of the larger states today…. and the smaller ones too now as well.)

    Young people being turned off from church?

    I was a Scoutmaster for ten years (very unmasculine, I know), and most boys don’t like singing church ‘baby songs’ at twelve, thirteen, and fourteen. Most of the church ministry is geared towards women and girls. The men’s group is filled with older men who say “they have the teen group” or “young group” (led by a college aged woman and with her boyfriend), and they do effing boring things, hence why young men got more out of Scouts at one time, or other activities.

    I argued fervently to no avail at The Salvation Army that a teen boy should be hearing what “real men” do and talk about God and Scripture. It could help them realize they are being treated and expected to behave more as an adult. No, no! The young boys have to go to “teen group” where most activity is spent singing or doing boring stuff.

    Many a boy wants to be led, taught, and held accountable, and be with the adults… But the experts in church believe teens and young adults need a “youth pastor”.

    How about a man in the church leading these young men? Right. Can’t do that. The “real men” are busy at men’s group talking about how the world is going down the toilet and also bemoaning the men who are or did step up as “not doing it right”.


    • Grifter Shifter says:

      “Agree in theory. When it comes to “sex”, the problem is that it’s excused or allowed “depending on who it IS in church.”

      That’s one problem. The bigger problem is the sexual ignorance and lack of sex ed.

      “Most of the church ministry is geared towards women and girls.”

      And they are being lied to about their bodies, sex, sexuality, the wedding night, and sex life in marriage.

      As far as unattractive young men, we need to bring monasteries back to absorb them like they use to. At this point I think nunhood and monkhood is the solution for both genders to avoid the bad marriages and bad sex lives which are inevitable after all the bad marriage and sex advice they hear growing up.


      • Lastmod says:

        “That’s one problem. The bigger problem is the sexual ignorance and lack of sex ed.”

        What a crock of sh*t

        Sex ed, all they do in public school today IS talk about sex and sex ed. I have to verify my age (I am fifty-two) on many things I view on YouTube because its (gasp) triggering. Yet, any kids can get on YouPorn from a phone. I grew up in rural, country, small r republican upstate New York. My hometown had 800 people, and we even had sex ed int he local public school and believe it or not…

        PARENTS have a role in this. Hard to believe mom or dad, or unlce or someone in the kids life will actually have to talk to their offspring about sex.

        “And they are being lied to about their bodies, sex, sexuality, the wedding night and sex life in marriage.”

        The lies they are getting are from Tik Tok, YouPorn, more than half of the modern R&B songs out today about sex, sexuality, and their bodies. I’ll agree that that the church does a horrible job about weddings. They love them! The expense, The debt! They live that and yes……I will conceed, they worship the sex act like the world does but since its blessed by “jesus” everything is going to be great. If parents were actually doing their job today, this wouldnt be half the problem it is

        As for Monastaries. You are going to make a loser Incel “accept Jesus, and join a monastary”

        Good luck with that. And women deciding or the church….and other men making the decision on “who is unattractive” and these men “deserve” the privee of having a life like that. Who decides this? When? What standard? Who’s choice?

        Christian who believe that are actually the immature ones making church into high school “this guy is okay / this one isnt”

        If we go by this metric, 80% of men will be forced into this life. WHo is gonna clean the toilets and make the coffee for all the cool people in church when the “unattractive young men” are forced on to a labor farm (which monastaries were actaully).

        The Germans had the same idea in the last century as well

        Liked by 1 person

    • locustsplease says:

      Church is led for women definitely. I think women should b out of any of even the mildest leadership positions because they just f-ing drive men out. It never crosses their minds… “Do men even want to do these feminine exercises? And yeah, we get way too many excuses for them on Sunday.


  7. Grifter Shifter says:

    info says:

    “Then if its a medical condition then it ought to be treated that way.”

    Well it is. Problem is most women who suffer from it don’t even have a word for it. And even now there are doctors who don’t know what it is so it often goes misdiagnosed. There are techniques to cure it though. Check the link I left for thedeti.


  8. Grifter Shifter says:

    Lastmod, porn is not healthy sex ed. It’s perversity. And Christian parents don’t talk about sex for the most part and when they do, it’s usually bad info that is woefully out of touch or just plain unfactual. As far as who decides who becomes a monk, I think if monastaries were made attractive enough and provided real brotherhood, incels would gravitate to them. True, most aren’t religious, but the religious ones would. The non-religious ones could join secular communes of brotherhood, which men should be building to help each other.


    • Lastmod says:

      “…the proles and useless can only be free by being made to work and learn to love Big Brother…”

      From “1984” by George Orwell.

      This is how women speak today, underlying tones of Marxism, superiority and “they know what is best” for the masses.


      • Grifter Shifter says:

        Lastmod, I’m new here but was under the impression this was a Christian blog. And if any non-Christians participated they at least respected the general Christian culture that would be talked about here. Monastic life has been a mainstay of Christianity since the beginning. It can provide a fulfilling, God centered life for young men and women who choose it. It has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism and it’s incredibly offensive to make that comparison.


      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        “I … was under the impression this was a Christian blog.”

        No. That’s emotional manipulation and you know it. Not going to fly. You have come in here, hijacked a thread and added nothing of value, and when the men rightly call you out on your bullsh!t, you want to play the “You should be nice to me because you’re a Christian” card. No ma’am. We were kind enough to let you comment here, but you have overstayed your welcome.

        Jack, I urge you to ban her and delete any further comments. If you will not, I ask the rest of us to no longer feed the troll. We’ve given women like her enough. No more.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    Jack, can we ban this termagant and delete her posts? She’s added nothing to the conversation at all except to vomit her personal insecurities under the guise of “helping us understand”.

    This was my point from the previous thread. Women have begged us to “listen” to their concerns for a hundred years now, and they have added nothing of value. It’s time to shut up and get back in the kitchen, sweetheart, and let the men run things again. Who knows? You might just like it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:


      I was wondering whether this topic would lead back to the OP or not (re: Expectations).

      But no… You’re right. Every discussion somehow ends up with women’s viewpoints.

      That could be Bardelys’ Axiom!


    • Jack says:

      Bardelys, et al.,

      Newcomer GS has had a chance to tie his/her arguments into the OP, and I have yet to see how vaginismus, etc. is related to Consolidating Masculinity. Moreover, GS has failed to present any contribution other than discriminatory racial profiling, red herrings, and women’s talking points from out-of-the-blue-pill.

      I am on vacation now (Chinese New Year holiday) but when I return, I will go through all of GS’s comments and edit and/or delete everything that is grossly off topic. In the meantime, please continue to sift the wheat from the chaff, as you have been doing rather well.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Grifter Shifter says:

        “GS has failed to present any contribution other than discriminatory racial profiling, red herrings, and women’s talking points from out-of-the-blue-pill.”

        Racial profiling? You lost me there. Care to quote?

        The problem of vaginismus is not an any-color pilled or exclusively woman talking point as it effects marriage. How it figures into the title of this piece “Expectations for LTRs” is that an orgasmically utopian sex life is an expectation for marriage that “the Church” promises young Christians we will have if we simply save ourselves for marriage. It’s a lie and one that effects Christian marriages the world over. I think it’s very relevant on a blog that appears to be about Christianity and marriage. But by now I agree there’s enough comments on it here so I’m ready to move on. Unless someone else again addresses me on the subject, I’m ok with dropping it. It wasn’t getting anywhere anyway.


    • thedeti says:

      Cane Caldo ran a blog around here a few years ago. He banned women from commenting at his blog, specifically because of the complained-of phenomena occurring with GS. I don’t know whether GS is a man or a woman, but the argumentation technique points to the feminine:

      — Attributing lack of sexual attraction to “vaginismus”. (Men don’t come here claiming there is an epidemic of vaginismus destroying young women’s sex lives.)

      — Refusing to acknowledge lack of sexual attraction as a real thing that occurs.

      — Excusing, justifying, and defending women’s bad conduct.

      — Shaming MGTOW.

      — Demanding that men justify their existence and what they do.

      I also don’t know whether banning female commenters is the answer. That’s up to Jack. I know only that after doing this a long time, the inability of men and women to discuss intersexual dynamics in any meaningful way comes into ever-sharper focus.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Jack says:

    Here are a few questions for GS — last chance to redeem yourself.

    How is the secular monasticism you described any different from the Black Pill, MGTOW, or other similar men’s movements?

    How should vaginismus be addressed in order to set proper expectations for a LTR?

    What do you think the church should be doing differently to help young people set proper expectations for sex and marriage?

    Finally, how does all this relate to Consolidating Masculinity?


    • Grifter Shifter says:

      “How is the secular monasticism you described any different from the Black Pill, MGTOW, or other similar men’s movements?”

      Those aren’t movements. Nobody’s moving. They are sitting online all day, every day. Secular monasticism would be men forming real life, side by side brotherhoods and living together communally in a house, apartment, or on a farm or homestead. Positive movement to create actual, intentional community. Not sitting alone online all day complaining and being depressed, suicidal even. One thing these lonely bitter and isolated men are going to have to deal with is old age, failing health and DYING ALONE. That doesn’t seem to be talked about. Winter is coming. These men have no friends, no community and nobody to help them in real life when they need it. Secular monasticism can provide all of that.

      “How should vaginismus be addressed in order to set proper expectations for a LTR?”

      One has to do what we do for everything else these days; Google it, research a bit, then seek treatment.

      “What do you think the church should be doing differently to help young people set proper expectations for sex and marriage?”

      For Christians the Church can start learning about (real) sex and providing (real) sex ed for young parishioners and stop peddling the lies they currently push about “just save yourself for marriage and everything will automatically work out.” But I won’t hold my breath. There are some books and podcasts that have come out in the last few years addressing these issues but I don’t see “The Church” as a whole moving forward right now.

      “Finally, how does all this relate to Consolidating Masculinity?”

      The title of this piece is “Expectations for LTRs”. Satisfying sex is an expectation people have for marriage. Sexual expression is very closely tied to masculinity and femininity. If our bodies (or anything else) prevent us from fully expressing ourselves sexually in our marriage, it will prevent us from “consolidating” our masculinity or femininity.

      As I said in my previous comment, I’m pretty much done with the topic of vaginismus here so I won’t bring it up again. I would like to address this though;

      “For a woman, the way to godly contentment is either (1) settling down with a man early in life (foregoing the carousel and before hitting the Wall) and applying herself to be his helper in that MISSION. Or, (2) staying in her father’s household and helping her family in various ways. Other paths might bring a sense of contentment, but it won’t be holy.”

      You left out the 3rd option: becoming a nun. One of the great failures of Protestantism is the lack of a monastic option. As a Protestant if I want to remain single to serve God exclusively my whole life, I will be looked at as a failure simply for not marrying. That goes for both women and men.


  11. Lastmod says:

    Correct on Blackpill and MGTOW. Those are not “movements”, they are just guides or roadmaps or ideas on how to live your life as a man. They actually have helped a lot of men. If the church was actually doing its job, MGTOW and Blackpill would almost have no need to be around. I am Blackpill (but the men here tell me what it is and isn’t for some reason), and it prevented me from killing myself. Something the church should be helping with. No, I had to shut down to get well.

    The church is supposed to be bringing in men and reclaiming them for God. The supposedly important men in chuch always view that as “someone else’s job”, and women (as we all know) view the men who DO come in to a church as not what would fit their dream. Women blame the church for them not bringing in HOT men. Love God? Oh come on now! Most women don’t even follow the Bible. Most women can’t even be told “no” in church.

    Not hot? “Ughhhh… Why can’t the men here or the church make a place for these ugly, useless men……. away from me! Work farms, communes would be a great place for them!”

    As for your female medical condition. It exists. The problem is that women use this medical condition as an excuse for everything sexual. Before Bill Clinton, we had that hyperactive child….. that kid. He needed medication. By the time Clinton left the white house, 40% of boys in grade school were being medded up for no reason.

    Kind of the same thing here.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Joe2 says:

      “Not hot? “Ughhhh… Why can’t the men here or the church make a place for these ugly, useless men……. away from me! Work farms, communes would be a great place for them!”

      And think of all the good these otherwise useless men would be doing to advance Christianity from their labors on the farm / commune.

      The money raised from the farm / commune could be used for charitable purposes which otherwise would not be funded. The church would benefit and the women would be satisfied. It’s a win-win.

      I think George Whitefield might approve of having church sponsored farms / communes, aka plantations.



      • Grifter Shifter says:

        Joe2, Men can decide for themselves where any money they earn goes. They can give in charity to poor and homeless men if that is a value they hold or they can keep it all for themselves. A bunch of men living together, hunting together, growing food together and supporting each other in brotherhood through ups and downs, old age and sickness sounds like a great mission to me. What’s not to like?


  12. Pingback: A Response to GrifterShifter’s Comments | 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