# Do nice guys finish last?



## chumplady (Jul 27, 2012)

Didn't want to thread jack another thread, but the book (I think this is the title, please correct me) A Married Man's Sex Life was mentioned. 

Often on betrayed husband threads, there are discussions about whether or not the guy was Too Nice, or did he fail by not being alpha enough, or not achieving the proper alpha / beta ratio in his marriage -- which then leads to its demise and the woman is attracted to someone else. 

I'm not a guy, and I haven't read the book (but I will), but I have to say I find the premise totally off putting. 

IMO decent, loving, faithful men -- there stock is always going to trade high -- with other decent, loving faithful women. And judging by who women cheat with -- pansy-assed, douch*bags -- a big trade DOWN -- I don't think they're looking for Alpha. I think they cheat for the reasons men cheat -- lack of character and the need for ego kibbles. Ego Kibbles

I think these theories are just another way to blame the victim. Oh! You loved your wife too much! You weren't alpha enough! Next time be withholding! Be a douch*bag! Women RESPECT that! 

Bull hockey.

I think it's true for betrayed men or women, that they tend to be the better spouse. The more invested, together spouse. And the cheaters are narcissistic. It's not that you LACKED something, it's that THEY lacked something -- character, a soul, morals, boundaries.

I think these books play to a male fear of not being played again. Not being vulnerable. If they can point to something You Did Wrong.

Fact is, intimacy makes us vulnerable. And a cheater can drive your life into a ditch. You didn't CAUSE this -- because we don't have control over other people. That's scary and it's liberating. It's not your fault. 

Saying, oh, I could've saved this if I'd had more hobbies and been less available for my family or something, makes me want to shake you and say "HEY! There are thousands of women who WANT a good man! Do NOT morph into a JERK! Do NOT let this experience rob you of your DECENCY! That is VALUED! Find someone who VALUES YOU and shut up about your alpha sh*t!"

Sermon over.


----------



## costa200 (Jun 27, 2012)

Read the book first. Understand what is meant by "Alpha". Alpha's can be nice guys, just not the kind that will roll over for women. And that book isn't made for cheated on husbands. It's made for all males in long relationships.


----------



## Kasler (Jul 20, 2012)

A man can be beta but he needs alpha traits at the forefront of his relationship at least. 

I won't really discuss betas losing out, truth is they do. 

When you go by statistics, abusing and controlling spouses are rarely cheated on while the ones who would anything and everything for their spouses do get cheated on. 

I'm not saying everyone should go out and be a controlling ass hat, but those are the facts. 

When someone has to put serious work, time, and love into their relationship they're less likely to cheat due to the amount of effort it takes to maintain.

When a partner does literally nothing to facilitate love in the relationship, but is smothered in love and affection anyway, they may take it for granted, partly because they believe it will always be there for them and they don't have to do anything to maintain it. This kind of thinking devalues the affection they get from the partner and you'll have waywards going out having affairs for the 'thrills' they can't find or ask for in their comfy marriage. 

A perfect example of this happening is Old Mittens wife. She did love him, but felt bored and like she was getting old and unattractive and went out and sexed up his best friend. 

Regardless of her affair destroying her marriage and busting up the family, it all started because she looked for cheap 'thrills' she couldn't or wouldn't get out of her comfy with marriage oldmittens. 

Its give and take on both parts really, thats what a relationship is.

When a partner is completely beta, all they do is give and give and give. On the flip side, this behavior accustoms their partner to being used to not giving(or caring about partner's needs) just taking and receiving. 

So when they want more affection that their husband/wife can't give, their gonna quietly resent that and go out and find someone else who can give them the affection they want. Because when it comes to receiving affection they don't have give and take mentality, its just all about them and their individual wants being serviced so the beta spouse gets quickly pushed out of the picture because their wants never truly mattered or registered with the wayward.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

chumplady said:


> I think it's true for betrayed men or women, that they tend to be the better spouse. The more invested, together spouse. And the cheaters are narcissistic. It's not that you LACKED something, it's that THEY lacked something -- character, a soul, morals, boundaries.
> 
> 
> 
> Sermon over.


Exactly, and an excellent point. Shirley Glass an experienced marriage counselor mentions this, too, as do many other psych pros, and a great post. 

I have read that book, and I think it's likely responsible for a high number of failed marriages.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

I've never read any of the books thrown around like "NMMNG" or "MMSL" (think I got the acronyms right). I think most of us have all of the tools needed and can figure out what works vs what doesn't work. The personality types like Alpha, Beta, Omega, etc are overly simplistic just like the body types we learn about in health like ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph. There are truths to all of these concepts, but we need to use a critical mind when reading about these topics. 

Personally, I do not like these labels for men because IMO they only explain some of what's going on in situations but not the whole picture. So to me the phrase "Nice guys finish last" is a misnomer, and should correctly be replaced with "Doormats finish last". That's the error here IMO. It's not being nice that is the problem - it's being submissive and subservient to your spouse that can kill attraction. The flip side is equally true. Excessively selfish and domineering people (i.e. excessive "alpha") lose out in the end too. 

IMO, the chances of having a strong marriage is built on Love, Trust and Respect. Also, being best friends is very important too IMO but is not always the case for all marriages. But everything is tied together through clear and open communication. Does you spouse know that he/she is loved by your words and actions? Same with Respect and Trust. If you can't communicate it clearly then it's no different than it not being there in the first place. Also, forgot to add that all of this has to be reciprocated. Just like you have to clearly communicate these feelings to your spouse, you also have to demand that your spouse commit to the same feelings that you do. 

Just wanted to throw some thoughts out there on this.


----------



## chumplady (Jul 27, 2012)

> When a partner does literally nothing to facilitate love in the relationship, but is smothered in love and affection anyway, they may take it for granted, partly because they believe it will always be there for them and they don't have to do anything to maintain it. This kind of thinking devalues the affection they get from the partner and you'll have waywards going out having affairs for the 'thrills' they can't find or ask for in their comfy marriage.


To me, the key words here are "A partner does NOTHING"

Healthy relationships are based upon reciprocity. If you're married to someone who does NOTHING -- and that doesn't bother the sh*t out of you? Then you're codependent, beta, doormat, whatever you want to call it. It's a problem -- YES. But that's true for women as it is for men.

I think the problem is that we spackle. We get the nothing and dress it up as something.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

I haven't read "Moby D!ck", but I plan to. However, I will say that books about seafood are stupid. I don't know why anybody likes the book. Seriously? 600 pages about a whale? How can anybody take that seriously? If you want a good story about fish, watch "Finding Nemo".

Of course, given that fact that I haven't read the book, I could have a complete misunderstanding of what is in it.


----------



## Kasler (Jul 20, 2012)

chumplady said:


> To me, the key words here are "A partner does NOTHING"
> 
> Healthy relationships are based upon reciprocity. If you're married to someone who does NOTHING -- and that doesn't bother the sh*t out of you? Then you're codependent, beta, doormat, whatever you want to call it. It's a problem -- YES. But that's true for women as it is for men.
> 
> I think the problem is that we spackle. We get the nothing and dress it up as something.


Yes, exactly the problem is being a beta, and I used (tried to anyways) non gender specific terms to imply that both men and women do this. 

Betas are like this. They have partners who don't do anything for the relationship to grow, but they just keep it at.

Which is exactly why they get cheated on.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> I haven't read "Moby D!ck", but I plan to. However, I will say that books about seafood are stupid. I don't know why anybody likes the book. Seriously? 600 pages about a whale? How can anybody take that seriously? If you want a good story about fish, watch "Finding Nemo".
> 
> Of course, given that fact that I haven't read the book, I could have a complete misunderstanding of what is in it.


I read it. 

It's a joke. 

I am the only girl in a large family with a lot of brothers.

The good looking confident brothers, think the book is a joke too. 

The less confident ones tried to use some of the tactics in it and they worked to a degree but were very temporary and mostly backfired in their real relationships. 

The methods and labels are waaaaay too simplistic for the complexity of the human mind. 

The methods may work on a very simplistic (reptilian brained ) person, but who wants that.

As for Chump lady, There are a ton of excerpts of this book every where on line. 

You can read the cliff notes and get totally understand a book. 

I suggest you buy the cliff notes on Moby ****. The cliff notes get straight to the meat of the book without having to muck through all the fat. 

And, you will still get an A on your final exam whether you read the cliff notes or the book, my friend.

Added later. I find it a more than a Jungian meaningful coincidence that you picked a book like Moby **** in which the **** part is filtered out on the website. 

So danged amusing.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

chumplady said:


> I'm not a guy, and I haven't read the book (but I will), but I have to say I find the premise totally off putting.


If you believe that, of the millions of women who cheat on their husbands, they were all (or mostly) just psychopaths who have no concern for anyone else, you're wrong. These women are usually looking for something that is missing in their marriages. And the most common thing missing is passion and attraction for their husbands.



chumplady said:


> I think these theories are just another way to blame the victim. Oh! You loved your wife too much! You weren't alpha enough! Next time be withholding! Be a douch*bag! Women RESPECT that!
> 
> Bull hockey.


Women don't usually cheat with men they respect. There is a reason that most affairs never progress into long-term relationships. And why those that do almost always fail. It's because the affair isn't based on mature, balanced emotions. It's based on 'gina tingles. And alpha traits bring on the tingles.



chumplady said:


> I think these books play to a male fear of not being played again. Not being vulnerable. If they can point to something You Did Wrong.


The truth is somewhere in the middle. Of course, someone with perfect morals will not cheat. But most people don't have perfect morals. Most people are vulnerable. And if you are married to a woman who is vulnerable to cheating, as most are, then it will serve a man well to try to fulfill as many of her needs as possible (including tingles).

Look at it like a rape. Nobody deserves to be raped. But if a woman walks naked into a biker bar, there is a high probability she will be raped. And if she is, she should probably learn the lesson not to do that anymore.



chumplady said:


> Saying, oh, I could've saved this if I'd had more hobbies and been less available for my family or something, makes me want to shake you and say "HEY! There are thousands of women who WANT a good man! Do NOT morph into a JERK! Do NOT let this experience rob you of your DECENCY! That is VALUED! Find someone who VALUES YOU and shut up about your alpha sh*t!"


Here, you're back to misunderstanding what alpha is. The fact that some jerks are alpha does not mean that alpha traits mean one must be a jerk. It's just a correlation. Alpha traits include assertiveness, confidence, physical fitness, and leadership. Now, the leader of a motorcycle gang has all these traits. The captain of the chess club likely has none. That's why the biker will have more success with women than the nerd. It's not because women are attracted to felons.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

OP go to the website/blog and you'll get a good whiff of what this guy's writing is like; then you can decide whether or not to waste ten bucks on the book.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Look at it like a rape. Nobody deserves to be raped. But if a woman walks naked into a biker bar, there is a high probability she will be raped. And if she is, she should probably learn the lesson not to do that anymore.


As evolved humans we should be able to over ride the urge to have sex with a women who walks into a bar naked.

Are you saying it would be okay to rape this woman? 

Anyone who would rape her definitely has damaged frontal lobes and lacks self control. 

Most psychopaths and sociopaths and narccissists have shown on imaging test to have deficits, either physical or chemical in the frontal lobes and emotional centers of the brain. 

Yes. there is a high probability that this woman walking into a bar naked will run into a psychopath or sociopath in the group. 

So yes, it would be stupid, but your analogy does not negate chump lady's claim.


----------



## wiigirl (Jun 14, 2012)

costa200 said:


> Read the book first. Understand what is meant by "Alpha". Alpha's can be nice guys, just not the kind that will roll over for women. And that book isn't made for cheated on husbands. It's made for all males in long relationships.


:iagree:








_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> I am the only girl in a large family with a lot of brothers.
> 
> The good looking confident brothers, think the book is a joke too.


I'm not surprised. I'm helping to coach my son's football team this year. I played football for many years when I was younger, and I've followed football for years. But, I've never coached before.

So, I bought "Coaching Football for Dummies" for $0.99 on my Kindle. It was a joke. I already knew everything in the book. However, for someone completely new to the game, it would have been valuable.

So, if you have great success with women, are naturally alpha, and have an innate understanding of what women are looking for in men, then I agree that the book is not for you. You don't need a book to tell you something you already know. However, if you are a fairly typical husband with a wife who is steadily pulling back from you, your sex life is slowly tanking, and you're responding by running faster and faster on your hamster wheel doing things that your wife isn't attracted to, the book can be a boon.



Sara8 said:


> The less confident ones tried to use some of the tactics in it and they worked to a degree but were very temporary and mostly backfired in their real relationships.


If the results were temporary, then I suspect the application of the methods was temporary. Athol doesn't advise a man to act more assertive for a couple of weeks. He advises him to permanently become more assertive. In a relationship, temporary actions won't help anything.



Sara8 said:


> The methods and labels are waaaaay too simplistic for the complexity of the human mind.
> 
> The methods may work on a very simplistic (reptilian brained ) person, but who wants that.


I disagree. People aren't snowflakes. People mostly want the same things and they react the same way to similar stimuli.



Sara8 said:


> As for Chump lady, There are a ton of excerpts of this book every where on line.
> 
> You can read the cliff notes and get totally understand a book.


That's true. You can read Athol's blog and get a decent grasp of some of the basic concepts. However, it didn't appear the Chump lady had done that. She had the common misconception that alpha=mean and beta=nice. That equivalency is nowhere in Athol's work.


----------



## Vanguard (Jul 27, 2011)

Alpha doesn't mean jerk. 

It means a guy is not going to worship you.
I used to do anything and everything for a self-entitled typical American society girl. Guess how that turned out? 

After my divorce I stopped giving girls attention. I stopped complimenting them, and I stopped caring about what they thought of me. I didn't ignore them, I wasn't mean to them. I just knew that their opinions aren't relevant just because they're pretty, and I started reflecting that truth in my interactions with them. I was going to school at the time and every young attractive girl became obsessed with me. 

So when someone says that girls like jerks and despise nice guys, that's not accurate but it points toward something that is absolutely true: women are like cats. They need something to chase, and they'll chase it and chase it until they know they can have it. Then they're bored with it. If you dangle something in front of a cat and tease it, it will chase it forever. 

So I'll just keep dangling myself in front of them, and they'll keep on chasing.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> As evolved humans we should be able to over ride the urge to have sex with a women who walks into a bar naked.


Totally off topic but as evolved humans we should understand that food shelter and ahem,*clothing* are the basic human needs and as such we shouldn't go around traipsing through the country side in our birthday suits trying to get our needs met.


Back to the point, I kinda liked the book. Besides, it isn't for women, its for men to read and women to be the subjects of its implementation. But I do agree with some of his points, major one being, don't ever beg for sex like a puppy dog.


----------



## Vanguard (Jul 27, 2011)

Sara8 said:


> As evolved humans we should be able to over ride the urge to have sex with a women who walks into a bar naked.
> 
> Are you saying it would be okay to rape this woman?
> 
> ...


As evolved human beings though, women should understand that walking into a bar naked is not an inherently neutral gesture. It is an extremely lewd gesture that declares "I want to have sex." Anyone who would do that and not expect ramifications has definitely damaged her frontal lobes, and lacks self control.

It's not about the probability of her encountering a psychopath- it's about the gesture itself.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

WhiteMousse said:


> As evolved human beings though, women should understand that walking into a bar naked is not an inherently neutral gesture. It is an extremely lewd gesture that declares "I want to have sex." Anyone who would do that and not expect ramifications has definitely damaged her frontal lobes, and lacks self control.
> 
> It's not about the probability of her encountering a psychopath- it's about the gesture itself.


I agree, but the analogy was not mine. I was responding to a silly analogy. 

And, quite honestly, how many times have you actually heard of a woman walking into a bar naked?

In the age of instant media, I have never. 

I did once see a man walking down the street naked, and another who was chasing after a hooker who stole his wallet during a BJ in his truck, with his pants down and his wang hanging out, in Manhattan once. :rofl:


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

> Here, you're back to misunderstanding what alpha is. The fact that some jerks are alpha does not mean that alpha traits mean one must be a jerk. It's just a correlation. Alpha traits include assertiveness, confidence, physical fitness, and leadership. Now, the leader of a motorcycle gang has all these traits. The captain of the chess club likely has none. That's why the biker will have more success with women than the nerd. It's not because women are attracted to felons.


I get what your saying and I agree to a certain extent. IMO, the model is too simplistic and simply lacks enough sophistication to explain what's going on effectively. Alpha traits can be observed in short bald guys with hairy backs, beta traits can be observed in body builders, and even bikers can make the mistake of trying to give their woman everything possible under the sun. 

I think these models are much more effective when males and females are playing the dating game, but the theories become less useful when we're talking about long term relationships and marriage. We've learned a long time ago that when we don't stick up for ourselves that people won't respect us and will walk all over us. We've also learned that if we want to keep the romance in our relationships that we need to continue to work at it. Keeping in shape, paying attention to your spouse and communicating to them are all part of the tending to your marriage. To me it comes down to you having the ability to take care of those things that you have control over. 

At the end of the day, even if you do all of the right things, you may still end up being a BS. Why? Because that's just how life is because we all were given free will. When we put a lot of work and effort into our marriages by doing the "right" things, all we can do is reduce the chances of infidelity.

All of these theories - just like the free market theories - assume that everyone is a rational actor. In reality, we aren't. Sure, the models can explain some of what's going on but clearly you'll never get a handle on all of it.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> Are you saying it would be okay to rape this woman?


 I figured that analogy would ruffle some feathers. It appears you skipped right over the sentence I wrote that said, "Nobody deserves to be raped."



Sara8 said:


> Anyone who would rape her definitely has damaged frontal lobes and lacks self control.


Sure. Rapists definitely aren't your average bear. Does that mean you would advise your daughters or nieces to walk naked down the street secure in the knowledge that they won't be responsible for any assault that might befall them? I wouldn't. I would advise my children to keep themselves out of situations where the risk of harm would be great.



Sara8 said:


> So yes, it would be stupid, but your analogy does not negate chump lady's claim.


Chump lady is arguing that betrayed spouses are guiltless for being cheated on. I'm saying that's not always the case.

Just as the woman who walks naked into a bar bears some responsibility for creating a situation where she is very likely to be assaulted, the betrayed spouse often has helped create a marriage that is very vulnerable to infidelity. Yes, most of the blame should lie with the rapist or the cheater. However, arguing that ALL the blame should lie with them is to ignore common sense and insist that walking naked into a bar is a reasonable thing to do.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I get what your saying and I agree to a certain extent. IMO, the model is too simplistic and simply lacks enough sophistication to explain what's going on effectively. Alpha traits can be observed in short bald guys with hairy backs, .


Sorry, I would never be attracted to a short bald guy with a hairy back, no matter how alpha he acts. 

And, I would never be attracted to a body builder no matter how much I like Beta men.

A man doesn't have to be drop dead gorgeous for me to be attracted, but I do have some standards.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> :
> 
> Sure. Rapists definitely aren't your average bear. Does that mean you would advise your daughters or nieces to walk naked down the street secure in the knowledge that they won't be responsible for any assault that might befall them? I wouldn't. I would advise my children to keep themselves out of situations where the risk of harm would be great.


Ah, I see you skipped over the part where I said it would be stupid for a women to walk into a bar naked. 

Does that mean I ruffled your feather so much you missed that part?


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Sorry, *I would never be attracted to a short bald guy with a hairy back*, no matter how alpha he acts.
> 
> And, I would never be attracted to a body builder no matter how much I like Beta men.
> 
> A man doesn't have to be drop dead gorgeous for me to be attracted, but I do have some standards.


Are you sure about that? If he had good posture, wore black clothes and talked intelligently about your favorite topics - you may just fall for him...


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> I Athol doesn't advise a man to act more assertive for a couple of weeks. He advises him to permanently become more assertive..


Wow, this Athol guy must be a God that has an answer to everything that no one else has answers, too. 

Does he eat poop and sleep like the rest of us, or is he waay to all knowing for the basics?

Anyone who thinks they have THE answer is likely a narcissisist or a psychopath.

He certainly was able to con a lot of people into buying his book, that of course contains all the only REAL ANSWERS.

I DON'T have any answers, I am just speculating, but I doubt athol has any answers at all, he just thinks he does.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

I have read the book, and it isn't about being an alpha, or a jerk, etc.

it's about teaching a man to actually think about how he is acting and responding in situations, especially with his wife, and to ensure that he isn't letting himself just take the path of least apparent resistance. (meaning deferring to others, not speaking up, being passive-aggressive, turning to using tricks and nasty comments instead of honest open speech)

It's not about: My way or the highway, and if you don't like it - then shut up and leave. - that's being a jerk.

The fact is many men bought into the crap from 70-80-90's about being sensitive guys, and what they ended up with was being passive.

Men began accepting the behavior from women that we see it stupid TV comedies - where the husband's plans and ideas are somewhat half baked and a fodder for mocking and humor.

In these comedies and in commercials - it's acceptable for the wife to put down her husband. Acceptable for her to call his decisions incompetent or short sighted.

Essentially it's acceptable to laugh AT him.

And guys bought into accepting that role, and accepting the very non-respectful treatment.

Mean while women where fed a diet of entitlement, you-go-girl, you are the most important, your happiness is the most important etc.

See the problem it creates a serious imbalance and it leads the man to accept boundaries being crossed and behavior from his wife that he should.

I see MMSL as teaching the man to have more self respect, to recognize that he is supposed to actually have traditional man like qualities and traditional man like responses. That he doesn't need to apologize for being a man.

It's not about ditching being kind and caring - but it is about ditching being passive or accepting being treated like the sidekick or the idiot that needs to be managed by his wife.


----------



## the guy (Aug 3, 2010)

Can we go back to the women walking into the bar naked? LOL

Sorry couldn't help my self!


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Are you sure about that? If he had good posture, wore black clothes and talked intelligently about your favorite topics - you may just fall for him...



Are you speaking for me, and really all that confident that you know what I want even though you think I don't.

No. Sorry. I first have to be attracted to a man before moving into a sexual relationship. 

I actually DO KNOW what turns me off.

BTW: I hate black clothing. It looks sinnister an too goth for me.

With that said, I think there are some women who might like a hairy back and the goth look.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I get what your saying and I agree to a certain extent. IMO, the model is too simplistic and simply lacks enough sophistication to explain what's going on effectively.


As I've said before, people aren't snowflakes. The older I get, the more I find that people fit very nicely into categories. I appreciate the model, in part, because I don't see how there can be a Grand Unified Theory of human behavior.



Plan 9 from OS said:


> Alpha traits can be observed in short bald guys with hairy backs, beta traits can be observed in body builders, and even bikers can make the mistake of trying to give their woman everything possible under the sun.


Sure. There probably isn't any person out there who is 100% one thing and 0% the other. Women look for both traits in relationships. A balance of both traits works best for keeping women secure in the relationship, but attracted to you at the same time.



Plan 9 from OS said:


> I think these models are much more effective when males and females are playing the dating game, but the theories become less useful when we're talking about long term relationships and marriage.


I agree that the model becomes harder to implement. When you're dating, you can hide your weaknesses. When you're married, you can't. You have to actually address your weaknesses and improve on them.

However, I don't think that women think one way when they're dating, and then they put a ring on and transform their attitudes and motivations into something else, entirely. A married woman is the same women she was when she was single.



Plan 9 from OS said:


> When we put a lot of work and effort into our marriages by doing the "right" things, all we can do is reduce the chances of infidelity.


Right. There are no guarantees. The key is doing the right things. There are many men out there who believe they're doing the right things, only to see their sex lives continue to slide and their wives continue to grow distant.



Plan 9 from OS said:


> All of these theories - just like the free market theories - assume that everyone is a rational actor. In reality, we aren't. Sure, the models can explain some of what's going on but clearly you'll never get a handle on all of it.


To paraphrase Churchill, "The free market and MMSL aren't perfect, they're just better than the alternative theories."


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Are you speaking for me, and really all that confident that you know what I want even though you think I don't.
> 
> No. Sorry. I first have to be attracted to a man before moving into a sexual relationship.
> 
> ...


Lighten up Sara - I wasn't trying to speak for you or tell you what you like or dislike.


----------



## Shocker (Jul 26, 2012)

My wife (who cheated on me) appears to always respond to the negative more. If I'm a super nice guy she gets kinda disrespectful but if I'm tough or even a little mean she pours out the emotions about how much she loves me. It is bizarre but I'm learning that if you make a woman work that is a good thing. The perfect husband is not what most men think. Just my opinion. 

Ladies...does any woman want the perfect loving husband all the time? I sweat that gets me in trouble when I do that with her.

She is extremely low self esteem anyway - hence the cheating for attention. If I show alpha traits and show strength she gets nuts for me and latches on like glue. Says she feels "clingy". When I'm nice she likes it but its just different. Its really weird.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> Wow, this Athol guy must be a God that has an answer to everything that no one else has answers, too.
> 
> Does he eat poop and sleep like the rest of us, or is he waay to all knowing for the basics?
> 
> ...


Athol isn't a God. He's an atheist. 

And he doesn't have the answers to everything. Hell, he didn't even come up with much of MMSL. It's mostly an amalgamation of work done by others. He looked at what Dr. Helen Fisher says about brain chemistry of love and attraction. He looked at what pick-up artists have learned about what women think is attractive. And he consolidated it, with some of his own spin, into a package aimed for married men.

If you think that asserting that women are attracted to physically fit men who are assertive, confident, and earn a good living is a radical idea that is the hallmark of a psychopath, then you're just wrong. If you think that anyone who writes a self-help book is a narcissist, you're equally wrong.

Athol does have some answers. Not all of them. And they don't apply to everyone. He acknowledges as much. I'm simply appreciative of a man that has helped me improve my marriage.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Lighten up Sara - I wasn't trying to speak for you or tell you what you like or dislike.


Okay. I saw your post was phrased as a question. 

Sorry. My bad.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> ..... women are attracted to physically fit men who are assertive, confident, and earn a good living is a radical idea that is the hallmark of a psychopath......


My wife......is a psychopath???


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Shocker said:


> My wife (who cheated on me) appears to always respond to the negative more. If I'm a super nice guy she gets kinda disrespectful but if I'm tough or even a little mean she pours out the emotions about how much she loves me. It is bizarre but I'm learning that if you make a woman work that is a good thing. The perfect husband is not what most men think. Just my opinion.
> 
> Ladies...does any woman want the perfect loving husband all the time? I sweat that gets me in trouble when I do that with her.
> 
> She is extremely low self esteem anyway - hence the cheating for attention. If I show alpha traits and show strength she gets nuts for me and latches on like glue. Says she feels "clingy". When I'm nice she likes it but its just different. Its really weird.


Some women have emotional issues. Yours sounds like one. 

She may like to be mistreated. It is unhealthy. 

This type is many times, but not always, a person with Borderline personality disorder or some other Personality disorder. 

Or, maybe, as you already guess she has low self esteem. 

Still, manipulating her with games will not make you happy. 

She needs therapy.


----------



## Shocker (Jul 26, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> My wife......is a psychopath???


Women are attracted to physically fit men who are assertive, confident, and earn a good living. That is true and low self esteem women will do about anything someone like that tells them to do.

Its sad but true.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Here are some hesitations.

First, yes, men like to think that they can control things so such things never ever happen again. Certainly anything which allows them to feel more empowered is a plus, particularly if it speaks to them. And this book does not ask the men to become *******s.

Second...Sara8...your buff, confident, socially engaged and balanced brothers are laughing at a book telling men... to become more...buff... confident... and more socially involved...

(Blink blink)

This is not the withering condemnation you seem to think it is...unless you believe in personality predetermination.

And chumplady, I know you believe in the stock of decent guys and every single girl you know says that's all they want...and then you look at the guys they DATE. Or, if not up to said dudes standard, the guys they WANT to date.

People are dishonest to themselves. Women as well as men. 

One of the most telling points made by another poster is: is EVERY woman who cheats a raving sociopath? Considering the infidelity rates, that's harder to believe then a woman occasionally getting bored with her mate. Then it's a moral hiccup, not a broad brush of feminine (and masculine) insanity.


----------



## VermisciousKnid (Dec 27, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> The truth is somewhere in the middle. Of course, someone with perfect morals will not cheat. But most people don't have perfect morals. Most people are vulnerable. And if you are married to a woman who is vulnerable to cheating, as most are, then it will serve a man well to try to fulfill as many of her needs as possible (including tingles).


OP. It seems like your question can be reduced to: "Why are so many people of low character?" The techniques in the books are irrelevant to your basic question. I think the truth is that some people are essentially immoral and others are psychologically damaged and that's why they cheat. So I'm kind of thinking that the books are basically a way of making a man more able to keep or attract the type of person that doesn't deserve them anyway. 

This could be an unfortunate conclusion if most people are immoral or damaged. You'll have a hard time finding anyone good enough to marry. 

It all reminds me of the Groucho quote:

"I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me as a member."


----------



## Shocker (Jul 26, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Some women have emotional issues. Yours sounds like one.
> 
> She may like to be mistreated. It is unhealthy.
> 
> ...


Yeah, she has multiple disorders, I mean diagnosed. She is starting counseling soon. I'm standing by her and trying hard as hell not to worry that she'll cheat again. Its tough but she needs my protection. Yeah, sounds nuts but she flat out does.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> My wife......is a psychopath???


Don't laugh. 

She may be. 

You might want to read the book "In sheeps clothing" 

A lot of psychopaths wear the what is referred to by shrinks as the "mask of sanity very well, but if one stays alert, or if they are an expert in Personality disorders, they will see the mask slip once in awhile. 

Another book you might enjoy is: The sociopath next door. 

In the first book they note: A serial killer is always a psychopath, but a psychopath is rarely a serial killer. 

They often appear very normal and even disarmingly charming.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Shocker said:


> Yeah, she has multiple disorders, I mean diagnosed. She is starting counseling soon. I'm standing by her and trying hard as hell not to worry that she'll cheat again. Its tough but she needs my protection. Yeah, sounds nuts but she flat out does.


At some point, if she continues to cheat, you may have to resolve to let her go to save your own sanity and to help your family if you have children. 

Like they say on the airlines. Parents, put YOUR OXYGEN MASK ON FIRST, then put it on your kids.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Don't laugh.
> 
> She may be.
> 
> ...


Good God!! 

The point I was trying to make in my previous comment was something else entirely.


----------



## Shocker (Jul 26, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> At some point, if she continues to cheat, you may have to resolve to let her go to save your own sanity and to help your family if you have children.
> 
> Like they say on the airlines. Parents, put YOUR OXYGEN MASK ON FIRST, then put it on your kids.


I have thought HARD about it and almost left 100 times. She starts saying "I'll kill myself if you leave". I think she means it too.  Its a pretty sick environment with a clown outfit on it. We look happy but we have got major issues.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Athol isn't a God. He's an atheist.


That explains quite a lot. 

So, he does not believe in any possibility of a payback for misdeeds. 

And, he's waaaaaay too superior to the rest of the mortals who deign to believe that a supreme being may have created the universe. 

Hey, maybe Athol created the universe. He seems to have answers that no other man seems to have.

BTW PHt, I actually enjoy your posts even if I disagree

I think every human is attracted to physcially fit, confident people, but some like shy people and although attracted to confidence might be more comfortable with a less confident person.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Shocker said:


> I have thought HARD about it and almost left 100 times. She starts saying "I'll kill myself if you leave". I think she means it too.  Its a pretty sick environment with a clown outfit on it. We look happy but we have got major issues.


I am so sorry. 

There is a treatment for BPD that sometimes helps, it's called CBT of cognitive behavioral therapy. 

It's not a cure, but it does manage the symptoms and sometimes suicidal ideation.

Maybe you can google it.


----------



## Unsure in Seattle (Sep 6, 2011)

I don't think it has anyhing to do with being an athiest (card-carrying one here) or any of that. I do think that some folks here get WAY too hung up on the Alpha/Beta thing.

I'm sure that some ladies probably really respond to the Alpha male thing. The problem is that not every woman does, and no one shhould pretend like MMSL is some kind of Rosetta Stone that finally explains the dynamics of male/female relationships always and forever. Hey' if it worked for you... great! It's not for everyone.

I feel like anyone is going to naturally carry a mixture of Alpha/Beta traits. If you have to completely change who you are by drasticaly changing the ratio of what makes you you to maintain a happy relationship, I feel like there is something amiss. 

My two cents, anyway. Now, make me a sandwich!


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

JCD said:


> Second...Sara8...your buff, confident, socially engaged and balanced brothers are laughing at a book telling men... to become more...buff... confident... and more socially involved...
> 
> (Blink blink)
> 
> T


Ah but the crucial difference is they ARE already without pretention buff, confident, socially engaged. 

Athol is telling people who aren't to change their innate character traits. 

That will backfire, as it did with my innately less confident bros.

Athol wants a square peg to squeeze himself into a round hole. 

Aint' gonna' happen. You know that.

Wouldn't it be a better approach to find woman who like their type?


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Unsure in Seattle said:


> I don't think it has anyhing to do with being an athiest (card-carrying one here) or any of that. I do think that some folks here get WAY too hung up on the Alpha/Beta thing.
> 
> I'm sure that some ladies probably really respond to the Alpha male thing. The problem is that not every woman does, and no one shhould pretend like MMSL is some kind of Rosetta Stone that finally explains the dynamics of male/female relationships always and forever. Hey' if it worked for you... great! It's not for everyone.
> 
> ...


I agree, with your entire post. 

BTW: I was being sardonic about the atheist thing. I am somewhat agnostic, so I am not convinced of a God. 

I was just trying to take PHTs goat. I think he gets that.


----------



## WasDecimated (Mar 23, 2011)

Shaggy said:


> I have read the book, and it isn't about being an alpha, or a jerk, etc.
> 
> it's about teaching a man to actually think about how he is acting and responding in situations, especially with his wife, and to ensure that he isn't letting himself just take the path of least apparent resistance. (meaning deferring to others, not speaking up, being passive-aggressive, turning to using tricks and nasty comments instead of honest open speech)
> 
> ...


Well said Shaggy!

This is what I have gleaned from reading NMMNG and MMSL as well. I now feel that my STBXW was testing my alpha for our entire marriage. I believe I failed to stand up for my boundaries. I was passive and accepting of her selfishness. The guy she was dating before we met, didn't put up with her crap. He was even physically abusive with her at times and guess what...she never cheated on him. 

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't think being abusive, whether it's emotionally or physically, is justified in any situation but my point is, I was the exact opposite. I was so relaxed and passive with her that she began to take advantage of my kindness and forgiving nature at morphed it into a lack of respect. 

After reading these books I now understand what I did wrong in our marriage...I worshiped her...kissed her ass. I allowed way to many freedoms and disregarded my boundaries. I became lost in some sort of twisted self sacrificing martyr mode out of fear that I would lose her. All I cared about was her happiness...not mine. If she was happy...I was happy. 

I do feel that my behavior was because of my first wife's cheating and subsequent divorce. Having been through it, adultery and divorce were my greatest fears. Subconsciously I was willing to be so passive with my current STBXW that I disregarded my boundaries so that she would remain happy.

To me, these books were just what I needed to read.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Ah but the crucial difference is they ARE already without pretention buff, confident, socially engaged.
> 
> Athol is telling people who aren't to change their innate character traits.
> 
> ...


Ah. So you are a predeterminist.

So guys...quit your whining, suck it up and find a wallflower to date and marry. You are and will always be a loser.

Thanks. How depressing.


----------



## Henri (Jun 30, 2012)

The way I see it is I am not going to stop being a nice person because of my wife. At the same time I wouldn't remain with a person who doesn't appreciate me or the relationship.

My point is that I think people who are good yet suffering need to change their partner, not their character.


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> That explains quite a lot.
> 
> So, he does not believe in any possibility of a payback for misdeeds.
> 
> And, he's waaaaaay too superior to the rest of the mortals who deign to believe that a supreme being may have created the universe.


Sara, I think you're being a bit judgmental of Athol. I read the book and I think he makes a lot of valid points. His writing style is light and humorous and he doesn't portray himself as some kind of god.

BTW, just because someone doesn't believe in god doesn't mean that every thing about them should be suspect.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

JCD said:


> Ah. So you are a predeterminist.
> 
> So guys...quit your whining, suck it up and find a wallflower to date and marry. You are and will always be a loser.
> 
> Thanks. How depressing.


Wow that's a gross misinterpretaton of my postings.

So you think people who are innately prone to being shy are wall flowers and losers. 

That so sad, and says a lot about you. 

I kinda' Like all types of people....confident, shy, clumsy, athletic. 

I am confident so I would likely choose a confident life partner, but IMO, what is wrong with a shy person wanting another shy person?

To me the spice of life is the differences. 

It's never only genes that determines personality, it's genes that make us prone to leaning one way and nurture that influences the rest.


----------



## Wanting1 (Apr 26, 2012)

Well, just to add my 2 cents....

I wandered over to his website when I saw so many recommendations for men to read his book. I haven't read the book either, but I have been reading his blog for several months, and reading on his forums. And to be honest, I haven't seen anything that women should really get that upset about it. Sometimes, I blink twice when I read something, but then on further reflection agree that he is probably correct for the majority. That doesn't mean that he has a one size fits all solution, but I haven't seen him say that. 

His definition of "alpha" doesn't seem to include being an absolute jerk to your wife, or treating her as if she were some kind of slave to do his bidding. It's more about self-respect and controlling yourself (because that's all you really can control). There is talk about displays of dominance, but not in a violent manner, and are usually to stimulate attraction. 

I just don't get the sarcasm and vitriol directed towards him. I don't feel threatened by a man who is trying to help other men save marriages that are on the brink of divorce. He gives them a plan, doesn't promise that it will save the marriage, but that it will make them a better person in the long run. 

And FYI, there are quite a few women on his forums that are converts to his plan. They are trying to improve their marriages, too.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> That explains quite a lot.
> 
> So, he does not believe in any possibility of a payback for misdeeds.


No, he doesn't. Although, as a Christian myself, I doubt very much that a man being as sexy as he can for his wife is an offense worthy of damnation.



Sara8 said:


> And, he's waaaaaay too superior to the rest of the mortals who deign to believe that a supreme being may have created the universe.
> 
> Hey, maybe Athol created the universe. He seems to have answers that no other man seems to have.


He's actually a former evangelical. His wife still practices. So he isn't disdainful of Christians. He's actually fairly sympathetic to their point of view. He just doesn't share it anymore.

And it doesn't seem to make a significant difference in his advice. Whereas Christians may believe that God made people a certain way, Athol believes that evolution made people that way. The why isn't really pertinent. It's how to best adapt one's behavior to reality that is.



Sara8 said:


> BTW PHt, I actually enjoy your posts even if I disagree
> 
> I think every human is attracted to physcially fit, confident people, but some like shy people and although attracted to confidence might be more comfortable with a less confident person.


I'm glad you're enjoying this. Me too.

I agree that not all women will be attracted to the same type of man. But most will be. MMSL is basically, just advising men to start by playing the percentages of what women find sexy, and then fine tuning it to one's own wife. If one's wife is comfortable with shy men, but thinks assertive men are sexy, then one should probably be assertive, in order to keep up the attraction, and find other ways to keep the wife comfortable. It's that kind of thing. Finding a balance.


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> I have read that book, and I think it's likely responsible for a high number of failed marriages.


I have read that book, and I think it's likely responsible for a high number of successful marriages.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> Sara, I think you're being a bit judgmental of Athol. I read the book and I think he makes a lot of valid points. His writing style is light and humorous and he doesn't portray himself as some kind of god.
> 
> BTW, just because someone doesn't believe in god doesn't mean that every thing about them should be suspect.


Count, please read my response to Unsure in seattle. :FIREdevil:


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Wow that's a gross misinterpretaton of my postings.
> 
> So you think people who are innately prone to being shy are wall flowers and losers.
> 
> ...


Getting in shape is not a bad thing.

Having outside interests is not a bad thing.

Making judgement calls on how well or poorly your spouse is treating you is not a bad thing.

Improving places where you are weak WITHOUT changing your inherent character is not a bad thing.

Adding some spice in the bedroom is not a bad thing.

So tell me...what was your beef with Athol again?

And it was as gross a mischaracterization as you are pulling on some of the other analogies. So turnabout is fair play...

You also don't know me. While I respect you, I don't think that you are 100% correct on this. 

You are also not 100% wrong either. Some people give the man too much credence.

And some too little. The difference between the MAP and the 180 is miniscule.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

...sorry, but I read in one part of his blog that he threated his wife with phucking her female friend if she came to stay for more than a just a few days....Give me a break. Who actually SAYS that? And I think he's making a huge assumption on the friend actually wanting to phuck him, back! Maybe parts of MMSL are useful to guys who need to grow a set, but stuff like the above? Ya. I'd put up with that sh!t for all of 5 seconds.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

CandieGirl said:


> ...sorry, but I read in one part of his blog that he threated his wife with phucking her female friend if she came to stay for more than a just a few days....Give me a break. Who actually SAYS that? And I think he's making a huge assumption on the friend actually wanting to phuck him, back! Maybe parts of MMSL are useful to guys who need to grow a set, but stuff like the above? Ya. I'd put up with that sh!t for all of 5 seconds.


Somehow that missed getting into the book.

One can get too full of oneself. A danger to any successful person.

And of course, there is a word called 'hyperbole'.

Not sure which it is, but that doesn't look good.

I just go by what is in the book.


----------



## Wanting1 (Apr 26, 2012)

CandieGirl said:


> ...sorry, but I read in one part of his blog that he threated his wife with phucking her female friend if she came to stay for more than a just a few days....Give me a break. Who actually SAYS that? And I think he's making a huge assumption on the friend actually wanting to phuck him, back! Maybe parts of MMSL are useful to guys who need to grow a set, but stuff like the above? Ya. I'd put up with that sh!t for all of 5 seconds.


I'm pretty sure that was said "tongue in cheek." He has a bit of a raunchy sense of humor. If you read his blog for a few weeks, you can see that his writing style is light and humorous, but he doesn't shy away about talking about difficult subjects...even with his wife. I think they have a pretty radically honest relationship, and she isn't threatened by it. (She regularly contributes her opinion to his blog posts. She's not a doormat.)


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

CandieGirl said:


> ...sorry, but I read in one part of his blog that he threated his wife with phucking her female friend if she came to stay for more than a just a few days....Give me a break. Who actually SAYS that? And I think he's making a huge assumption on the friend actually wanting to phuck him, back! Maybe parts of MMSL are useful to guys who need to grow a set, but stuff like the above? Ya. I'd put up with that sh!t for all of 5 seconds.


Great point. 

Threatening to Phuck his wife's female friend or or anyone IS emotional abuse. 

I agree based on Athol's shlubby looks he is LIKELY delusional assuming the friend might actually want to phuck him too. 

Not unless she's a shlub like him.

In that case it will be two shlubs doing what low self esteem shlubs do.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> Wow that's a gross misinterpretaton of my postings.
> 
> So you think people who are innately prone to being shy are wall flowers and losers.
> 
> That so sad, and says a lot about you.


Rather than the word, losers, say he had used the word unattractive. You would agree with that, wouldn't you? You've said that all, or nearly all, women are attracted to physically fit, assertive, confident men who are comfortable with leadership. But, your advice to your shy, awkward brothers would not be to aspire to become more attractive to women. Your advice would be to try to find a woman who would be willing to settle for an unattractive, or relatively less attractive, man.

I would disagree. I would tell any man that he should try to become more attractive. I recognize that we can't turn every man into a sex symbol. But I think every man has the capacity to become more attractive.



Sara8 said:


> I am confident so I would likely choose a confident life partner, but IMO, what is wrong with a shy person wanting another shy person?


The only thing wrong with it, is that it leaves the marriage vulnerable. If two shy people marry, they can be happy. However, if an assertive man then makes overtures toward the wife, she may be tempted to stray because her husband isn't giving her that perk (i.e., the attention of an assertive man).


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

I agree with Shaggy about the emasculated male crap on tv that hollyweird is producing I'm 45 and I tell ya this garbage wasn't on 25 yrs ago.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

Oh Sara! LMAO! 

Just spin those tables for a minute, men, and imagine your wife saying to you on the eve of the arrival of your best bud from college (who is staying a few days): "Ya, sure! I don't mind phucking him!"...you'd all be racing to Athole to see what you should do next.

LMAO!


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> The only thing wrong with it, is that it leaves the marriage vulnerable. If two shy people marry, they can be happy. However, if an assertive man then makes overtures toward the wife, she may be tempted to stray because her husband isn't giving her that perk (i.e., the attention of an assertive man).


PHT:

I say this with affection. 

Ya'all can't be serious with that line of thought. 

Please joe, say it aint' so. 

Cheaters cheat, it doesn't matter if they are shy or confident.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> PHT:
> 
> I say this with affection.
> 
> ...


So, as JCD said, you are a predeterminist. People can't change. We're all just robots programmed to act as the programmer has foretold.

I guess that could be comforting, in a way. If I cheat on my wife, it won't be my fault. I was just born a cheater. It took me X years to learn about it.

My thought was based on many threads on this board, and others. Many women have explained their affairs by saying that an attractive man paid them attention. I guess they could all be lying. But why would they assert a moral failing to cover up the fact that they bear no fault in living out the life they were destined to?


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

CandieGirl said:


> Oh Sara! LMAO!
> 
> Just spin those tables for a minute, men, and imagine your wife saying to you on the eve of the arrival of your best bud from college (who is staying a few days): "Ya, sure! I don't mind phucking him!"...you'd all be racing to Athole to see what you should do next.
> 
> LMAO!


Would an apt response be "Well hey , that makes two of us "


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> So, as JCD said, you are a predeterminist. People can't change. We're all just robots programmed to act as the programmer has foretold.
> 
> I guess that could be comforting, in a way. If I cheat on my wife, it won't be my fault. I was just born a cheater. It took me X years to learn about it.
> 
> My thought was based on many threads on this board, and others. Many women have explained their affairs by saying that an attractive man paid them attention. I guess they could all be lying. But why would they assert a moral failing to cover up the fact that they bear no fault in living out the life they were destined to?


Yes. Cheating is a moral failing, and perhaps related to poor impulse control or low self esteem or both. 

Yes. People who stray follow a script while in the affair. 

That does not mean ALL people are robots, only those who stray, perhaps. Or at least that is the indication based on the fact that marriage experts say that the vast majority of people who stray will follow a script that is so similar that it is almost comical. 

So no, I am not saying cheating is predetermined...., you are....., when you say a shy girl might be vulnerable to flattery and thus cheat, if someone is attentive. 

Straying has nothing to do with shyness or confidence. 

It has more to do with a distorted sense of morality within the strayer.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

CandieGirl said:


> ...sorry, but I read in one part of his blog that he threated his wife with phucking her female friend if she came to stay for more than a just a few days....Give me a break. Who actually SAYS that? And I think he's making a huge assumption on the friend actually wanting to phuck him, back! Maybe parts of MMSL are useful to guys who need to grow a set, but stuff like the above? Ya. I'd put up with that sh!t for all of 5 seconds.


I read that post as well. And you missed the point of it.

His wife had a friend who was planning to come and stay in the house for a while (maybe a few weeks). This means her friend and her husband would be alone in the house frequently over an extended period of time. Does that really sound like a good plan to anybody? If somebody posted that idea on this board, the response would probably be universally negative. And we wouldn't ask how pretty the other woman was, or how handsome the husband was.

So, Athol recognized that it was a bad plan and used some snark and some c0ckiness to communicate that to his wife. His wife asked if she could stay and Athol said something like, "Sure, I'd phuck her." His wife saw the risk, the friend stayed at a hotel, and the risk of disaster was drastically lowered. Mission accomplished.

Rather than condemn a man for wanting to avoid the circumstances where the risk of infidelity would be high, I think we should praise him for having boundaries in place that help him remain faithful. I've seen far too many people who insist that boundaries aren't necessary because they're too moral to cheat, who end up cheating because they had no boundaries.


----------



## chumplady (Jul 27, 2012)

> And alpha traits bring on the tingles.


And how would you know? You "haven't read the book." You're not a woman.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

BjornFree said:


> Would an apt response be "Well hey , that makes two of us "


I thought Ahtole kind of gave of 'bi' vibes...this confirms it!


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> I read that post as well. And you missed the point of it.
> 
> His wife had a friend who was planning to come and stay in the house for a while (maybe a few weeks). This means her friend and her husband would be alone in the house frequently over an extended period of time. Does that really sound like a good plan to anybody? If somebody posted that idea on this board, the response would probably be universally negative. And we wouldn't ask how pretty the other woman was, or how handsome the husband was.
> 
> ...


Hence hyperbole.

Granted, he's a bit of an arrogant a$$ to say it that way (and I have my doubts he was that forceful in real life).

But anything can be twisted to make someone look bad.

I'm just not reading that much IN THE BOOK to hate.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> I read that post as well. And you missed the point of it.
> 
> His wife had a friend who was planning to come and stay in the house for a while (maybe a few weeks). This means her friend and her husband would be alone in the house frequently over an extended period of time. Does that really sound like a good plan to anybody? If somebody posted that idea on this board, the response would probably be universally negative. And we wouldn't ask how pretty the other woman was, or how handsome the husband was.
> 
> ...


No, I did not miss the point of his blog entry, but it would seem that you missed my point. I wouldnt put up with my husband talking to me that way. He wouldn't put up with my talking to him that way, either.

There are other ways to enforce boundaries other than coming off souding like an egotistical narcissistic sexist prick. 

We have boundaries in our marriage, too. But they're not based on rude, threatening comments. And if I were this guy's wife, with his misogynist attitude, I'd probably be off revenge-banging all his friends...hell, she probably already is... Alpha THAT...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> That does not mean ALL people are robots, only those who stray, perhaps. Or at least that is the indication based on the fact that marriage experts say that the vast majority of people who stray will follow a script that is so similar that it is almost comical.
> 
> So no, I am not saying cheating is predetermined...., you are....., when you say a shy girl might be vulnerable to flattery and thus cheat, if someone is attentive.


To say that people, when placed in a certain situation, will react similarly, is not to argue that they have no free will. It is just recognizing that people have similar tastes, similar motivations, and similar behaviors.

If we can agree that 99% of children will choose a cookie over asparagus, have we agreed that children have no free will? No. Similarly, acknowledging that women are attracted to a certain type of man is not arguing that these women are powerless to resist such a man. However, it is the height of folly to argue that, since women have free will, they should leave themselves open to temptation.

Cheating is correlated with opportunity and temptation. Women who have no opportunity to cheat won't cheat. Women who have no temptation to cheat won't cheat. Women who have lots of opportunity and lots of temptation will be fairly likely to cheat. And not because cheaters are just preprogrammed to do it.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

JCD said:


> Hence hyperbole.
> 
> Granted, he's a bit of an arrogant a$$ to say it that way (and I have my *doubts he was that forceful in real life*).
> 
> ...


Not sure about real life, but PH summed up the subject blog entry very accurately in his post.

I don't know if it's just my bad luck, but everytime I wander over to Athole's blog, I see something like that...that gets my back up and makes me wonder why any men (or women) subscribe to his methods in the first place. I mean, unless you're getting completely stomped on, walked over, shat on, *****-whipped...then maybe. But regular guys with a backbone? You guys around here? Not many of you seem to need that shyte.

But hell, that's just me...


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

CandieGirl said:


> We have boundaries in our marriage, too. But they're not based on rude, threatening comments. And if I were this guy's wife, with his misogynist attitude, I'd probably be off revenge-banging all his friends...hell, she probably already is... Alpha THAT...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


So much for boundaries


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

Why are people so threatened by Athol's work?

He never claimed that it was one size fits all.

My biggest takeaway from reading the book is that sex s a part of the marriage contract. Had I read that twenty years ago, I would not have tolerated my semi-sexless marriage.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

BjornFree said:


> So much for boundaries


But what kind of boundary is it to threaten to screw your wife's friend? To make your wife afraid that you WANT to bang her friend? It's screwed up logic; I am not threatened by it, nor am I afraid of it. I am replused.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

CandieGirl said:


> There are other ways to enforce boundaries other than coming off souding like an egotistical narcissistic sexist prick.


Gotcha. You don't appreciate Athol's humor. You think anyone with that kind of a snarky attitude for marriage boundaries is an egotistical narcissistic sexist prick. Different strokes, I suppose.



CandieGirl said:


> And if I were this guy's wife, with his misogynist attitude, I'd probably be off revenge-banging all his friends...hell, she probably already is... Alpha THAT...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


His wife helps him with the blog and books. And she lays him "like tile." I doubt she has the energy for another lover.

But, she also isn't as sensitive as you are.


----------



## chumplady (Jul 27, 2012)

Man, this is a runaway thread!

First off, it's offensive to say that "most women are vulnerable to cheating." To cheat doesn't mean you're a sociopath, but it does mean you've got sh*t for morals and bad coping skills with the horror that is living with a considerate, passive man. 

Plenty of women have boundaries, and plenty of women have the courage to change their relationships -- EITHER by insisting on counseling or getting the hell out of the marriage, before they cheat. 

I totally agree that men shouldn't be passive in relationships, and disrespect should never be tolerated. It's not a man/woman thing, IMO, it's a human thing. It's hard to be in a loving relationship with someone you don't respect. 

But the fact of the matter is, you can lose respect for your spouse and still NOT cheat on them. There are a lot of options available to you -- like divorce. The gutless choice is cheating.

Do I think all betrayed spouses are "guiltless"? Guiltless of WHAT? Not cheating? Yes, they are guiltless of that, absolutely. When faced with the same crappy marriage -- they didn't cheat. 

Are they guiltless of being a less than stellar spouse? NO, of course not. But AGAIN, my original point was -- being a less than stellar spouse is not a valid excuse for cheaters to cheat. Will they use it? Absolutely. It's called blame shifting. Cheaters do it all the time.

As for alpha not meaning jerk -- got it. I LOVE alpha qualities, but I do not think having alpha qualities PROTECTS you from being cheated on.



> Alpha traits include assertiveness, confidence, physical fitness, and leadership.


Here's a real life example. My husband. He was a BS in his former marriage to a serial cheater (when he found out, he immediately divorced her, and yeah, she is probably a personality disorder. She also defrauded business partners.)

He's alpha. He's super alpha. Texas trial lawyer. Civil rights. He sues people for a living -- he only litigates, never defends. He's assertive, he's confident, he makes great money, he's fit, and per leadership -- the man has lawyer groupies, he's asked to speak all over the state. 

His fabulous alpha-ness did not save him from being cheated on. 

Was he an alpha at home? He is with me -- because I promise, I'm rather a handful. From what I know, he was with his ex (who thinks he is a controlling hard ass.)

Who'd she cheat with? A fat IT loser she met as a TROLL playing World of Warcraft. A guy so passive and inert he could be gravy lumps. 

Who were her other affair partners? An "artist" who makes wood burned portraits of dogs and sells them at farmer's markets. 

Another idiot on WoW. 

Her high school BF, short, fat, bald. 

Ad infinitum. No "alphas" on that list. No, but a bunch of losers like her that she could feel superior too. 

It's not that she didn't respect her alpha husband, it's that she hated his guts, because he was an actual successful person and she wasn't. It's about tearing the together spouse down. 

There are a LOT of stories like my husband's. Being an alpha bad ass didn't protect him - and he alpha-ed her ass in divorce court.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

CandieGirl said:


> No, I did not miss the point of his blog entry, but it would seem that you missed my point. I wouldnt put up with my husband talking to me that way. He wouldn't put up with my talking to him that way, either.
> 
> There are other ways to enforce boundaries other than coming off souding like an egotistical narcissistic sexist prick.
> 
> We have boundaries in our marriage, too. But they're not based on rude, threatening comments. And if I were this guy's wife, with his misogynist attitude, I'd probably be off revenge-banging all his friends...hell, she probably already is... Alpha THAT...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Exactly. 

Athol the supereme A-hole's comments were disrespectful.

And Marriage counselors almost always state that disrespect in the marriage usually ends it eventually. 

Also for those claiming people are threatned by Athol. 

Not so. 

I am decidedly NEVER threatened by pompous arrogant A-holes like Athol. I just think less of them and say so. 

He just found a way to resonate with men in a way that sells a lot of books.

I wouldn't be surprised if someday some enterprising reporter uncovers that fact that Athol's wife has been cheating on him behind his back for years. 

She stays with him not because he acts alpha, she stays with him because he sells a lot of books and she likes the money.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

CandieGirl said:


> But what kind of boundary is it to threaten to screw your wife's friend? To make your wife afraid that you WANT to bang her friend? It's screwed up logic; I am not threatened by it, nor am I afraid of it. I am replused.


Lighten up candiegirl, that was only meant as an extremely acute and funny observation, not a reflection of your character by any means. 

Besides, its his way of dealing with his wife and any potentially dangerous situation. Need not necessarily work for you or any other woman on this board.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Athol the supereme A-hole's comments were disrespectful.
> 
> ...


Fun fact, Athol's a member on here. Disrespecting fellow members is a bad bad thing to do. Droopy banned me for an innocent thread jack( that was funny in its own way), think of what he'll do if he sees this


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Cheaters cheat, it doesn't matter if they are shy or confident.


Just out of curiosity. What are you going to tell ChangingMe over in Devistated's thread?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

CandieGirl said:


> But what kind of boundary is it to threaten to screw your wife's friend? To make your wife afraid that you WANT to bang her friend? It's screwed up logic; I am not threatened by it, nor am I afraid of it. I am replused.


Again, he wasn't threatening it. He was acknowledging the temptation. They are very different things.

To me, anyone who insists that they can be subject to temptation and never succumb is the egotistical narcissist. It takes a humble man to recognize his weaknesses.

But again, we're just arguing style over substance. No one would argue that Athol was wrong for wanting his wife's friend to stay somewhere else. And the reason no one would argue that is because of the risk for infidelity. So, we have some women who agree with what Athol says, but really don't like the way he says it. Maybe I'm too masculine, but I just can't get too indignant about the way somebody says something.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> If we can agree that 99% of children will choose a cookie over asparagus, have we agreed that children have no free will? No.


No. It does not prove they have NO FREE WILL.

What it MAY prove is that they are conditioned by society to like cookies better than asparagus. That doesn't mean they lack free will but it MAY mean they are easily influenced by a herd mentality. 

Or, it may simply prove that cookies taste better than asparagus. 

What's your real point?


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

Nice guys do finish last. I know you women think different. But flip it in your head. 

If you are the sort of woman who will cave to about anything your husband ask of you because you don’t want to cause a fuss or are just the sweetest little thing around, how does that play out? Oh, that’s right, your wants and needs go unnoticed and he is getting everything he says he wants. You let your husband define what your wants should be. And you bet inside resentment will form and you’ll begin to feel like a ‘pet’ versus an equal. And his view of you? You’ve fed his sense of entitlement. “Oh, she won’t mind this or that because she’s so forgiving.” You are no longer a real consideration in his decision process simply because you’ve trained him to believe you’ll go along with whatever it is he wants to do. Its why I sort of laugh inside whenever a cheating spouse is labeled narcissist or borderline.... you encouraged those traits and made it “all about them” by not standing up for yourself. 

The healthy model is equals. Have clearly defined personal boundaries and a willingness to defend them. Sure, this may cause an argument or two, but in the long run, your spouse knows where you stand and what you stand for. They’ll respect that you have limits and understand that if they want you, they will have to respect and honor your boundaries. And I bet they’ll love you just as much.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Cheating is correlated with opportunity and temptation. Women who have no opportunity to cheat won't cheat. Women who have no temptation to cheat won't cheat. Women who have lots of opportunity and lots of temptation will be fairly likely to cheat. And not because cheaters are just preprogrammed to do it.


That statement applies to people who already have an inclination to cheat.

There are many people who are presented with all those factors who CHOOSE not to cheat. 

Cheating is a choice and choosing to cheat indicates a wrinkle in the strayers moral fabric, not that they are preprogammed. 

They may have a herd mentality and do it because they are influenced by cheating friends. 

Or because they are narcissist by nature or nurture and feel entitled to cheat.

Still, once in cheating mode people who cheat follow a script and it is a fairly predictable script.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> But again, we're just arguing style over substance.
> 
> No one would argue that Athol was wrong for wanting his wife's friend to stay somewhere else. And the reason no one would argue that is because of the risk for infidelity.
> 
> So, we have some women who agree with what Athol says, but really don't like the way he says it. Maybe I'm too masculine, but I just can't get too indignant about the way somebody says something.


Athol was being manipulative with his comment and manipulation is EMOTIONAL ABUSE, and disrespectful to the spouse. 

Also, a spouse should be able to trust that the spouse won't Phuck and opposite sex house guest, no matter what she looks like or even if she comes on to him.

It's called boundaries, love, respect, morality, wanting to keep the marriage healthy. 

Is the guy an alley cat or a human?


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> Fun fact, Athol's a member on here. Disrespecting fellow members is a bad bad thing to do. Droopy banned me for an innocent thread jack( that was funny in its own way), think of what he'll do if he sees this


Go tattle. 

BTW athol is a public figure, not just a member here posting anonymously. 

Even in a court of law calling Ahtol an A-hole would not be considered defamation because he has set himself up for public criticism by writing a controversial book. 

I wish Athol would try to sue me. I would counter sue for emotional distress and be more likely to win for that old chestnut, than he.

If athol is annoyed about this controversy and adult discussion, it only proves his kindergarten mentality.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

chumplady said:


> First off, it's offensive to say that "most women are vulnerable to cheating." To cheat doesn't mean you're a sociopath, but it does mean you've got sh*t for morals and bad coping skills with the horror that is living with a considerate, passive man.


I disagree. I think it's offensive to say that most women are so morally superior, that a moral failing like infidelity is inconceivable. I think women are morally fallible. So are men. One of the possible failings for such people is infidelity.



chumplady said:


> Do I think all betrayed spouses are "guiltless"? Guiltless of WHAT? Not cheating? Yes, they are guiltless of that, absolutely. When faced with the same crappy marriage -- they didn't cheat.


I think this is just a fundamental difference in how we view infidelity. You appear to view infidelity as an act perpetrated by evil people at random. There is no way to predict when it will strike and no way to prevent it.

I disagree. I think infidelity is an evil act perpetrated by otherwise good, but flawed, people when faced with an unhappy marriage. It is often predictable, because unhappy marriages are more vulnerable to infidelity. It is often preventable, because making your marriage a happy one will lessen your spouse's willingness to cheat.

So, betrayed spouses can be guilty of helping create an unhappy marriage. They can be guilty of not attracting their spouse. Of course, more blame should be heaped on the cheating spouse. But, cheating doesn't happen in a vacuum.



chumplady said:


> Here's a real life example. My husband. ... His fabulous alpha-ness did not save him from being cheated on.


Your husband was super alpha. One question. Was he also very beta? I mean, his ex thinks that he was a controlling jerk. Is she wrong? Or did he not support her and comfort her. A marriage needs both to be strong.

However, let's assume he was a perfect mix of alpha and beta. He was comforting and attractive. That still didn't stop his wife from cheating. The thing is, nobody has ever argued that it is possible to have 100% guaranteed success in affair-proofing your marriage. I think it's possible to lower your risk. But I don't think you can guarantee anything.

Especially if his ex was crazy. Crazy people do crazy things. They don't react normally. Does that mean that, because they didn't react normally, we should throw out a plan that will help couples who aren't crazy? I don't think so. Even if she wasn't crazy. I don't think one counter-example can disprove a general rule.

Generally speaking, men are taller than women. Is there a counter-example to this rule? Yes. I'm sure I'll encounter a woman today that is taller than I am. Does this mean that most men aren't taller than most women? Of course not. That would be a silly assertion.


----------



## WasDecimated (Mar 23, 2011)

Shocker said:


> My wife (who cheated on me) appears to always respond to the negative more. If I'm a super nice guy she gets kinda disrespectful but if I'm tough or even a little mean she pours out the emotions about how much she loves me. It is bizarre but I'm learning that if you make a woman work that is a good thing. The perfect husband is not what most men think. Just my opinion.
> 
> Ladies...does any woman want the perfect loving husband all the time? I sweat that gets me in trouble when I do that with her.
> 
> She is extremely low self esteem anyway - hence the cheating for attention. If I show alpha traits and show strength she gets nuts for me and latches on like glue. Says she feels "clingy". When I'm nice she likes it but its just different. Its really weird.


This echos what I've noticed in what's left of my marriage. This has become the new normal for me after reading these books. 

When I show strength and hold firm to my boundaries, which is all the time now, she is much more respectful towards me and follows me around. I agree that the perfect husband is not just a nice guy. Being a perpetually loving nice guy doesn't work with my STBXW. While it may work for some women...not her. She perceives that guy as a door mat. She seems to respect a strong guy with boundaries and a strong sense if self...one that is not afraid to tell her no and call her out on her s**t.

I also believe in the rubber band theory. There must always be a little tension in the relationship. When it goes slack, the trouble begins as the taker pulls farther away. We never really had that in our marriage. I always gave in to her out of fear that I would cause conflict or worse...lose her. Obviously that didn't work. I am now strong enough that I don't need her...and it shows. I think those of us that are married to natural Takers need an especially strong sense of self and boundaries. Without it...failure is imminent.


----------



## Sbrown (Jul 29, 2012)

I find that women, just like men today have been told their entire lives "marry a nice guy" or "be a nice guy". The phrase "happy wife, happy life" comes to mind. But women and men don't really understand their roles and why they are important. Society has transformed our roles with the "everybody is the same" mentality. 

Of course most of these women say that MMSL is a joke and that it wont work on them.  But I bet if we could see them and their spouses together you would see the alpha traits he posses. 

I came to TAM to try to figure out why my wife didn't want to have sex with me. I read the threads, found MMSL read it and had a change of mindset. Guess what? My wife cant get enough!


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

Sara8 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Athol the supereme A-hole's comments were disrespectful.
> 
> ...


MMSL = 50 Shades of Grey for Men...:rofl:


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

Well! This is certainly a refreshing discussion!

I have read Athol's book and my reaction was generally: "OK, nothing really new; this seems like a short & sweet description of my intuition."

I know for sure that the book resonates dramatically with men & for that reason should be paid attention to imo.

I will say that researchers are extremely skeptical of the popular application of terms like 'alpha' and 'beta' - their own work doesn't support a lot of the advice that's out there in the ether.

For me, though, the bottom line is that MMSL appears to really help some men who are trying to improve their lives. (Kind of like the 180, which is essentially a tool to help the betrayed person).

If the book can help a nice man figure out how to find and hold on to a nice woman, I won't argue. I didn't see it as a particularly bad roadmap, just one that made me shrug.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

"If the string is too tight it will break. If it is too loose, it will not play." Conversation overheard by the Buddha.

Granted, he abandoned his family so why should we listen to him


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> There are many people who are presented with all those factors who CHOOSE not to cheat.
> 
> Cheating is a choice and choosing to cheat indicates a wrinkle in the strayers moral fabric, not that they are preprogammed.


You are arguing an impossibility. You believe that good people will never cheat. And if they do end up cheating, in response to environmental stimuli, well that just proves that they weren't good in the first place.

It's a foolish argument. Environment has been proven to influence choice. It's also an egotistical argument. Believing that you are so morally superior to others that you would never sully yourself by making the choices they did is, frankly, dangerous thinking. There are a LOT of cheaters who had just such an attitude prior to cheating.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if someday some enterprising reporter uncovers that fact that Athol's wife has been cheating on him behind his back for years.
> 
> She stays with him not because he acts alpha, she stays with him because he sells a lot of books and she likes the money.


There's a world of a difference between being subjective and being judgemental. We don't know anything about him or his wife apart from what he chalks out on his blogposts. I think its a real shame that an interesting topic has quickly progressed into a mudslinging campaign.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> Athol was being manipulative with his comment and manipulation is EMOTIONAL ABUSE, and disrespectful to the spouse.


So, the correct thing to do was for Athol to accept the house guest and hope for the best? Or are you still just arguing style?



Sara8 said:


> Also, a spouse should be able to trust that the spouse won't Phuck and opposite sex house guest, no matter what she looks like or even if she comes on to him.
> 
> It's called boundaries, love, respect, morality, wanting to keep the marriage healthy.
> 
> Is the guy an alley cat or a human?


Again, you're ignoring the effect of environment on behavior. Charlie Manson hasn't killed anybody while he's been in prison. Does mean he's a good person? Or has the lack of opportunity played a role in that statistic? I know which one I'm betting on.

Athol loves and respects his wife. He wants a healthy marriage. That's why he doesn't want another women in his house. It's simple.


----------



## WasDecimated (Mar 23, 2011)

> let's assume he was a perfect mix of alpha and beta. He was comforting and attractive. That still didn't stop his wife from cheating. The thing is, nobody has ever argued that it is possible to have 100% guaranteed success in affair-proofing your marriage. I think it's possible to lower your risk. But I don't think you can guarantee anything.


This is very true...there are no guarantees but I too believe you can lower the risk factors. Is the infidelity still inevitable...possibly.

I do feel that some faithful spouses, no matter what they did, how they handled things, the right balance of Alpha and Beta...whatever, could still fall victim to a cheating spouse. The real deficiencies are within the cheater and we are just trying to compensate.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> Even in a court of law calling Ahtol an A-hole would not be considered defamation because he has set himself up for public criticism by writing a controversial book.


:rofl: Only a woman would call a book advising men to improve themselves to better attract their wives, controversial.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> So, the correct thing to do was *for Athol to accept the house guest and hope for the best*? Or are you still just arguing style?
> 
> 
> Again, you're ignoring the effect of environment on behavior. Charlie Manson hasn't killed anybody while he's been in prison. Does mean he's a good person? Or has the lack of opportunity played a role in that statistic? I know which one I'm betting on.
> ...


...surely he has a little more control over the pants-monster than just 'hoping for the best'...? I understand what you're saying, but the difference is, you're using tact when you say 'he doesn't want another woman in his house'. He obviously lacks that tact...

But if it sells more books, gets more blog followers, gets more people pressing on 'contribute to MMSL'...then he's got something going for him, I guess...!


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> Well! This is certainly a refreshing discussion!
> 
> I have read Athol's book and my reaction was generally: "OK, nothing really new; this seems like a short & sweet description of my intuition."
> 
> ...


I actually agree with that. 

If a BS uses it and it works, Great. 

IMO, their spouse may be more prone to that type of manipulation given that they cheated. 

I do see thought that the book tends to offend more Betrayed wives.

So, I don't think Athols tactics would work on an intelligent faithful type spouse.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> You are arguing an impossibility. You believe that good people will never cheat. And if they do end up cheating, in response to environmental stimuli, well that just proves that they weren't good in the first place.
> 
> It's a foolish argument. Environment has been proven to influence choice. It's also an egotistical argument. Believing that you are so morally superior to others that you would never sully yourself by making the choices they did is, frankly, dangerous thinking. There are a LOT of cheaters who had just such an attitude prior to cheating.


Case in point: ChangingMe, tears, RIB and a number of other women who can't look in the mirror anymore. 

Were they so 'narcissistic' that they never cared? Not according to their testimonies. Where they psychotic? Not to read them.

That is a scary thought: that something like this could happen to anyone: good church ladies, persons with good self esteem, confident professional women who were TRAINED to know better.

But this is getting far afield.

***

I am no expert in Athol. I read his book once and found myself nodding occasionally and wincing. He is WAY too much into the biological control the sex hole has on a woman (when she's ovulating, she's a gonna cheat!) Hmph!

But overall, I found it reasonably inoffensive, sometimes funny, and not bad. Men don't read self help books often but this resonated.

The only evidence I find supporting him is that when a lot of posters here run a 180 (which is essentially the MAP) they seem to get at least short term results.

Now, were I a woman, I can see that as being a bit offensive to be seen as so predictable...almost as offensive as being characterized as an ovulating cheat monkey. "Push button Alpha to automatically attract woman. Screw woman on day 14-18 to stop cheating..."

But as stated, not a lot to hate about how to be a better MAN.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> :rofl: Only a woman would call a book advising men to improve themselves to better attract their wives, controversial.


His tactical approach is in question, not his intention to help a man better attract wives.

As mentioned prior, IMO, his tactics will only attract the WRONG TYPE OF WOMEN. The type vulnerable to cheating because some alpha wanna be flattered her.

The type vulnerable to manipulative men or beta's pretending to be Alphas.

And we all know pretense never works in the long haul. 

It's too difficult to continue to be something one is not.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

CandieGirl said:


> I understand what you're saying, but the difference is, you're using tact when you say 'he doesn't want another woman in his house'. He obviously lacks that tact...


So it is just an issue of style for you. That's fine. As I said, I can't get worked up over style.



CandieGirl said:


> But if it sells more books, gets more blog followers, gets more people pressing on 'contribute to MMSL'...then he's got something going for him, I guess...!


There is more to his writing than style. If Athol's message to men was, "Keep doing what you're doing, just present it with my style," then he wouldn't have nearly the success that he's had. It's the substance underneath.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> You are arguing an impossibility. You believe that good people will never cheat. And if they do end up cheating, in response to environmental stimuli, well that just proves that they weren't good in the first place.
> 
> It's a foolish argument. Environment has been proven to influence choice. It's also an egotistical argument. Believing that you are so morally superior to others that you would never sully yourself by making the choices they did is, frankly, dangerous thinking. There are a LOT of cheaters who had just such an attitude prior to cheating.


And your assumption is self serving and condescending to the millions of people with plenty of opportunity and negative influence who manage to keep their under wear on, while with an enticing member of the opposite sex, or even when being pursued. 

There are some people who find cheating repulsive whether it makes you feel morally superior or not to insist otherwise.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> I actually agree with that.
> 
> If a BS uses it and it works, Great.
> 
> ...


For me, any sense that I'm being intentionally manipulated definitely pushes buttons. The sordid secrecy and betrayal of intimacy that underly cheating amount to the ultimate manipulation, so I can see how betrayed wives react badly to an explicit guidebook like MMSL.

I will say, however, from the point of view of a mother with a grown son who is ridiculously handsome and smart, but the classic 'nice guy,' I wouldn't mind him reading the book. He's tired of being kissed on the cheek & thanked for his brilliant advice by his latest love interest who is interested in someone else. He would probably have the reaction to the book that I do, but you never know. It could help....


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> There's a world of a difference between being subjective and being judgemental. We don't know anything about him or his wife apart from what he chalks out on his blogposts. I think its a real shame that an interesting topic has quickly progressed into a mudslinging campaign.


This is a discussion.

Athol, is that you? If so, stop getting your boxers in a twist about people slinging mud over you threatening to unknot your boxers for your wife's house guest.

Whether you want to admit it or not it was a disrespectful remark that deserves mud slung at it.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

Nice guys do finish last.

But by that I mean passive guys finish last.

Doesn't mean a$$hole guys win.

Because the opposite of passive doesn't mean ahole.

The opposite of passive is decisive and active.

Decisive doesn't mean abusive, it means knowing what is important to you and choosing it.

Active doesn't men aggressive, it means working and focused.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> So it is just an issue of style for you. That's fine. As I said, I can't get worked up over style.
> 
> 
> There is more to his writing than style. If Athol's message to men was, "Keep doing what you're doing, just present it with my style," then he wouldn't have nearly the success that he's had. It's the substance underneath.


Nah, not worked up over style, just amazed by bullsh!t that the man spews that so many of you guys seem to lap up. Haven't you noticed that there aren't many female MMSL proponents on TAM? Yes, yes, yes, I know it's not written for women; but that doesn't stop us from thinking the guy's full of chicken poop. Maybe women like me are just too 'alpha', because I wouldn't stand for my man behaving like that. 

...Sh!t....Maybe I'm the female 'Athole'.....


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> And your assumption is self serving and condescending to the millions of people with plenty of opportunity and negative influence who manage to keep their under wear on, while with an enticing member of the opposite sex, or even when being pursued.


You're such a humanist that you find the notion of human fallibility condescending? I'll just say that I find the notion inescapable.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> For me, any sense that I'm being intentionally manipulated definitely pushes buttons. The sordid secrecy and betrayal of intimacy that underly cheating amount to the ultimate manipulation, so I can see how betrayed wives react badly to an explicit guidebook like MMSL.
> 
> I will say, however, from the point of view of a mother with a grown son who is ridiculously handsome and smart, but the classic 'nice guy,' I wouldn't mind him reading the book. He's tired of being kissed on the cheek & thanked for his brilliant advice by his latest love interest who is interested in someone else. He would probably have the reaction to the book that I do, but you never know. It could help....


I read it. 

Why shouldn't he.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

One point which I don't agree with: openly flirting with other women in front of your spouse.

That seems extremely disrespectful and counterproductive. I know it's supposed to charge her ovulating competitive hormones, but no. I don't like it.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll give Sara8 that.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> You're such a humanist that you find the notion of human fallibility condescending? I'll just say that I find the notion inescapable.


I find the notion of insisting that anyone and everyone will eventually cheat, and referring to those who insist they would not as foolish, to be condescending and disrespectful.

If it makes you feel better, have your opinion, but understand it is just that an opinion, not a fact.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

JCD said:


> One point which I don't agree with: openly flirting with other women in front of your spouse.
> 
> That seems extremely disrespectful and counterproductive. I know it's supposed to charge her ovulating competitive hormones, but no. I don't like it.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong. I'll give Sara8 that.


Forgot about that bit. Yes, this obvious flirting strategy really made me angry & has no place in a healthy marriage.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

CandieGirl said:


> Nah, not worked up over style, just amazed by bullsh!t that the man spews that so many of you guys seem to lap up.


The thing is, you're not arguing against his point. You're agreeing that he shouldn't have accepted the house guest. You're just angry that he wasn't more sensitive about it. That's style, not substance.



CandieGirl said:


> Haven't you noticed that there aren't many female MMSL proponents on TAM? Yes, yes, yes, I know it's not written for women; but that doesn't stop us from thinking the guy's full of chicken poop.


As you say, he's for men. I don't see many men advocating Oprah's point of view, either. But the chicks sure dig her. Does that mean Oprah's a misandrist devil? No. She's not my cup of tea.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> The thing is, you're not arguing against his point. You're agreeing that he shouldn't have accepted the house guest. You're just angry that he wasn't more sensitive about it. That's style, not substance.
> 
> 
> As you say, he's for men. I don't see many men advocating Oprah's point of view, either. But the chicks sure dig her. Does that mean Oprah's a misandrist devil? No. She's not my cup of tea.


Comparing Oprah to Athol is comparing apples to oranges. 

BTW: I don't watch Oprah. She's okay, but she's not my cup of tea, either. So?


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

CandieGirl said:


> MMSL = 50 Shades of Grey for Men...:rofl:


While I haven't read the 50 Shades book, I can tell you they are not equal. I realize that you're being funny Candie Girl but isn't 50 shades about insatiable women screwing around on their mates?


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

I'm not going to step into the raging debate here about whether Athol is dead on or if he's completely wrong, but the bottom line is that a lot of what used to be common sense now appears to be lost on so many today that Athol put together a "package" to both fill the void and make himself some money in the process (nothing wrong with that). But do you really need Athol to have to spell out to you what most of us should have learned growing up?


If you constantly aquiesce on things, then people won't value your views because you "give up" all the time.
If you don't defend yourself when someone belittles you, then you will continue to be belittled.
If you are shy and don't express yourself, then people won't ask for your input.
If you constantly give of yourself and never get anything back, people will take advantage of you.

You get the point. What used to be common sense that everyone took as given without question has now become "specialized knowledge". Maybe Shaggy has a point that the culture of emasculating men in films and sitcom TV - along with changes in teaching in schools - has caused a generation of men to not understand the relationship dynamics that used to be common place. Maybe I'm a throwback or something, because I'm in my 30s and I was able to learn these things - I thought most kids my age did. I grew up without cable TV, so maybe that was my saving grace?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

alte Dame said:


> For me, any sense that I'm being intentionally manipulated definitely pushes buttons. The sordid secrecy and betrayal of intimacy that underly cheating amount to the ultimate manipulation, so I can see how betrayed wives react badly to an explicit guidebook like MMSL.


There is, truly, very little manipulation in MMSL. There is some. But I look at it like women use makeup and high heels. You wear lipstick to make your lips fuller and redder. Are men really dumb enough to think that your lips are naturally like that? No. But do we like the look? Yes. That's the kind of manipulation in MMSL. Small things on preselection, and other things that can give a man a small boost in the eyes of a woman. But most of the stuff is general stuff that men should incorporate into everyday life.



alte Dame said:


> I will say, however, from the point of view of a mother with a grown son who is ridiculously handsome and smart, but the classic 'nice guy,' I wouldn't mind him reading the book. He's tired of being kissed on the cheek & thanked for his brilliant advice by his latest love interest who is interested in someone else. He would probably have the reaction to the book that I do, but you never know. It could help....


That sounds like me as a younger man. Well, I wouldn't say I was "ridiculously" handsome.  But, I was the boy who didn't understand what girl wanted, who didn't understand what they were communicating, and ended up with a marriage that was sliding downhill. If I had discovered MMSL, and other sources like it, when I was younger, I would have had a happier time.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> I find the notion of insisting that anyone and everyone will eventually cheat, and referring to those who insist they would not as foolish, to be condescending and disrespectful.


The logical fallacy that you're employing here is called straw man. I have never written that everyone will eventually cheat. I have written that everyone is morally fallible. Everyone can be tempted.

And yes, people who believe that they are morally infallible are fools.



Sara8 said:


> If it makes you feel better, have your opinion, but understand it is just that an opinion, not a fact.


Human fallibility is just an opinion? Seriously? What more proof could you possibly need?


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> There is, truly, very little manipulation in MMSL. There is some. But I look at it like women use makeup and high heels. You wear lipstick to make your lips fuller and redder. Are men really dumb enough to think that your lips are naturally like that? No. But do we like the look? Yes. That's the kind of manipulation in MMSL. Small things on preselection, and other things that can give a man a small boost in the eyes of a woman. But most of the stuff is general stuff that men should incorporate into everyday life.
> 
> 
> That sounds like me as a younger man. Well, I wouldn't say I was "ridiculously" handsome.  But, I was the boy who didn't understand what girl wanted, who didn't understand what they were communicating, and ended up with a marriage that was sliding downhill. If I had discovered MMSL, and other sources like it, when I was younger, I would have had a happier time.


Yes. Again, I actually think the success of this book with men itself recommends it because it's obviously touching a nerve & seems to help some very nice people improve their lives.

Re the sense of manipulation, I think one of Sara's complaints is the almost formulaic approach that is consciously applied by the man, but never discussed with the woman that he is targeting. She pointed out that a betrayed wife will have been stung by this very reality already & probably will not be kindly disposed to it in the book. I can definitely see this perspective.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

Oh, Sara, we're women, we must ALL watch Oprah...

Come on! Where are the men that DON'T subscribe to MMSL??? There has to be one!


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> Comparing Oprah to Athol is comparing apples to oranges.


Obviously. One is a man and one is a woman. One helps men build stronger marriages, and one foists Eat, Pray, Love on the world. I agree. Very different.


----------



## CandieGirl (Apr 27, 2011)

PHTlump said:


> The thing is, you're not arguing against his point. You're agreeing that he shouldn't have accepted the house guest. You're just angry that he wasn't more sensitive about it. That's style, not substance.
> 
> 
> As you say, he's for men. I don't see many men advocating Oprah's point of view, either. But the chicks sure dig her. Does that mean Oprah's a misandrist devil? No. She's not my cup of tea.


Maybe style for that one...but I still think the rest is utter garbaaaagggge....I'm entitled, just as you are to your Oprah opinion. Oprah. I liked her when I was about 16...loooooong time ago. No more, tho.


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

Plan 9, you're right on it. Yes, we all have free will, and if you're married to an emotionally damaged/disordered person who may also be an abuse victim, you can be the best spouse in the world, but most likely you're sitting on a time bomb and it isn't going to make much difference what letter of the alphabet you are.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

I read the book, my only assumption is that it was written for eunuch slave boys... really, you have to have a book that tells you this crap. I guess it is a cultural issue, granted I did not grow up in a primarily European culture, (Asian-Pacific Islander). And, yet there is some definite helpful stuff in this book. One has to decipher what is good and what is crap.

Yes, I cleaned up the kitchen last night after dinner (my wife does a horrible job and I don't want roaches moving in)... I guess I shouldn't have... wait a minute, we did 1 1/2 hour session last night, and woke up to more. I am 51 she is 50 and married 18 years... But then again this book is also plays on the image of having to buy a big truck to make up for ones lack of endowment. I drive an economy car 

In a professional way it is also full of crap, because as a neurobiologist (development anyway) there are some truths but a lot of misconceptions about the human brain. Oh well, not totally bashing the book. I would recommend most males read it, only if you have the capacity to weed through and take from it stuff that is valuable and that which is just junk. My $0.02 worth of crap.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

maincourse99 said:


> Plan 9, you're right on it. Yes, we all have free will, and if you're married to an emotionally damaged/disordered person who may also be an abuse victim, you can be the best spouse in the world, but most likely you're sitting on a time bomb and *it isn't going to make much difference what letter of the alphabet you are.*


Greek or Roman? Because if you're going to cheap out and use the Roman alphabet then just stay home...


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

alte Dame said:


> Forgot about that bit. Yes, this obvious flirting strategy really made me angry & has no place in a healthy marriage.


I agree with that however the important part is A HEALTHY MARRIAGE. 

In one where you are seen as simply “expected” to be a faithful loving husband doting on your every need; and it is taken for granted that staying married to you is a actually a choice, it plays a role. The role of this flirting is to make it absolutely clear that *I have other options.* I do not “have” to be with you, I am “choosing” to be with you. That distinction needs to be made. My wife had it in her head that I’d be alone if it weren’t for her being able to ‘put up with me’. I wasn’t a catch, I was a burden holding her back. And honestly, it is better that I’m doing this in front of you rather than behind your back... It shows that I am wanting you to see this and do something. Pee on my leg or whatever to mark your territory....

Tossing a better looking younger model of yourself that you see as a threat in front of you AND she is expressing interest CAN be a wakeup call that maybe, just maybe, you should step up your game. If you won’t value me, I can find someone who will. This works much better than threatening you directly with a divorce threat or whining that you don’t value me. It shows you in very understandable terms that other women might just be happy and see me as a catch worth pursuing. When your perception is ‘the grass is greener’, it doesn’t hurt to show you other women are eyeballing your pasture too and you have competition rather than being just my only choice.


----------



## Emerald (Aug 2, 2012)

chumplady said:


> Didn't want to thread jack another thread, but the book (I think this is the title, please correct me) A Married Man's Sex Life was mentioned.
> 
> Often on betrayed husband threads, there are discussions about whether or not the guy was Too Nice, or did he fail by not being alpha enough, or not achieving the proper alpha / beta ratio in his marriage -- which then leads to its demise and the woman is attracted to someone else.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with you.

I'm married to a nice guy. If I were to cheat, it would NOT be because H is a nice guy. Now that is a ridiculous concept.

It would be all MY fault.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Emerald said:


> I completely agree with you.
> 
> I'm married to a nice guy. If I were to cheat, it would NOT be because H is a nice guy. Now that is a ridiculous concept.
> 
> It would be all MY fault.


I think you ladies are getting the entire concept wrong. When we say nice guys we actually mean men who avoid conflict.


----------



## costa200 (Jun 27, 2012)

I'm getting this vibe that many people are criticizing this book without actually reading it. And then there are women criticizing it... The same gender who write everywhere that they want nice guys but never date them and friend zone them to death. 

Well ladies, i'll beg your pardon if i take observation before words. In the real world women don't fall for the guy who promises to wash the dishes. They fall for the well toned physique of the athlete, for the demonstrations of power and social status of the wealthy, and even for the "i don't give a damn" demeanor of the biker. 

Of course some guys don't actually need to read it. When i did most of what was being said came out as obvious. But you only have to read around this board and similar ones to find out that many men (specially those raised by women only without male figures around) don't have a clue on most things you need to avoid in order to become an object of desire for women. 

It's not a magical tool that will solve all your problems. But i think that a guy who is struggling to be happy in marriage can take some positives out of it.

When women read it they almost always balk at some parts that talk about how you should not be a drooling puppy after your woman. But guess what. If there is a part where this book is right in the money it is right there.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> I think you ladies are getting the entire concept wrong. When we say nice guys we actually mean men who avoid conflict.


Conflict avoiders typical are the type that cheat, not get cheated on. 

Conflict avoiders are passive aggressive. 

They are the type that smile at you even when they are angry to avoid conflict.

Rather than voicing their concerns and discussing them intellectually, they go out and try to hurt their spouse or get even for some real or perceived slight, by cheating.

Discussing the marital issues is healthy. Avoiding conflict just to get along is not. It's cowardly and leads to repressed resentments.

If a person is afraid of confilct, they need to seek a marriage counselor not read Athol's book.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

You know Sara, when you ask a baker what the answer to a problem is, it's always bread.

I'm getting the reverse feeling from you. No matter what is wrong with a guy the answer is NEVER Athol.

And he always speaks so highly of you...


----------



## Emerald (Aug 2, 2012)

Shaggy said:


> Nice guys do finish last.
> 
> But by that I mean passive guys finish last.
> 
> ...


Passive "people" finish last.


----------



## chumplady (Jul 27, 2012)

> I think it's offensive to say that most women are so morally superior, that a moral failing like infidelity is inconceivable. I think women are morally fallible. So are men. One of the possible failings for such people is infidelity.


This is a straw man's argument. I never said women are morally superior. I said it's offensive to label all women as potential cheaters. Of course women -- and men -- are morally fallible. But the fact remains, some fail and some do not. Some have boundaries and some do not. 

And there are degrees of moral fallibility. Cheating on your spouse, exposing your partner to STDs, threatening to destroy your children's home life is pretty freaking huge in the moral fallibility camp. So to say that we're all liable to do such a thing -- is yes, insulting.




> I think this is just a fundamental difference in how we view infidelity. You appear to view infidelity as an act perpetrated by evil people at random. There is no way to predict when it will strike and no way to prevent it.


If you read over at my blog, you'd have a better idea of my ideas about infidelity. I'm pretty clear that I think there are a spectrum of cheaters -- flaming personality disorders (sociopaths, NPDs, serial wing nuts) at one far end. Some ONS, some MLC, a lot of exit affairs. 

Do I think all CHEATERS are evil? No. The sociopath, NPD sorts? Yes. Do I think CHEATING is evil? Yes, it is a cruel act. Deeply effed up and narcissistic.

So, again. Straw man's argument. I don't think there is one size fits all Evil Cheaters acting in a random, chaotic universe.

It's a FACT that you cannot control other people. Fact. You can make conditions optimal for them to do or not do certain things, but you cannot guarantee how they will operate. Therefore you ZERO control over whether a person will cheat on you or not. That was my point. Not that you can't make a good marriage, or a better relationship, but that you ONLY control YOU. 



> I disagree. I think infidelity is an evil act perpetrated by otherwise good, but flawed, people when faced with an unhappy marriage. It is often predictable, because unhappy marriages are more vulnerable to infidelity. It is often preventable, because making your marriage a happy one will lessen your spouse's willingness to cheat.


I disagree with you. Our character is made up of our actions. If you do evil things, on balance, you're an evil person. Some things we do, just once, blot out whatever "good" person we might be. (John Wilkes Booth has a lovely singing voice.) 

People are faced with "unhappy marriages" every day and they don't cheat. You seem to have an argument for everything except good character, like it doesn't exist. Of course it's EASIER to be a good partner when your marriage is sunny and bright and good. Aim to be the best you can be -- absolutely.

But IMO cheating is a narcissistic act. It's based on entitlement. And a lack of appreciation, or even awareness, of others. It's greedy. You can give and give and give, and for some people, it's not enough. They're going to cheat. Plenty of studies show men who cheat report that there are in "happy marriages."

Hell, Arnold wrote his book to say Maria was a "good wife," he just liked his bits on the side. (He's a pig, but hey, he liked being married to her.) 

And of course you're going to tell me I'm the exception to the rule, but my ex-H was cheating on me from DAY ONE. There was no marriage to get bored with. He pursued me, proposed to me, and cheated on me. And he did NOT want a divorce. He wanted cake.

I've been reading on infidelity a long time, my story is not that unusual. 

Bad marriages don't make cheaters cheat. A bad moral compass makes cheaters cheat. 

Bad marriages are BAD. I'm not arguing we shouldn't work towards good marriages. I'm saying, when faced with a bad marriage -- you have OPTIONS.

Crappy people with bad moral compasses make bad cheating decisions. They don't make brave choices like therapy or divorce lawyers. They eat cake. These people SUCK.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

JCD said:


> You know Sara, when you ask a baker what the answer to a problem is, it's always bread.
> 
> I'm getting the reverse feeling from you. No matter what is wrong with a guy the answer is NEVER Athol.
> 
> And he always speaks so highly of you...


IMO, people should never blame others for their own faults. 

They should accept responsibility. 

He told me to do it, is a reason, but not an excuse. 

Edited to add: I have nothing against Athol, personally, he's entitled do suck people in with his opinions in order to sell books.

Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Falene (Dec 31, 2011)

Sara8 said:


> Conflict avoiders typical are the type that cheat, not get cheated on.
> 
> Conflict avoiders are passive aggressive.
> 
> ...


Sara, you couldn't be more dead on.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

chumplady said:


> Bad marriages don't make cheaters cheat. A bad moral compass makes cheaters cheat.
> 
> Bad marriages are BAD. I'm not arguing we shouldn't work towards good marriages. I'm saying, when faced with a bad marriage -- you have OPTIONS.
> 
> Crappy people with bad moral compasses make bad cheating decisions. They don't make brave choices like therapy or divorce lawyers. They eat cake. These people SUCK.


I agree with everything you say, even the parts I cut out.

AND!

I own a compass. It's a very good compass. But occasionally, my son or daughter brings a hammer or some other large piece of metal near it and it goes off kilter.

But when you take that metal away, the compass works just fine.

This is not an excuse for cheaters! They make their choices and it has horrible and personal consequences. But that doesn't mean that every cheater is an assassin. That doesn't mean every cheater WILLINGLY abandons their children. That doesn't mean every cheater might not be remorseful.

But with that 'broken moral compass' 'cheaters cheat' mindset, it presupposes that people won't change and that they might not change over to pie instead of cake. It also hurts the chances of reconcilliations quite a bit.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

chumplady said:


> But IMO cheating is a narcissistic act. It's based on entitlement. And a lack of appreciation, or even awareness, of others. It's greedy. You can give and give and give, and for some people, it's not enough. They're going to cheat. Plenty of studies show men who cheat report that there are in "happy marriages."


The lack of awareness of the pain they cause is very pertinent. 

Most cheaters will say they NEVER expected to get caught, so no one was supposed to get hurt.

That shows a lack of awareness of the reality of cheating. 

Usually when someone is cheating EVERYONE knows but the spouse.

Also cheaters often exclaim, I never meant to hurt you or I didn't think this would hurt you so much. Mine did.

That shows more lack of awareness of other people's feelings in general. 

Either that or they just don't care which brings us back to a lack of empathy which equates to narcissistic tendencies.


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

I can relate to this!!!

In high school, I was the beta. If you looked beta up in the dictionary, my picture was underneath it. I was the shoulder to cry on. I was the guy you flirted with for answers to math homework, and I now know girls took huge advantage of me. 
Now, there were a bunch of girls that I liked as friends. And they told me I would be a great husband some day, be a great boyfriend because I remembered their birthdays (when their boyfriends didn't). 

Now, I did take some girls to homecoming. I did take them to prom. 
And guess what! No girlfriend! None! Never!!!
Here is the real kicker: my date I took to prom junior year, decided I wasn't man enough to grind with so she went and grinded on someone else. 
Yea, totally forget that I am your ride out of here, and I just spent over $250 on your damn tickets, food, ride, and flowers. Go ahead and grind on up some random dude. Biggest waste of my night ever. I should've stayed home and played video games. 


I was actually talking with some friends a while back, and I told one of them about my prom night, and how I felt like it was the worst investment of my life. 
And the friend (a girl by the way) said the nice guy gets the girl in the long run. 

And I just thought, 'Great, So have her call me when she is 38 with 2 kids, and I am single and making money. Yea, I'll really want her then...'

The phrase needs to be changed to:
"Beta men finish last."

Because they are the guy, that once women realize what qualities they want in a mate, a father, and a role model, those women have made the mistakes of choosing a lot of guys that don't have those qualities. 
And a beta man is either to spineless to say no to the women, or to stupid to see he is just a meal ticket for her. 

But that is just me. I am still a little scorned from my past.


----------



## chumplady (Jul 27, 2012)

> 'broken moral compass' 'cheaters cheat' mindset, it presupposes that people won't change and that they might not change over to pie instead of cake. It also hurts the chances of reconcilliations quite a bit.


I think cheaters can change (except for sociopaths, folks wired without empathy). I don't think many cheaters WANT to change (cake being so delicious and all), however. I also think that a marriage you cheat in, is one that you broke. I think it's possible to go on and perhaps be a better, different partner again elsewhere, but I don't believe that there are many successful reconciliations. I think marriages can endure, but they are not improved (or ever really recover) from infidelity.

I do like pie though. Rhubarb!


----------



## Zanna (May 10, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Conflict avoiders typical are the type that cheat, not get cheated on.
> 
> Conflict avoiders are passive aggressive.
> 
> ...


Exactly.

There's also a lot of research out there that cheaters are often passive-agressive conflict avoiders.

Sadly, I married one. His explanations for cheating -- selfishness, poor coping skills, conflict avoidance and passive-agressive anger and resentment. A lovely combination.

To the world, like most PA's, he presented the nice, responsible good guy image who would do anything for his wife and family. In private, he was an immature sleazebag engaged in an affair with an equally immature sleazebag.

And what about this whole sex rank thing? If sex rank matters so much then why am the same size as I was in high school and get mistaken for younger than my age. My H on the other hand, has gained a a lot of weight, drinks and tans too much, which as our teenage daughter has said, makes him look a lot older than me. Heck, my nickname in College, given to me by the football team was "The Goddess" so I'm not ugly. And recently I had a 26 year old very buff, my guess is Alpha male tell me he thought I was sexy, that he looooved older woman and knew how to make them feel good in bed (oh, yes he said it!) and if I ever wanted to "talk" then I could call him anytime. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. He then put his hands on my hips and told me again how sexy I was. I was stunned, maybe even got a few "tingles" considering this man is stupid hot but did I call him? Hell, no. And I wasn't happy in my marriage AND I was considering divorce.

Why? Because despite my reptillian brain, I have morals and I'm not so unaware that I drop my panties just because an attractive man makes a move.

But my H cheated on me with a short, plump, homely looking woman because she stroked his ego? Really?

Since my sex rank is higher, I should go find me an Alpha male. :scratchhead: Or would be that be a Beta so I can boss him around? 

In all seriousness, some of what Althol suggests makes sense but a lot of it, well it seems to be about sweeping generalizations about men and women, and what we all find attractive... or appealing enough to lose all common sense and decency over.


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

Cheating comes down to selfishness. You don't have to be a narcissist or a sociopath, just be selfish and have an unwillingness to deny yourself the pleasure of cheating, because that's what it's all about- pleasure, whatever form the cheating takes. Sexual pleasure, ego boosting, excitement, whatever. 

So all a person who is faced with the temptation to cheat has to do is don't give in. Simple.

You hate your marriage? Leave. Get divorced. Date. 

Speaking as a BS, I could respect that. Shake hands, wish them well. Cheating is for cowards.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

If you don't hold those around you to a high standard, they won't ever live up to it.


----------



## I'mInLoveWithMyHubby (Nov 7, 2011)

I didn't read the book, but I can tell you that I'm very grateful my husband is a very nice guy. I treat him in the same way he treats me. We have a fabulous marriage and neither of us have ever been bored or tempted to stray from our marriage. We both focus on meeting each others needs and put our marriage as our number 1 priority.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

maincourse99 said:


> Cheating comes down to selfishness. You don't have to be a narcissist or a sociopath, just be selfish and have an unwillingness to deny yourself the pleasure of cheating, because that's what it's all about- pleasure, whatever form the cheating takes. Sexual pleasure, ego boosting, excitement, whatever.
> 
> So all a person who is faced with the temptation to cheat has to do is don't give in. Simple.
> 
> ...


Here's the thing. A lot of you are acting like being selfish is something that most people don't do. Everyone does it. It's just a matter of degree.

Many things have serious effects on a person's judgement. Again, this is not an excuse, but certainly the character of tears is far different then that of Allykatie or whomever (will have to look her up)



Shaggy said:


> If you don't hold those around you to a high standard, they won't ever live up to it.


Never said that's not the case. If my wife cheated on me, I'd drop her like a bad habit (or at least I'd like to think I would)

But that being said, I won't think she's the Second Coming of Satan normally. I wouldn't think that my kids wouldn't be safe around her.

Unfortunately everything else would probably be on the table as far as _I_ went since we'd be in an adversarial relationship.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

Broken at 20 said:


> I can relate to this!!!
> 
> In high school, I was the beta. If you looked beta up in the dictionary, my picture was underneath it. I was the shoulder to cry on. I was the guy you flirted with for answers to math homework, and I now know girls took huge advantage of me.
> Now, there were a bunch of girls that I liked as friends. And they told me I would be a great husband some day, be a great boyfriend because I remembered their birthdays (when their boyfriends didn't).
> ...


Out of curiosity, did you realize that you were being taken advantage of by these so called "girlfriends" when they told you how sweet you were for letting them copy your homework, telling you that you will be a great husband/BF someday as they were walking out the door for their date with someone else? Or did you have to read a book to figure this out? Not trying to be mean - just curious.

I'll add that when I was in HS I did not date anyone and I was backwards and shy around girls. But I didn't have any girls as friends - only guys - and I did not start dating until college. Even then, I knew that people will take advantage of you if you let them.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

If this is true here is a perfect example of a potential doormat Kristen Stewart shows her true colors by betraying Robert Pattinson again - National celebrity infidelity | Examiner.com


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

JCD, Obviously we all act selfishly at times but we're not talking about taking all the chicken wings from the buffet. We're talking about infidelity. 

Sure is a matter of degree. I do something selfish every day, but when it comes to robbing someone, or cheating on the person I'm married to, I choose not to act selfishly.


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

I no longer read the Bible but I can appreciate the fact that many people have been helped by its teachings. I'm in no way comparing the MMSL to the Holy Bible but I don't go around bashing the good book because I disagree with many of its teachings.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

chumplady said:


> I never said women are morally superior. I said it's offensive to label all women as potential cheaters.


Which is it? Are women susceptible to moral failings, or are they morally superior and immune to such pedestrian concerns?



chumplady said:


> Do I think all CHEATERS are evil? No. ... Do I think CHEATING is evil? Yes, it is a cruel act. Deeply effed up and narcissistic. ... If you do evil things, on balance, you're an evil person. Some things we do, just once, blot out whatever "good" person we might be.


Again, which is it? Cheating is, indeed, evil. Does that mean cheaters are evil? Or can good people do evil things? I am of the opinion that good people can do evil things.



chumplady said:


> It's a FACT that you cannot control other people. Fact. You can make conditions optimal for them to do or not do certain things, but you cannot guarantee how they will operate. Therefore you ZERO control over whether a person will cheat on you or not.


I'm seeing a pattern here. Um, which is it? Do we have ZERO influence over our spouses, or can we influence them through our own actions? I think we usually have some influence over those close to us.



chumplady said:


> People are faced with "unhappy marriages" every day and they don't cheat. You seem to have an argument for everything except good character, like it doesn't exist.


I fully recognize the importance of good character. And character absolutely plays a role, perhaps the largest role, in determining whether a person succumbs to the temptations of infidelity. But, I'm not so foolish as to think that good character can trump everything. Environment influences people. Whether one feels loved, whether one feels satisfied, whether one feels happy, can definitely affect one's actions. And a toxic environment can even override the character of an otherwise good person.



chumplady said:


> And of course you're going to tell me I'm the exception to the rule, but my ex-H was cheating on me from DAY ONE.


I think you probably are the exception. But I recognize that some people have no qualms about cheating early and often. However, I think the more common case, and certainly the case we see most often here, is the one where spouses grow apart over time, temptation arises, and one spouse fails the test.


----------



## costa200 (Jun 27, 2012)

> And I just thought, 'Great, So have her call me when she is 38 with 2 kids, and I am single and making money. Yea, I'll really want her then...'


This situation is why today's "sex in the city" for real isn't really working out ok for some women. They think they can do whatever the hell they want while their attraction potential is high and then "settle" with a nice guy (and often cheat on him even then). But then they realize the nice guy has got his crap together and his value is through the roof with women. And that he can now choose whatever woman he wants and he will not be choosing an over the hill woman with tons of baggage. 

Then they cry about it not being fair because they can't find a "good man". Well, guess what, when he was around you didn't give a fvck!! 

At that point some nice guys, after being scorned countless times turn into manipulating bastards. They become the opposite of what they were and will refuse to settle with a woman and will instead use them like expendable commodity because that was what they were taught by life.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> I no longer read the Bible but I can appreciate the fact that many people have been helped by its teachings. I'm in no way comparing the MMSL to the Holy Bible but I don't go around bashing the good book because I disagree with many of its teachings.


Yes and like the bible which has of infanticide and genocide in it, you have to be smart enough to pick out what is useful. _I have to apologize to anyone who is Christian, it is the way I see it. I am not trying to convert anyone or destroy any one's belief system, simply trying to compare a point._

Again, it may just be cultural, but I simply don't get the purely beta guy... I don't think I have ever seen this person before. I have seen guys who are from my wife's culture very "samurai"... too warrior like, as in my BIL... Some of you would assume him to be at the height of Alpha, and he is. However his WW did not just cheat on him but had a child with the OM; ouch. She had (and still has) a bad character - cheated on OM. See her from time to time. I am cordial but nothing more.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

costa200 said:


> ...At that point some nice guys, after being scorned countless times turn into manipulating bastards. They become the opposite of what they were and will refuse to settle with a woman and will instead use them like expendable commodity because that was what they were taught by life.


I actually worry about this with my 25-yo son. He's become so cynical about women that I'm sometimes shocked and saddened by some of our conversations. He asks me to explain female behavior all the time, but I have to admit that many of his experiences leave me gobsmacked & I can easily understand where his attitude is coming from. I definitely sympathize with him.

That being said...I always emphasize that there are plenty of decent women out there, which clearly I believe & also believe that the 'nice guy' that he is will land on his feet with one of them.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> I no longer read the Bible but I can appreciate the fact that many people have been helped by its teachings. I'm in no way comparing the MMSL to the Holy Bible but I don't go around bashing the good book because I disagree with many of its teachings.


People bash the bible all the time, particularly atheists like Athol. 

Do you really consider the discussion of the quality of his advice to be bashing his book. 

He can write his book. He can promote his concepts and we have the right to say they are or are not asinine.

I am currently using it as mulch in my garden and my friend uses it in her cat's litter box. I think it works well for that. 

Otherwise.............


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Which is it? Are women susceptible to moral failings, or are they morally superior and immune to such pedestrian concerns?
> 
> 
> Again, which is it? Cheating is, indeed, evil. Does that mean cheaters are evil? Or can good people do evil things? I am of the opinion that good people can do evil things.


Both men and women cheat, no one has said otherwise. 

Do you consider murder evil?


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

The bottom line is we all perceive the world differently. Hence the diverse reactions to Athol's book. Heck, who amongst us perceive reality now the way we did before we were cheated on?

I'll just agree to disagree.


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> That being said...I always emphasize that there are plenty of decent women out there, which clearly I believe & also believe that the 'nice guy' that he is will land on his feet with one of them.


That's what my mom said before our current situation. 

But you also must understand, that being a nice guy, is a gamble right?

My mom always told me "Find yourself a good church girl to get married to."
A few weeks ago in the paper, there was a story about a woman, who went to church, married a great catch of a guy, like the love of a beta male with the confidence of an alpha, and good income. 
But that woman, cheated on him with their pastor, and was going to cuckold him with the pastor's child. But she had a miscarriage, but couldn't let go of the pastor. 
And to fastforward, pastor shot and killed the husband, and the wife thought she would get his $800k life insurance policy. 
She didn't (he changed it last second) but got 8 years, and the pastor got life. 

And that was a local story. After reading that, I thought "Forget church girls." 

Now, that may be on the extreme, but for a nice guy, you are taking a big gamble. 

First, you are gambling that a girl will actually love you. Girls don't love nice guys. They love jerks. Machiavelli can bring up articles about why, or we can search the internet. So problem #1: we are fighting evolution and a woman's hormone when we are a nice guy and hope a woman will love us. 

Second, like the sex in the city thing. Woman want the nice guy's security AFTER they are used up. And I don't want to sound harsh, but when I am 38, will I want to marry some girl from my high school if she has 2 kids, and is working a dead end job? Probably not. I would marry her when she is 24, and no kids, and beautiful. Not when she is 38 and got some problems. 

Thirdly, infidelity. How many guys on here have been what hyou people would categorize as "To nice. Too Beta. Too trusting?" with their wives? So their wife finds an alpha to fulfill their basic primal desires to mate with a man that can beat every other male, while their husband stays at home, paying the bills, and gives them some emotional support? Because from I've seen on these threads, it must be quite a growing population. 

So, if I wanted to stay the nice guy I was in high school, I would have to hope:

That I would be able to find a girl that loved me for who I was. And not too many woman go for a beta male. Most go for your alpha's of varying attitudes and characteristics. 
Then I would have to hope the girl is not older, loaded with kids and baggage, and not looking at me as a meal ticket. And if this is cynical, remember, I am 20. When I start looking to get married, I am looking to start a family. Not get into an already made one. 
And thirdly, I would have to hope that my wife wouldn't stray to find an alpha male to deliver the alpha qualities I wasn't able to during the marriage. 

So what are my odds there?


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

Broken at 20 said:


> So what are my odds there?


I think that the alpha-beta thing is too black and white in many of these discussions & Athol doesn't even present it that way. A 'nice guy' doesn't have to be a doormat. Sure, many women like the 'bad boys,' but they are the caricatures of alpha, not really the nuanced bag of traits that experts would point to.

There are plenty of women on this forum who believe they are happily together with 'nice guys.' So, I maintain my faith that you don't have to transform yourself completely to have a successful relationship.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Emerald said:


> Passive "people" finish last.


This is a total misconception... nice = doormat? Again, I don't know who Athol is writing to, and may be that I have had enough exposure. But, I don't see this connection. 

I think if Athol went to the plains of Africa to see the Silverback Gorilla, he would see that even the alpha male of the tribe grooms and picks ticks off of the fertile females from time to time. Seems to be something that would not be advocated, but my god that lead Silverback gets laid plenty. A nice guy who is confident, that is the one she is attracted to. And, maybe it is just me, but I take the role of protector of my family. Above all else, I would die for both my wife and children while at the same time being a *participant* in all duties (household duties, child rearing - son needs to learn to throw a curve ball, etc) ... Asian-Pacific culture it is tacitly understood this way - You are Warrior-Leader, not a tyrant or push-over (extremes) and you are a Lover-Friend but not overly dependent or critical (extremes). That is how I understand a man to be. I read that somewhat into Athol's book, but he does on some issues take extreme positions and that is where I disagree.


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> There are plenty of women on this forum who believe they are happily together with 'nice guys.' So, I maintain my faith that you don't have to transform yourself completely to have a successful relationship.


Different generation. 

I got plenty of girls in my classes at school. Want me to ask how many of them had either:
A player for a boyfriend (more likely an ex now) 
Or 
A boyfriend that has been/or is in jail?

Then I could ask "How many guys like that have you dated since the first?"

Because I'll bet you my bank account it took them more than one bad boy or player to learn they don't want them. Or maybe they haven't learned yet!


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

Broken at 20 said:


> Different generation.




Yes, I know. But we're talking about human nature, which doesn't change dramatically over a few decades. I realize that life is different for someone in his twenties from what I experienced, but biologists will testify that the basics change very slowly over long periods of time.


----------



## costa200 (Jun 27, 2012)

> I think if Athol went to the plains of Africa to see the Silverback Gorilla, he would see that even the alpha male of the tribe grooms and picks ticks off of the fertile females from time to time. Seems to be something that would not be advocated, but my god that lead Silverback gets laid plenty. A nice guy who is confident, that is the one she is attracted to. And, maybe it is just me, but I take the role of protector of my family. Above all else, I would die for both my wife and children while at the same time being a participant in all duties (household duties, child rearing - son needs to learn to throw a curve ball, etc) ... Asian-Pacific culture it is tacitly understood this way - You are Warrior-Leader, not a tyrant or push-over (extremes) and you are a Lover-Friend but not overly dependent or critical (extremes). That is how I understand a man to be. I read that somewhat into Athol's book, but he does on some issues take extreme positions and that is where I disagree.


Read in full then. What Athol says is exactly your scenario of the silverback gorilla. He is alpha and he cares. Athol gives advice to mix alpha and beta traits in order to have a happy marriage. Apparently people are building a strawman thing here. 


Read the damn book for real if you want to criticize it. 


There are plenty of discussion to be had there but people are doing it wrong here and accusing the guy of saying things he did not. 

And once and for all, nowhere does he say that a "nice guy" can't be alpha. In fact that would be pretty stupid and self-defeating since his book is exactly about teaching "nice guys" to have the right mix of traits to keep women interested.

Quite honestly the way he explains how attraction dynamics work with women is flawless and has been tested in the field by thousands. The results are not a coincidence. 

I disagree on his classification of beta traits and alpha traits. I think he called some traits beta when they are clearly alpha. But the final effect isn't dependent on that.


----------



## maincourse99 (Aug 15, 2012)

I am so grateful to Chumplady for starting this thread. I got very little done at work today, but had a great time reading all the posts!


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

costa200 said:


> Read in full then. What Athol says is exactly your scenario of the silverback gorilla. He is alpha and he cares. Athol gives advice to mix alpha and beta traits in order to have a happy marriage. Apparently people are building a strawman thing here.
> 
> 
> Read the damn book for real if you want to criticize it.
> ...


Actually I read the book and read that section... he advocates some things that are extreme. I think if you read what I have written, you and I don't disagree, we have expressed it differently. I have too often read post from TAM members suggesting that one should not say rub their wife's feet or help in the kitchen... this is totally where I see this as bunk... Confidence that is what I call it not alpha. It is called confidently nice.


----------



## Harken Banks (Jun 12, 2012)

alte dame said:


> yes, i know. But we're talking about human nature, which doesn't change dramatically over a few decades. I realize that life is different for someone in his twenties from what i experienced, but biologists will testify that the basics change very slowly over long periods of time.


----------



## jay80_98 (Jul 14, 2012)

chumplady said:


> Didn't want to thread jack another thread, but the book (I think this is the title, please correct me) A Married Man's Sex Life was mentioned.
> 
> Often on betrayed husband threads, there are discussions about whether or not the guy was Too Nice, or did he fail by not being alpha enough, or not achieving the proper alpha / beta ratio in his marriage -- which then leads to its demise and the woman is attracted to someone else.
> 
> ...


In theory what you say is great. I've been rejected soo many times and these nice girls will all you did, and say your such a great guy havent found the right girl and then if u turn around and ask them out they'll think "eww" cause lets face it girls dont even know whats attractive to them, alot of these guys wingmen types tell you the truth even if its hard to digest. I remember listening to dr joy brown and a girl calls and asks why do i never feel attracted to the nice guys. I remember a call on dr schlesinger said she just married a sweet wonderful caring man but she doesnt feel the high rush energy and attraction she did to the guys she was with before. And then we see how the betrayals work. It is what it is. it might not be right and not fair but us nice guys want to feel desired too so we have to change


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

Now that's what I'm talking about. Yabba Dabba Doo!


----------



## jay80_98 (Jul 14, 2012)

costa200 said:


> This situation is why today's "sex in the city" for real isn't really working out ok for some women. They think they can do whatever the hell they want while their attraction potential is high and then "settle" with a nice guy (and often cheat on him even then). But then they realize the nice guy has got his crap together and his value is through the roof with women. And that he can now choose whatever woman he wants and he will not be choosing an over the hill woman with tons of baggage.
> 
> Then they cry about it not being fair because they can't find a "good man". Well, guess what, when he was around you didn't give a fvck!!
> 
> At that point some nice guys, after being scorned countless times turn into manipulating bastards. They become the opposite of what they were and will refuse to settle with a woman and will instead use them like expendable commodity because that was what they were taught by life.



very true my concept of women and relationships have drastically changed just from 5 years ago:smthumbup:


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

chumplady said:


> I think it's true for betrayed men or women, that they tend to be the better spouse. The more invested, together spouse. And the cheaters are narcissistic. It's not that you LACKED something, it's that THEY lacked something -- character, a soul, morals, boundaries.
> 
> I think these books play to a male fear of not being played again. Not being vulnerable. If they can point to something You Did Wrong.
> 
> ...




Well, here is a question. 

You want to shake these poor men, and yell at them "Don't turn into a jerk! Stay a good man! Woman will want you!" 

I have trouble believing in the statement above, because:
If you were right, then we wouldn't hear about all these guys that can't find woman that will value them for who and what they are. 
But these men have trouble finding women that do love them. Instead they find woman that cheat and lie to them, or women that have made a bunch of bad decisions, and are now looking for a safety net. 

So I am going to totally twist this around:
I think we don't have enough jerks. We need more. 
If we had more, then girls would realize how bad these guys are, and finally stop dating them and maybe date a nice guy.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Well I haven't read the entire thread.
But there are a couple things I am certain about.

1] IWhenever a woman calls you a " nice guy " slap yourself hard! Its time for a complete makeover.

2]Never trust a woman to tell you what they are sexually attracted to. 

When I first approached my wife about taking our friendship to another level,she said she was not attracted to me in _that way._
But I knew she was. I just knew.
We remained friends,but she remained single whilst I moved on and had a ton of girls.
Fast forward one year,she is upset and angry with me for no reason. I approach her about two of us again. AGAIN she says that she's not interested and only wants to be " just friends."

Three weeks later, I went to drop something off at her place one morning,and as i was leaving she grabbed my arm , I spun around and our lips locked for an eternity.
But we were supposed to be " just friends."

Today we are married for over 17 years.

There were many " nice guys " around who chased her, but she wanted me. Somehow she was attracted to the point where she was scared and couldn't explain.
But, I saw her as my wife and the rest is history.

" Nice guy " is a cruel word.


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

Caribbean Man, I think she was attracted to your beret and rebelliousness.


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

Post #1000.

(A few more thousands to go then I'm outta here.)


----------



## costa200 (Jun 27, 2012)

> 1] IWhenever a woman calls you a " nice guy " slap yourself hard! Its time for a complete makeover.


Yeah, this 1000x. This is woman code for "i wouldn't sleep with you" or "let's be friends... and nothing else". With time i came to understand those types of womanly lines as a sort of insult. Just glad i had the sense to not be that guy ever since in got my first pubes. 

I know some guys who get that line a lot. There is nothing really wrong with them and they are moral upstanding people. Yet they keep getting crappy relationships and "let's be friends...and nothing else" situations. It's just excruciating to see as a friend. To suffer it must suck donkey balls. But they do put themselves there, no matter my failed attempts to make them see that their way leads to dead ends.

Funny thing is that in college where i was with some of them there was this group of girls who told me in the presence of some of these guys i was sometimes not "sensitive enough" and at times a bit "too macho". I took that in the chin!

Well, guess who came out of college with a relationship that is now 13 years old? Yeah, that would be me. And ironically enough may partner was one of those girls. 

The other guys who were not me? There were 3 of them. One was gay (funny story in that), the other one was very much a nice guy, one of the best people i've ever met, got the "i love you but just not in that way" speech from his girl two weeks after that conversation and struggles to find a woman even to this day and the other one never got a real relationship, ever.

So when women say they want this and that... Meh... Excuse me if i take that with a grain of salt. If they used the rational part of their brains to make choices in men over half of them would not be here in this board. 

A girl knows from an young age what kind of man she should be with. Problem is that guy is boring and unexciting. Women are not excited by that kind of guy (see female oriented erotica). They need a measure of danger and someone who won't be tamed to keep interested. Even when they whine all day that they want a lap dog.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Oh come on, even when my wife and I were just friends it was obvious she didn't like the nicer types. I still make jokes about it from time to time. I've never been a pushover in relationships but it doesn't mean that I'm an a$$ all the time either.

What these books are explaining to men is in the end - BEING A MAN - not being a doormat and being respectable! And the same goes with women too, personally I CAN'T STAND LITTLE GIRLS. I can't stand "women" who do everything for me and can't stick up for themselves. Fk submission! I can't even respect that with women so how the hell can I expect women to respect me if I'm a p---y?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> Caribbean Man, I think she was attracted to your beret and *rebelliousness*.


It was the rebel side of me she was afraid of but sexually attracted to at the same time.


----------



## Atholk (Jul 25, 2009)

chumplady said:


> Didn't want to thread jack another thread, but the book (I think this is the title, please correct me) A Married Man's Sex Life was mentioned.
> 
> Often on betrayed husband threads, there are discussions about whether or not the guy was Too Nice, or did he fail by not being alpha enough, or not achieving the proper alpha / beta ratio in his marriage -- which then leads to its demise and the woman is attracted to someone else.
> 
> ...


If you want a review copy of the book as a fellow blogger, you just have to ask for one so you can review it, instead of writing a complaint about a book you haven't read.

The entire premise of the book is that you can't change your partners behavior, you can only change yours. The Alpha/Beta mix is a discussion on how to change your own behavior to be more attractive in general. Maybe your spouse responds to that, maybe they don't.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> Oh come on, even when my wife and I were just friends it was obvious she didn't like the nicer types. I still make jokes about it from time to time. I've never been a pushover in relationships but it doesn't mean that I'm an a$$ all the time either.
> 
> What these books are explaining to men is in the end - *BEING A MAN - not being a doormat* and being respectable! And the same goes with women too, personally I CAN'T STAND LITTLE GIRLS. I can't stand "women" who do everything for me and can't stick up for themselves. Fk submission! I can't even respect that with women so how the hell can I expect women to respect me if I'm a p---y?


That's why the phrase "Nice Guy" is a misnomer. It's not about whether someone is nice, it has more to do with the amount of self confidence that you have and whether you have enough self respect to put a stop to people trying to walk all over you or take advantage of you. But even despite everything you can do to change yourself, it still doesn't guarantee that you will never be cheated on or that a woman will want to date you. 

The other component to keep in mind is that we can only deal with those things we have control over. Some women on the dating scene (or in marriage even) simply like the "bad boy". No matter how confident you are or how much you have going for you, you'll not be able to get these types of girls or have meaningful relationships with them. The correct response to these situations is to simply tell these women that they are missing out big time and to not bother coming back to you if their "bad boy" relationship doesn't work out. However, the "nice guys" (doormats) make the mistake of trying to win these women over despite their obvious tastes by being even "better people" (more subservient and more giving without receiving back).


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Broken at 20 said:


> Well, here is a question.
> 
> You want to shake these poor men, and yell at them "Don't turn into a jerk! Stay a good man! Woman will want you!"
> 
> .


Here's the problem, if these guys follow Athol's advice, they will likely attract the type of women that is likely to cheat. 

Also, I worked as a Kocktail waitress in Manhattan, while in undergrad and grad school. I had to spell ****tail as Koctail due to filters here,BTW

I can tell you one thing that I found is that men who are realitvely unattractive still try to date a very attractive women. 

That is never going to work.

They need to aspire to date someone who is more or less equal to them in looks, if they want a real loving relationship. 

Sure a guy can flash his wallet, and attract a pretty women. 

But that type of woman is likely a gold digger who will be all too glad to take his largesse, while running on him behind his back or maybe even cuckolding him by secretly bearing another man's child. 

Based on my experience, too many men of average looks go after a very good looking women and then pretend to NOT understand why they were shot down.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> It was the rebel side of me she was afraid of but sexually attracted to at the same time.


Well a rebellious guy can still be a nice guy which translated to most women as trustworthy, loyal, honest and faithful. 

YOu are still faithful I trust so like it or not you are a "nice Guy"

One of my most wild and rebellious brothers has never cheated on his wife. 

He's rebellious but also sensitive kind, faithful and realistic about the foibles of all long term marriages.


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> They need to aspire to date someone who is more or less equal to them in looks, if they want a real loving relationship.


:scratchhead: So let me get this right. In order to be happy, beautiful people should date other beautiful people and ugly people should stick together. Did I get that correct?

If I was butt ugly (and I'm not, thank you very much) I would want a very attractive woman to balance my ugliness - if for nothing else because my kids would stand a better chance of not being ugly themselves.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> However, the "nice guys" (doormats) make the mistake of trying to win these women over despite their obvious tastes by being even "better people" (more subservient and more giving without receiving back).


Good points, all of them, and that is the problem I have with Athol's advice. 

He is telling a man to be something that he is not, and that never works in the long haul. 

If someone is not interested or behaves like a jerk, why change to try to win them over. 

It's an act that can not be sustained for very long by any realistic standard. 

Following Athol's advice would be setting oneself up for being cheated on by a difficult to please person. 

Why bother.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> :scratchhead: So let me get this right. In order to be happy, beautiful people should date other beautiful people and ugly people should stick together. Did I get that correct?
> 
> If I was butt ugly (and I'm not, thank you very much) I would want a very attractive woman to balance my ugliness - if for nothing else because my kids would stand a better chance of not being ugly themselves.


Well, if you do some research and review the studies. 

Yep, that's what they show. They show that people who are almost equal to each other in all repects, looks, familial background, financial situation, etc., stay married. 

Take it or leave that information. 

Of course if if a man is butt ugly you can flash your wad and some women might be attracted to that. 

And, if they are not too alert, they will likely find some one of lessor stature financially but better looking to take as supplemental sexual relationship, behind your back.

That's where they got the expression there's no fool like an old fool. 

A rich old fool....fools himself into believing that his beautiful younger wife actually loves him for more than just his paycheck.

And when she gets pregnant, the old fools are likely to egotistical (or too scared if they are smart) to do a DNA test on the child.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> :scratchhead: So let me get this right. In order to be happy, beautiful people should date other beautiful people and ugly people should stick together. Did I get that correct?
> 
> If I was butt ugly (and I'm not, thank you very much) I would want a very attractive woman to balance my ugliness - if for nothing else because my kids would stand a better chance of not being ugly themselves.




"*Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder*."

There seems to be a lot of truth in that! I had a frat brother in college who had a great personality, good physique, not wealthy, but was "butt-ugly" in the face. He ended up marrying a lower-middle class girl who was completely the opposite from him, as she had no figure, no personality, except she was even more "butt-ugly" than him. They seemed so well-suited for each other.

They ended up having 4 kids(2 boys/2 girls) and all of those kids were totally handsome and beautiful and grew into very attractive young adults.

Bottomline: Genetics undoubtedly can play some pretty funny tricks on people!


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Here's the problem, if these guys follow Athol's advice, they will likely attract the type of women that is likely to cheat.
> 
> Also, I worked as a Kocktail waitress in Manhattan, while in undergrad and grad school. I had to spell ****tail as Koctail due to filters here,BTW
> 
> ...


Um...and you said you read the book?

One of the MAJOR underpining of the book is 'be realistic in what you can drag in.'

If you are a five, and you try to date an 8, she's going to cheat or be very unhappy for 'settling'. His advice is to up your game as much as possible, but Danny Devito is NOT pulling Angelina Jolie in this lifetime no matter how much he bench presses, alphas, beta's, or gamma's.

He also states that gaining even a point is difficult and raising your game two points takes a lifetime of dedication. But he suggests making the effort.

This is no different then advising a girlfriend that, yes, the quarterback is out of her league because she's flat, has mouse brown hair, and she's shy as a churchmouse. Isn't happening. But you, being kindhearted, also advise her that with some highlights, some mascara, a nice little push up and a red dress, she might get the place kicker.

This was only in the first chapter so I understand how you could miss it...


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

We should change the thread title, from "nice" guys to, "dumb" guys. I'm nice but that doesn't automatically mean I'm your friend. I'm nice but that does not mean you are in charge. I'm nice but that doesn't mean I'll let you screw me over. I'm nice and that does not mean I can be a jerk more than half the time which makes it a lot more cherish able when I am nice. Nice guys can come in first with a smile, while the "dumb" guys are in last place in a self pity party depressed taking meds. Poor peeps.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

JCD said:


> Um...and you said you read the book?
> 
> One of the MAJOR underpining of the book is 'be realistic in what you can drag in.'


Ah but you continually miss the point. 

He may say that, but his advice is not going to help a man realistically drag in what he can realistically drag in. 

Athols advice is going to hurt a man who follows it in the long run. 

He doesn't care, he's selling books. Kudos to him for that, but you can't really take this butt ugly guy too seriously, can you?

If his wife is attractive, it's likely 'cause he's flashed his wad, not shot it in alpha mode.

Acting like an Alpha when one is a nerd, is not going to work, and will decidely attract the wrong type of women for him. And, he won't be able to keep up the pretense for long.

Hope that's clear now.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

CleanJerkSnatch said:


> We should change the thread title, from "nice" guys to, "dumb" guys. I'm nice but that doesn't automatically mean I'm your friend. I'm nice but that does not mean you are in charge. I'm nice but that doesn't mean I'll let you screw me over.
> 
> I'm nice and that does not mean I can be a jerk more than half the time which makes it a lot more cherish able when I am nice. Nice guys can come in first with a smile, while the "dumb" guys are in last place in a self pity party depressed taking meds. Poor peeps.


Excellent post and advice. 

I feel the same. I'm a really nice person until someone phucks with me. Then it's no more mrs. nice gal. And in neither stage is it a game. It's a true visceral reaction to circumstances and how others treat me.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Acting like an Alpha when one is a nerd, is not going to work, and will decidely attract the wrong type of women for him. And, he won't be able to keep up the pretense for long.
> 
> Hope that's clear now.


:lol:


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

arbitrator said:


> "*Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder*."
> 
> There seems to be a lot of truth in that! I had a frat brother in college who had a great personality, good physique, not wealthy, but was "butt-ugly" in the face. He ended up marrying a lower-middle class girl who was completely the opposite from him, as she had no figure, no personality, except she was even more "butt-ugly" than him. They seemed so well-suited for each other.
> 
> ...


Arbitrator, your butt-ugly friend might want to DNA those beautiful kids toute de suite. :rofl:


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

nice guys gets sloppy seconds!

best to look for someone your equal in as many respects as you can.

seems like there are more pretty women with ulgy men than the other way around.

can we say plan B until plan A shows up.


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

chillymorn said:


> nice guys gets sloppy seconds!


Nice guys are lucky to get dirty thirds.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Ah but you continually miss the point.
> 
> He may say that, but his advice is not going to help a man realistically drag in what he can realistically drag in.
> 
> ...


blink blink

Because being a confident nerd isn't going to help? Being a non-couch potato nerd isn't going to help?

Ever heard of the term 'fake it till you make it'? Works in relationships. Maybe, just maybe, it can work in the relationship with yourself.

I started doing some training. Know what? I'm a hell of a lot more confident then I used to be. That simple.

But I also realize that I've spent two days arguing with you over something I don't give much of a damn about.

Athol is a hack. Got it. His advice (despite testimony from many male posters here) is total quackery and is at best a short term bandaid nerds use to cover up their inadequacies. They are and shall remain nerds (Your words this time) Not confident nerds. Not in shape nerds. Not nerds who might actually use the advice to have the balls to ASK a girl out.

It's all hogwash.

I accept your condemnation and I'll still boot it up on my flight home, looking for ways I can layer the bandaids in an attractive fashion. Hopefully I'll get the ones with extra stick.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Excellent post and advice.
> 
> I feel the same. I'm a really nice person until someone phucks with me. Then it's no more mrs. nice gal. And in neither stage is it a game. It's a true visceral reaction to circumstances and how others treat me.


Some people feel awkward to express how they really feel. Instead of saying "NO" or turning someone's invitation down for something you do not like WE LIE. We do not like to say be straight forward, are we all a bunch of "nice" cowards?

Example, most people do set professional boundaries at work. They do not want to discuss the issue, bring it up, introduce the boundaries, they avoid it, its awkward, they don't want to hear about it, see it, out of sight out of mind. Yet, they do not feel it awkward to BANG their co workers and cheat on their spouses with multiple partners. Yet they feel awkward or do not want to confront their BS because they will hurt them and they can't take it because, well they're too nice, and they'll get hurt and deep down I'm ashamed of what I did.

Most "nice" guys correlate to "nice" woman, who are afraid of confrontations, afraid of feeling awkward, afraid of over stepping anyone else's boundaries so they do not even ask if the other person has boundaries and/or what they're boundaries are. Some people feel more awkward of catching someone red handed than the person who got caught.

I read a thread a couple days back that a poor BS' sister went to his house and knew that the wife was cheating on him, and when she heard moaning she decided to leave and not bother entering the house (i'm sure she had a key). Open that door up walk in there, and then the best you can do is apologize if it was just them masturbating (they are alone).




When I was in 5th grade, a magician came to our school and showed us a 10 dollar bill on stage and said "I'm going to give away this money, WHO WANTS THIS?!" 

Everyone raised their hands desperately "me me me me me" yet no one went up there to grab it and he said "if you want something you get up and you go get it, don't be afraid of saying no" Sure they were talking about drugs, but hek, what is a drug anyway if not the food we eat to the people we see?


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Well I have read Athol's book (BTW Athol my kindle version is missing a few sentences) And enjoyed it. I have used some but not all the suggestions and techniques, even down to the "You're welcome" after she mentioned a little soreness after a 'rough ride' the previous night. She grinned like a cheshire cat and couldn't keep her hands off me all morning. You women are funny I expected her to be a bit pissed that I had been a little rough but she wasn't.
We are not into the slightly dom/sub theme that Athol mentions with his wife, but we do play act a little, i.e my occasional dominant forceful sex in which she has to feel my overpowering desire and lust for her. But we also sometimes go down the route where she will queen me. It's all good. And although it is a sub thing I do actually enjoy the 'Queen' position.

I regard myself as a naturally beta person who just does some alpha things quite naturally, and the book enables you to get a handle on the things you are doing and insert appropriate alpha traits into your life.
And I do get the point that a few posters on here are making that you cannot be something you are not. I am not going to be able to go from being the good father, good husband, provider who holds down a good secure job,attentive lover etc to being the leader of the pack who couldn't give a crap about anyone but himself. I wouldn't want to be that person and I know my innate niceness would always show itself.
BTW my wife is pleased with the changes I have made but has asked me not to go too 'alpha'. Although she appreciates the changes made she has asked me to always remain the 'tender' husband she married.
We have chatted about the alpha/beta thing and my wife agrees she played around with the alpha guys when younger but doesn't see her decision to marry me as me being the 'safe, home provider' guy but just the guy she happened to love enough to marry.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> Arbitrator, your butt-ugly friend might want to DNA those beautiful kids toute de suite. :rofl:


No, actually, His remark about genetics is true. 

Both parents can be ugly and have beautiful children that look like great grandparents or other relatives. 

It's really not that unusual. 

Also, don't forget plastic surgery. Most people have big noses, crooked teeth, large chins, surgically corrected as soon as possible, today. 

Even 20 years ago that was unusual, but now parents realize how important it is to correct features that are making the face less attractive.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> I have used some but not all the suggestions and techniques, even down to the "You're welcome" after she mentioned a little soreness after a 'rough ride' the previous night. She grinned like a cheshire cat and couldn't keep her hands off me all morning.


I see your wife loves you and understands that she would rather stroke your ego than admit she didn't like your alpha romp.

But I am glad she noted that she didn't want you to change TOO much. 

Women don't always ask for what they truly want, perhaps your wife went halfway with her request hoping you can read her mind. 

When I read her mind I see, she is pleased that you were into her sexually, (hence the grin), but she really prefers the old you. The pre Athol, you.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS (Jul 13, 2012)

I don't have a dog in this fight. I think Athol can be helpful to a number of people but I also think that he did not write the bible for how men should act or behave. I think the guy is filling a void that in the past used to be learned through life experiences growing up. If Athol helps some men improve themselves, then great. If it helps you to classify people into neat and tidy categories like alpha, beta, etc, then by all means learn from Athol. I don't dismiss him out of hand but I also don't think that he is peddling any gnosis that provides the secret meanings necessary relationships either. 

If your wife has lost interest in you and has eyes for other men and you are:


Overweight
Do the majority of the housework plus work
Allow your wife to put you down without fighting back
Constantly try to do special deeds for her while she could care less (does not reciprocate).

Common sense should tell you what steps you need to take to either win back your wife's affections or make yourself better for the next woman in your life. You shouldn't need Athol to guide you in what to do in this circumstance. JMHO and I don't mean to offend anyone if I did. It was purely accidental.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> No, actually, His remark about genetics is true.
> 
> *Both parents can be ugly and have beautiful children that look like great grandparents or other relatives. *
> 
> It's really not that unusual.




I've seen that before. 

Everyone is beautiful (on the outside), good thing everyone has different tastes, but we focus on that too much. What we need to focus on is being beautiful in our souls. Its easy to be born with looks, or to work out, but its not easy being a straight shooter, a person with self respect that gains respect for having admirable qualities and unshakable morals and dedication to spouse and family.

IMHO Real men (married) have no "alone" time. From your marriage onward, your alone time is gone, and all your time is for the love of your wife and for the love of posterity!


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

CleanJerkSnatch said:


> IMHO Real men (married) have no "alone" time. From your marriage onward, your alone time is gone, and all your time is for the love of your wife and for the love of posterity!


Do you hold women to the same standard?

Because it seems boilerplate Oprah speak that women need 'something outside the home' to make them feel 'complete'.

If it's good for one, it's good for the other. If it's NOT good for one, it isn't good at ALL for the other.

And personally, I think you're wrong. Men need cave time. I know I get grumpy if I don't spend a bit of each day not being hounded by the rugrats or the wife. It isn't me being mean, or *****y or selfish.

It's me decompressing.

BTW, I assume from that statement that every time you're jerking snatchs cleanly, your SO or kids is there with you? No? But that isn't alone time or time just for you?

Just trying to clarify.

I mean this humorously but seriously.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> Arbitrator, your butt-ugly friend might want to DNA those beautiful kids toute de suite. :rofl:


Count: Don't think for a minute that the rest of us didn't make jokes about them when we were off at parties and such. As crass as it may be, it was even joked about that they married each other chiefly because that their probability was far greater of having sex with each other without either excessively drinking or actually being thrown out of bed by the other! 

Statistically, I think that they would have had pretty much a 75% chance of of turning out an offspring that would have been as homely as they were.

This couple was totally devoted to each other, spent all their free time together, and I, for one, really liked them as a couple. To my knowledge, they are still married to each other today, which is nearly some 40 years later!


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

JCD said:


> Do you hold women to the same standard?
> 
> Because it seems boilerplate Oprah speak that women need 'something outside the home' to make them feel 'complete'.
> 
> ...


I agree, but the cave time does not mean it has to be outside the home. That is the reason we sleep and take vacations. We sleep to rest from the day to start anew, we take vacations to rest from our schedules and recharge.

Think of the "cave time" a wife with children would have. A lot less than the husband would.

Don't live in the cave, you are deceived, there is a world out there, take everyone camping, your family and children will thank you for shutting down your cave time for them.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

JCD said:


> BTW, I assume from that statement that every time you're jerking snatchs cleanly, your SO or kids is there with you? No? But that isn't alone time or time just for you?
> 
> Just trying to clarify.
> 
> I mean this humorously but seriously.


:scratchhead: :lol:

You said that on purpose huh? You're going to confuse people and mislead them with that clean jerk snatch you're throwing around. 

I definitely agree with you.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

CleanJerkSnatch said:


> I agree, but the cave time does not mean it has to be outside the home. That is the reason we sleep and take vacations. We sleep to rest from the day to start anew, we take vacations to rest from our schedules and recharge.
> 
> Think of the "cave time" a wife with children would have. A lot less than the husband would.
> 
> Don't live in the cave, you are deceived, there is a world out there, take everyone camping, your family and children will thank you for shutting down your cave time for them.


I agree with both your posts. 

When a married person, man or woman, starts screaming about needing space and wanting time out with friends, IMO, that is a sure indication that they are not really into the marriage and maybe never were.

I never felt the need for a girls night out or a girl's only vacation. 

I always preferred to go with my spouse. I wouldn't even enjoy going on such things. 

I had enough alone time at work or during the day when we did separate chores.


----------



## missymrs80 (Aug 5, 2012)

My husband is a total full on 100% nice guy.....BUT he is not beta according to athol kays book. He is a mix of alpha and beta. Read the book first, it will make more sense when you do.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

And what are alpha and beta traits anyway. I couldn't tell you what I am really.


My last few days have been like this;

Did two nights in a row at the gym, haven't long started so big mistake. Worked very very hard on upper body/arms to the point where my arms trembled and later lost all strength. Alpha?

Later in bed my wife found it highly amusing that the man who would normally be able to wrestle her round the bed if he wished was almost helpless against her. Embarrasing! Beta?

The next day was a day off (Thursday) so cleaned around the house, hoovered etc. Sat on TAM far too long, oops!

Did the shopping. Beta?

On the way back home (walking not driving) I decided to pop into the pub for a swifty. Wife isn't keen on me drinking but I can't see the harm in one and I don't always do what I am told. Alpha?

Cooked garlic and ginger stir fry chicken with baby sweetcorn and mange-tout, accompanied by rice. Beta?

Told wife I was fishing all weekend for a competition. She wasn't happy, complained we wouldn't see much of each other, still going though. Alpha?

Good hard sex in the night in which I coaxed an orgasm out of her even though she was sure she wouldn't. Alpha?

On the thirteenth of this month going for a week with my man friends to a little island called Herm for a week of fishing, drinking and generally being a guy. Alpha?

So what am I? Alpha or beta? I suspect that like all of us I am a mixture of the two.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

missymrs80 said:


> My husband is a total full on 100% nice guy.....BUT he is not beta according to athol kays book. He is a mix of alpha and beta. Read the book first, it will make more sense when you do.


We are referring to athol's advice in general. Not his word for word writings.

I understand what he says in writing. I still think it's an asinine approach and will eventually backfire on most men.

BTW: Athol's blog frequently contradicts his book.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> I see your wife loves you and understands that she would rather stroke your ego than admit she didn't like your alpha romp.


The arrogance astounds. Sara8 is so brilliant that she alone has cracked the mysteries of the human soul. Sure, Athol may write one thing in this book, but Sara8 understands that he actually means the exact opposite. Sure, hundreds of men may claim that the advice has helped their relationships, but Sara8 alone understands that they're either lying, or too stupid to know that they're not really happy. Sure, a man may report, secondhand, what his wife's reaction to a c0cky, funny remark was. But, Sara8 is so omnipotent, that she can read her mind, through his, over the internet.

I mean, it's one thing, as some have done, to argue that Athol's style isn't your cup of tea. That's reasonable. It's even reasonable to argue that his advice won't work in every marriage, or even in a significant portion of marriages. But it's just mindbogglingly stupid to argue that his advice is completely worthless and will never, ever, work in the face of testimonials to the contrary.

At this point, Sara8 has gone beyond simply trying to point out the book's flaws into shamelessly trolling.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> And what are alpha and beta traits anyway. I couldn't tell you what I am really.
> 
> 
> My last few days have been like this;
> ...



Exactly. My only argumentative point is that these books try to break it down as if it were some kind of personality map. Simple enough, there is ALWAYS at LEAST ONE proper way to act for every situation we are in. 

All we need to do is think before we speak, act, and even think before we think something about someone else. Its so hard to always be thinking. Thank GOD I'm a man and not a woman whose minds are always on 24/7 even as they asleep. 

Women are scary creatures, we are so simple, on and off. All women need to know is how to work a light switch. (kidding of course)


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight. I think Athol can be helpful to a number of people but I also think that he did not write the bible for how men should act or behave. I think the guy is filling a void that in the past used to be learned through life experiences growing up. If Athol helps some men improve themselves, then great. If it helps you to classify people into neat and tidy categories like alpha, beta, etc, then by all means learn from Athol. I don't dismiss him out of hand but I also don't think that he is peddling any gnosis that provides the secret meanings necessary relationships either.


I agree with this, especially the point about Athol's offering an analysis that was usually gleaned from life experience.

What is especially notable to me is the near unanimity of agreement on the part of men on this thread that MMSL is a valuable resource to them. It clearly resonates with them & for that reason alone imo should not be dismissed. Social scientists use reactions like this to test their theories. 

As a woman, the reaction of the men here is very interesting because it gives me a window into how men are thinking that I definitely would not have otherwise. (And I'm not talking about Athol's theories, but all the comments in this thread.) This sort of discussion actually helps me see my H and son in a different way.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

How to turn on a man vs how to turn on a woman.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> The arrogance astounds. Sara8 is so brilliant that she alone has cracked the mysteries of the human soul. Sure, Athol may write one thing in this book, but Sara8 understands that he actually means the exact opposite. Sure, hundreds of men may claim that the advice has helped their relationships, but Sara8 alone understands that they're either lying, or too stupid to know that they're not really happy. Sure, a man may report, secondhand, what his wife's reaction to a c0cky, funny remark was. But, Sara8 is so omnipotent, that she can read her mind, through his, over the internet.
> 
> I mean, it's one thing, as some have done, to argue that Athol's style isn't your cup of tea. That's reasonable. It's even reasonable to argue that his advice won't work in every marriage, or even in a significant portion of marriages. But it's just mindbogglingly stupid to argue that his advice is completely worthless and will never, ever, work in the face of testimonials to the contrary.
> 
> At this point, Sara8 has gone beyond simply trying to point out the book's flaws into shamelessly trolling.


I see you didn't answer my previous question. 

That was: Do you think Murder is evil:

Are you avoiding it?

In any case you have misinterpreted what I have said. 

And there are no relevant long term reputable studies at ay university or research level to back up the claim that Athol's advice has PERMANENTLY worked for anyone. The book is too new.

I already agree, it is likely a short term fix. 

Like a woman playing hard to get to attract a guy who wasn't really all that into her. 

It works initially, but not in the long haul. 

Anyway, I am glad to see you back PHT lump, despite your obnoxious post. 

I thought I scared you off with my question about murder. 

Believe it or not, I actually think you are one of the few guys who is truly remorseful about his affair and trying to make things right. 

I hope things work out for you, as you are one of the few who seems to have learned how harmful infidelity can be to a marriage.

And, BTW, if you answered my question about murder.......No.....I wasn't going to slam you. Quite the opposite. I was going to explain something.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> The arrogance astounds. Sara8 is so brilliant that she alone has cracked the mysteries of the human soul. Sure, Athol may write one thing in this book, but Sara8 understands that he actually means the exact opposite. Sure, hundreds of men may claim that the advice has helped their relationships, but Sara8 alone understands that they're either lying, or too stupid to know that they're not really happy. Sure, a man may report, secondhand, what his wife's reaction to a c0cky, funny remark was. But, Sara8 is so omnipotent, that she can read her mind, through his, over the internet.
> 
> I mean, it's one thing, as some have done, to argue that Athol's style isn't your cup of tea. That's reasonable. It's even reasonable to argue that his advice won't work in every marriage, or even in a significant portion of marriages. But it's just mindbogglingly stupid to argue that his advice is completely worthless and will never, ever, work in the face of testimonials to the contrary.
> 
> At this point, Sara8 has gone beyond simply trying to point out the book's flaws into shamelessly trolling.


Lets look at it a different way with out arguing endlessly about a book that I have not even read (sorry, if I may sound so full of myself to say that I do not think I need it).

You can't teach a boy how to become a man, you have to be show him.

You can't be taught how to be a man and you definitely can't learn it by reading it from a book.

There are no instructions to being a man. For those men that grew up in split homes and have become great men (my father), my hats off to them because I have no excuse for my failures.

When a husband and wife are in balance with the amount of marriage input and they choose to do good over bad then it does not matter if you are alpha or beta, or gamma. Stand for what is right and expect nothing less. Life is always handing out short ends, play the hand you have the best you can.

This alpha beta bologna has always had me confused because I can say I'm gamma, and alpha, and sometimes it just depends in what situation I am in that I should learn when to shut up and learn... like now,:scratchhead: sorry for going off on a rant, I do that when I am confused.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

CleanJerkSnatch said:


> Lets look at it a different way with out arguing endlessly about a book that I have not even read (sorry, if I may sound so full of myself to say that I do not think I need it).
> 
> You can't teach a boy how to become a man, you have to be show him.
> 
> ...


I don't see it as a rant. I see it as valuable input to an interesting many faceted discussion. You make quite a few excellent points.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

CleanJerkSnatch said:


> Lets look at it a different way with out arguing endlessly about a book that I have not even read (sorry, if I may sound so full of myself to say that I do not think I need it).
> 
> You can't teach a boy how to become a man, you have to be show him.
> 
> ...


That is a whole other can of worms.

Men have aborogated the teaching of our sons to the women...and they don't know how to be men, how men behave, how to inspire them which doesn't involve food or sex (things men generally don't offer other men) etc.

Men have not become teachers. With the divorce rate, men are barely fathers. And the women just label boy behavior 'bad' or if they are feeling generous "ADHD".

Hmm.

They have raised a generation of boys past puberty (I won't say into adulthood) and they wonder where all the good men have gone.

You got what you made. In some ways. It's obviously more complicated then that, but I think it's a factor.

Rant over.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> I see you didn't answer my previous question.
> 
> That was: Do you think Murder is evil:
> 
> Are you avoiding it?


I was, indeed, avoiding it. I frequently avoid stupid comments and questions. Do you think stupid questions should be taken seriously?



Sara8 said:


> And there are no relevant long term reputable studies at ay university or research level to back up the claim that Athol's advice has PERMANENTLY worked for anyone. The book is too new.


Are there any studies at any university that prove that any book is a PERMANENT fix for any problem? Please provide a link.

Does the fact that something hasn't been independently proven to be a permanent solution necessarily mean that it can't be a permanent solution? I wouldn't think so.



Sara8 said:


> It works initially, but not in the long haul.


Athol has been blogging for nearly three years. So, your long haul is obviously longer than that. Do you define long haul as five years? Ten years? Fifty years?

If advice improves a marriage for only seven years, does that make the advice worthless? Since you are arguing that the advice could temporarily fix a marriage, are you arguing that women would be attracted to a confident man for a few years and then stop being attracted to confident men? Do you have any evidence for that?



Sara8 said:


> I thought I scared you off with my question about murder.


:scratchhead:



Sara8 said:


> Believe it or not, I actually think you are one of the few guys who is truly remorseful about his affair and trying to make things right.


You have me confused with someone else. I've never had an affair.


----------



## costa200 (Jun 27, 2012)

> This alpha beta bologna has always had me confused because I can say I'm gamma, and alpha, and sometimes it just depends in what situation I am in that I should learn when to shut up and learn... like now, sorry for going off on a rant, I do that when I am confused.


Funny you should say this because this book actually manages to debunk the traditional "alpha" and "beta" stuff and talks instead of alpha traits and beta traits. In a way that men can have a set of them and are not themselves alpha or beta. So, instead, your actions, not you, are alpha or beta.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

I just love observing ego clashes from the sidelines!!!


carry on...


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

JCD said:


> That is a whole other can of worms.
> 
> Men have aborogated the teaching of our sons to the women...and they don't know how to be men, how men behave, how to inspire them which doesn't involve food or sex (things men generally don't offer other men) etc.
> 
> ...


Yes, yes.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

She's arguing that a man can't keep up a confident demeanor if it's fake.

I don't think that's accurate. You can take a quiet guy, stick him in the Corps, and get an arrogant a$$ out of it...I mean CONFIDENT. A REALLY REALLY CONFIDENT guy...who wants to roll over everyone in his path.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

costa200 said:


> Funny you should say this because this book actually manages to debunk the traditional "alpha" and "beta" stuff and talks instead of alpha traits and beta traits. In a way that men can have a set of them and are not themselves alpha or beta. So, instead, your actions, not you, are alpha or beta.


I understand, thank you for explaining that.

"our actions define who we are"


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

CleanJerkSnatch said:


> Yes, yes.


Hey, I'm one of them! I'm trying to figure this crap out on my own these days! My dad was almost NO help.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

JCD said:


> ...
> 
> Men have aborogated the teaching of our sons to the women...and they don't know how to be men, how men behave, how to inspire them which doesn't involve food or sex (things men generally don't offer other men) etc.
> 
> ...


I definitely raised my son, even though I was married. My husband chose to abrogate responsibility - he was following where his professional ambition led him & it wasn't to cub scout meetings, throwing the ball around in the back yard, or bonding with our son in pretty much any way. I begged him to pay more attention to his son. He was after all his biggest role model. My son has real issues from all of that. But I did the best I could.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

CleanJerkSnatch said:


> You can't teach a boy how to become a man, you have to be show him.
> 
> You can't be taught how to be a man and you definitely can't learn it by reading it from a book.


I disagree. Information can be disseminated in many ways, including via books. Really, all Athol's book does is list things that are attractive to women. Many men never gained that knowledge growing up. And learning it late gives them an opportunity to adjust their behavior to be more attractive to women.

I disagree that boys need a confident, assertive, handsome, physically fit role model in order to grow up to be those things. I agree that having a proper role model is the easiest way for a boy to incorporate those traits into this personality. But I'm not a fan of the predestination crowd who argue that a shy boy can never be an assertive man.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

JCD said:


> She's arguing that a man can't keep up a confident demeanor if it's fake.
> 
> I don't think that's accurate. You can take a quiet guy, stick him in the Corps, and get an arrogant a$$ out of it...I mean CONFIDENT. A REALLY REALLY CONFIDENT guy...who wants to roll over everyone in his path.


I think that hits it on the nail if its just a little boot camp and some "yes sir, yes mam"

What if the experience is extreme for example, war. Most vietnam vets were nice guys and I know quite a few that said they came back angry and pissed off at "everyone" and tolerated very little from "everyone."

I know all of us can agree that our build up of life experiences has a relative affect of who we are and what we have become. You don't become strong from lifting the same boring lame weight over and over. You become strong by overcoming extreme difficulties, by failing and falling, that gives no excuse to cheating, but who says the BS do not have a hard time. I'm sure they've been tempted and remain being "NICE" and choose to be "NICE" for their faithful spouse instead.

We are not animals, we rationalize, reason, we can't let our desires control us. Cheating at the instant opportunity for it whether the spouse was a "nice" guy or not has nothing to do with the actual action of cheating. I'm sure there are plenty of "nice" guys out there cheating on their wives and doing all the housework and are overweight and are pushovers yet there is always some desperate person out there willing to put out for them. 

I will quote JCD most important written words ever,

"Rant over"


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> I disagree. Information can be disseminated in many ways, including via books. Really, all Athol's book does is list things that are attractive to women. Many men never gained that knowledge growing up. And learning it late gives them an opportunity to adjust their behavior to be more attractive to women.
> 
> I disagree that boys need a confident, assertive, handsome, physically fit role model in order to grow up to be those things.* I agree that having a proper role model is the easiest way for a boy to incorporate those traits into this personality*. But I'm not a fan of the predestination crowd who argue that a shy boy can never be an assertive man.


There is an exception of course, I agree that one can learn it beyond having an example but it only makes it that much more difficult for the person who did not have an example, they will seek other examples, other brother hoods, gangs etc. I definitely appreciate the fact that you didn't take it out of context.


----------



## costa200 (Jun 27, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> I definitely raised my son, even though I was married. My husband chose to abrogate responsibility - he was following where his professional ambition led him & it wasn't to cub scout meetings, throwing the ball around in the back yard, or bonding with our son in pretty much any way. I begged him to pay more attention to his son. He was after all his biggest role model. My son has real issues from all of that. But I did the best I could.


That's a tragedy, your husband deserves some lashings for not doing his job as a father the proper way.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> I was, indeed, avoiding it. I frequently avoid stupid comments and questions. Do you think stupid questions should be taken seriously?
> 
> 
> Are there any studies at any university that prove that any book is a PERMANENT fix for any problem? Please provide a link.
> ...


Well then why do you defend affairs so vigorously and haunt the infidelity board so much? 

I doubt you will answer, you will define the question as stupid. That's at the very least an artful dodge. 

As for long term study. Google it, to find out what a relevant long term study would be regarding a life long experience such as a marriage.

I could give you the answer, but as my mama used to say: People learn best when they find the answers themselves. 

And that's another issue I have with Athol's advice.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> I definitely raised my son, even though I was married. My husband chose to abrogate responsibility - he was following where his professional ambition led him & it wasn't to cub scout meetings, throwing the ball around in the back yard, or bonding with our son in pretty much any way. I begged him to pay more attention to his son. He was after all his biggest role model. My son has real issues from all of that. But I did the best I could.


Please don't feel bad about this. I'm sure you are doing the best that you could and the fact that you are willing to read men's help books speaks very well of you instead of reading the advice of a woman speaking to women about what being a boy is all about in clinical and semi horrified tones. ;D

Many women WISH they had someone to do the job they are stuck with and I'm glad you brought up this point.

I, unfortunately, am away from my son for long periods so I found a group of male role models for him to spend time with. It's the Boy Scouts. Amazingly, they never ONCE had a 'pummel the gay guy' merit badge.

The boy seems to be turning out okay.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Really, all Athol's book does is list things that are attractive to women. Many men never gained that knowledge growing up. And learning it late gives them an opportunity to adjust their behavior to be more attractive to women.


Uhm. If you want to find out what makes a man attractive to a women, don't ya' think you should interview a majority of women?

...Not just one, either. A large cross section of the population because there are exceptions to every rule.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Well then why do you defend affairs so vigorously and haunt the infidelity board so much?


His point of view, his choice. Sara, you need to understand that all of us have our own way of interpreting situations and we all have our own likes and dislikes. You can't force anyone to think differently or like you. We're all different and chumplady(nice name btw) started this discussion to hear all our opinions and presented her own. If PHTlump likes the book, thats his choice. If you don't like the book, your choice. I like his humor and even though I don't wish to compartmentalize all the aspects of my personality into two sets, my logical mind agrees with him on most of his points.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

costa200 said:


> That's a tragedy, your husband deserves some lashings for not doing his job as a father the proper way.


My husband woke up to things as he got older, but sadly the damage was done with both our children. They love him - he is after all a decent man, just flawed like all of us - but they are almost matter-of-fact in their belief that he was an absent father & really will never get all of their respect because of that. In their eyes, he made a very conscious choice not to be around for them & as adults, they recognize it as such & will not make excuses for it. I actually feel bad for him as I watch him try to make things up to them.


----------



## Cubby (Mar 28, 2012)

I've been married for 20 years, and I have to credit Athol's book/blog, along with educating myself about the wiring of the female mind, for possibly saving my marriage. I'm also thankful for many of the posters here with their great advice and wisdom. I now have a much better marriage. 

I've always been naturally beta, a true nice guy. And I always will be a nice guy, which is great. That's who I am. But adding alpha traits has made a big difference in my marriage and in my life. And that's what Athol recommends. It's made me more confident and less lazy. 

I used to think marriage didn't take much work. I was wrong, it does. But in which direction? Athol is good at pointing the married man in the right direction. I'm now firm and decisive, a true leader of our family. I also work out regularly, lift weights, dress better, to keep up a sharper and more attractive appearance. I do more manly jobs around the house now. It's interesting how my wife likes to see me carry around a hammer. It touches something deep and ancient in her female brain chemistry.

After 20 years, attraction can wane. That's what happened to my wife. She had a mild EA with a personal trainer. He's a big muscle-y guy who likes to hunt and drives a pickup truck. She later told me she liked that rugged image he portrayed. I suppose that was a sharp contrast to the suburbanized sensitive guy I had become. 

Since I've made changes, we truly have a new marriage. The changes aren't phony and haven't changed fundamentally who I am, they are more changes at the edges, just things that allow me to slip into alpha territory here and there, which keeps her attracted too me.

My wife and I now exercise together, and have firm boundaries. She knows I won't tolerate any male "friends," which is alpha of me. I knew I had arrived when we were at the gym and, noticing my rapid improvement, my wife remarked, "Wow, can you stop getting so fit now? I'm worried some young hottie's gonna snap you up!"


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

MMSL is a tool that can be a big help to most men. Like any other tool, it's up to the user to employ it effectively. It's not like Athol is teaching guys how to be pickup artists (if you want that you should read 'The Game' by Neil Strauss.)

I just don't get the vitriol that's being poured on this book - mostly by the fairer sex - some of whom who hadn't even bothered to read the book. I think the problem is that the detractors read (or don't read) Athol's teachings and think: 'Malarkey, I WOULD NEVER STAND FOR THAT.' Maybe they wouldn't but can they really be sure?

The bottomline is that people can be manipulated in good and bad ways. I think Athol's goal is to help men manipulate themselves and their spouses for the betterment of the marriage. And sometimes the betterment means going separate ways.

I remember years ago reading 'The Rules of the Game' by Iceberg Slim, who was a notorious pimp that helped to make Oakland, CA the pimp capital of the world at one time. He said that one of the techniques that he used to recruit prostitutes was to walk up to a woman sitting alone in a bar and ask her to buy him a drink. If she told him to go fvck himself then she wasn't a good prospect. However, if she bought him the drink then he knew that he could have her do his bidding (prostitute herself.) I wonder how many young girls could've been saved from a life of misery if they had been taught this information before meeting Iceberg Slim. I know that I would've been spared a lot of grief and misery if I had known about the stuff in MMSL sooner.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

JCD said:


> I, unfortunately, am away from my son for long periods so I found a group of male role models for him to spend time with. It's the Boy Scouts. Amazingly, they never ONCE had a 'pummel the gay guy' merit badge.
> 
> The boy seems to be turning out okay.


Costa200, take out the whip, I'll strike you count, let me know when to stop the lashing.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> His point of view, his choice. Sara, you need to understand that all of us have our own way of interpreting situations and we all have our own likes and dislikes. You can't force anyone to think differently or like you. We're all different and chumplady(nice name btw) started this discussion to hear all our opinions and presented her own. If PHTlump likes the book, thats his choice. If you don't like the book, your choice. I like his humor and even though I don't wish to compartmentalize all the aspects of my personality into two sets, my logical mind agrees with him on most of his points.


Uhm, last I checked Bjorn this was a DISCUSSION FORUM. People typically share an exchange of opinions in a discussion. 

Your pointed point is irrelevant because any intelligent person understands that opinions may vary in a discussion. :bounce:

BTW: if one does not want to engage in a discussion thread all they need do is not open it or read it or participate.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> MMSL is a tool that can be a big help to most men. Like any other tool, it's up to the user to employ it effectively. It's not like Athol is teaching guys how to be pickup artists (if you want that you should read 'The Game' by Neil Strauss.)
> 
> I just don't get the vitriol that's being poured on this book - mostly by the fairer sex - some of whom who hadn't even bothered to read the book. I think the problem is that the detractors read (or don't) read Athol's teachings and think: 'Malarkey, I WOULD NEVER STAND FOR THAT.' Maybe they wouldn't but can they really be sure?
> 
> ...


I've never read any books, so my posts can be over looked. 

As a comedic break from this thread I have used that "buy me a drink" as a pickup line very often....I'll quote robin williams in mrs doubtfire "hey its the 90's"


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

CleanJerkSnatch said:


> Costa200, take out the whip, I'll strike you count, let me know when to stop the lashing.


"Thank you sir. May I have another?"

Speaking of male bonding moments.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Cubby said:


> My wife and I now exercise together, and have firm boundaries. She knows I won't tolerate any male "friends," which is alpha of me. I knew I had arrived when we were at the gym and, noticing my rapid improvement, my wife remarked, "Wow, can you stop getting so fit now? I'm worried some young hottie's gonna snap you up!"


Alpha, that's not alpha, that's called establishing and enforcing boundaries. All good marriages have them and good people abide by them. 

As for your wife's comment she's stroking your ego. Not a bad thing, just sayin' and she should after her EA. 

She's really afraid you're going to go after some young hottie because her EA broke your marriage vows and you want a revenge affair.

BTW: I am a freelance personal trainer part time, and I had many opportunities to have an affair, and despite being in a long term marriage in which the hotness naturally wanes, I chose not to. 

Your wife didn't have an affair because you weren't alpha or she thought you couldn't get someone else. 

She had an affair because she has poor boundaries and she wanted to and she is likely selfish.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Uhm, last I checked Bjorn this was a DISCUSSION FORUM. People typically share an exchange of opinions in a discussion.


Asking another member why he defends affairs so vigorously and * haunts* the infidelity board is an opinion?

I hope you don't take offense to my "pointed" points, never my intention to insult anybody.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Alpha, that's not alpha, that's called establishing and enforcing boundaries. All good marriages have them and good people abide by them.
> 
> As for your wife's comment she's stroking your ego. Not a bad thing, just sayin' and she should after her EA.
> 
> ...


:iagree:.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> Asking another member why he defends affairs so vigorously and * haunts* the infidelity board is an opinion?
> 
> I hope you don't take offense to my "pointed" points, never my intention to insult anybody.


No, it's a question. Questions usually come up during every discussion. 

I am not offended by your question, this is a discussion. I am simply responding to your question. It's good manners.


----------



## Cubby (Mar 28, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Alpha, that's not alpha, that's called establishing and enforcing boundaries. All good marriages have them and good people abide by them.
> 
> As for your wife's comment she's stroking your ego. Not a bad thing, just sayin' and she should after her EA.
> 
> ...


Sara, establishing boundaries IS alpha behavior. An alpha doesn't take crap. An alpha claims what is his and doesn't let anyone mess with that. Establishing boundaries is the epitomy of firmly drawing a line letting your wife know what you will and won't tolerate.

Before I read Athol's stuff, our only boundary was "no cheating." I failed to establish the boundaries long before where it gets to the sex part. I knew she was talking to the personal trainer at the gym. I let her go to the gym regularly by herself. That was lazy on my part. Wishy-washy. Worried about being called "controlling." Beta. Or worse.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

I think people need to realize that exhibiting certain behavior will not make them immune to infidelity. I think that if its destined to happen, it will and from there on out if you're destined to stay together you will.


----------



## Cubby (Mar 28, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> I think people need to realize that exhibiting certain behavior will not make them immune to infidelity. I think that if its destined to happen, it will and from there on out if you're destined to stay together you will.


Exhibiting certain behavior is no guarantee. But it can improve your chances. I'm a firm believer that some people will cheat, always will cheat and there's nothing you can do about it. With others, they will never cheat no matter what. Most of us, however, are somewhere in the middle. Some closer to the cheater side, some closer to the never cheat side. There's a lot that happens in life, along with your natural inclination that willl determine what you do.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

Cubby said:


> ....It's interesting how my wife likes to see me carry around a hammer....


Absolutely love this! Nothing like a man with a hammer.


----------



## missymrs80 (Aug 5, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> We are referring to athol's advice in general. Not his word for word writings.
> 
> I understand what he says in writing. I still think it's an asinine approach and will eventually backfire on most men.
> 
> BTW: Athol's blog frequently contradicts his book.


Ok. 

Wellll....his blog entry about captain and first mate marriage is great IMO. It works on a ship.....and it works in my marriage. My husband is a captain in real life as well. I also like the surrendered wife


----------



## missymrs80 (Aug 5, 2012)

Sara8,

The OP said she had not read his book.


----------



## missymrs80 (Aug 5, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Alpha, that's not alpha, that's called establishing and enforcing boundaries. All good marriages have them and good people abide by them.
> 
> As for your wife's comment she's stroking your ego. Not a bad thing, just sayin' and she should after her EA.
> 
> ...


iMO, it is an alpha trait for a man to establish boundaries.


----------



## Complexity (Dec 31, 2011)

I think the whole alpha/beta thing is made to get you in a mentality to pick up floosies in a bar. I think guys should read up on what exactly entails an "alpha" male. It's very different than what most perceive. 

Sara made an excellent point. The human mind is far more complex than the simplicities of that dynamic. Being confident and "nice" are not mutually exclusive. It's quite disconcerting that a "nice guy" would have to put on this alpha act for the rest of his life to get respect from his spouse. In these circumstances, the fault lies squarely with his unappreciative wife and the "nice guy" wrongly puts her on a pedestal by changing everything about himself to get her validation. That brings up the issue of self respect. This is what most "nice guys" lack imo. They tolerate things that depreciate their value and respect. They succumb to things that completely change the power dynamic in the relationship. 

You don't have to be "alpha" to have self respect.

There are some things that women respond to which I have to admit, are very bizarre. I don't know whether it centres around their quest for validation or they seek "a challenge" but there's a paradox that I can't put my finger on. 

Admittedly, growing up I always thought women would want someone that put their needs above theirs and strived everyday to make her happy. I mean, who else in this world should you show this amount of love to? But of course we all know this isn't true and the female mind is perhaps the most complicated thing in this world









Hence I recommend every man should read this book.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

*Do nice guys finish last?* 

No. But doormats do.

And that is not gender-specific.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> *Do nice guys finish last?*
> 
> No. But doormats do.
> 
> And that is not gender-specific.


Exactly. 

And setting a boundary of no contact with other men or women is not an alpha trait in either a male or a female, it is simply self respect as complexity said, and not being willing to be a door mat. 

Also, for men who have been cheated on following athol's advice is beta. 

An alpha leads, a beta follows athol's, or anyone else's, advice instead of listening to their own head. 

Also, a truly Alpha male, would likely boot a cheating wife pronto and go out to find someone who truly loves him

He wouldn't pretend to be alpha to keep her, he would act alpha and boot her.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Complexity said:


> I think the whole alpha/beta thing is made to get you in a mentality to pick up floosies in a bar. I think guys should read up on what exactly entails an "alpha" male. It's very different than what most perceive.
> 
> Sara made an excellent point. The human mind is far more complex than the simplicities of that dynamic. Being confident and "nice" are not mutually exclusive. It's quite disconcerting that a "nice guy" would have to put on this alpha act for the rest of his life to get respect from his spouse. In these circumstances, the fault lies squarely with his unappreciative wife and the "nice guy" wrongly puts her on a pedestal by changing everything about himself to get her validation. That brings up the issue of self respect. This is what most "nice guys" lack imo. They tolerate things that depreciate their value and respect. They succumb to things that completely change the power dynamic in the relationship.
> 
> ...


Complexity:

I did find that particular page that the book is opened up to rather enlightening. What did you think of it?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> Well then why do you defend affairs so vigorously and haunt the infidelity board so much?
> 
> I doubt you will answer, you will define the question as stupid. That's at the very least an artful dodge.


I have never defended affairs. I don't like them. What I will argue against is a simplistic world view that says that good people can't do evil things, that people can't repent and reform themselves, and that women (or at least, most women) are so morally perfect that they don't have to worry about temptations to sin.

As for why I'm here, I have never had an affair, but I have had brushes with infidelity in my marriage, as well as friends who have had their marriages destroyed by it. My marriage was in crisis a few years ago. Marriage counseling and MMSL helped me right the ship.



Sara8 said:


> As for long term study. Google it, to find out what a relevant long term study would be regarding a life long experience such as a marriage.


Googling "permanent solution marriage study" doesn't really link to any relevant studies. And I'm not going to spend much time on what I suspect is a wild goose chase, anyway.

If there are studies that prove that Athol's methods don't work, I'll pay attention. But a lack of studies addressing them really doesn't lend credence to either side of the argument.



Sara8 said:


> I could give you the answer, but as my mama used to say: People learn best when they find the answers themselves.


That's useful advice when you're talking about touching a hot stove. When you're talking about how to salvage the sex life of a married couple, it's very dangerous. It's also just something nonsensical that someone could post who has nothing constructive to add on a topic in order to try to hide that fact.



Sara8 said:


> And that's another issue I have with Athol's advice.


You think men would be better served fumbling around individually trying to figure out what works? Don't you think that the high divorce rate in this country over the last several decades disproves that notion?


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

arbitrator said:


> Complexity:
> 
> I did find that particular page that the book is opened up to rather enlightening. What did you think of it?


Yep, I thought that blank page was cute, too. 

Everything men know about women.

And my book about everything women know about men would be blank, too.....if I were to be honest.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> What I will argue against is a simplistic world view that says that good people can't do evil things, that people can't repent and reform themselves, and that women (or at least, most women) are so morally perfect that they don't have to worry about temptations to sin.


You keep saying that someone said that "women are morally perfect. 

Who said that? I missed it.

In any case you ARE aware that there are people who won't cheat even when tempted.

There are people who have died in their 90s without ever cheating, despite numerous temptations.

To say everyone will is kinda' grandiose in its sweeping generality and blatant assumptive nature. 

If you ask divorce attorneys and Marriage counselors a very large proportion of cheaters will reoffend. 

It might take two years after R, or five or ten, but the sad fact is based on the records, a large proportion of people who cheat once, will do it again, and again, and again, if possible.

Divorce attorneys will tell you two that the main reason for almost ALL divorces in the U.S. is that one spouse cheated at SOME point in the marriage. 

Many an alpha man has been cheated on, without his knowledge and when an alpha finds out he's been cheated on, a true alpha hands the cheater their walking papers.

He or a she doesn't twist him/herself into a pretzel to be more alpha or do anything to tempt the cheater back into the fold. He/she just boots the cheater.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> Uhm. If you want to find out what makes a man attractive to a women, don't ya' think you should interview a majority of women?
> 
> ...Not just one, either. A large cross section of the population because there are exceptions to every rule.


You're assuming that women are both self-aware enough to know what they find attractive and what they don't, and are frank enough to admit it. Some women are neither. Some women are only one. Few women are both.

On this board, time and again, you will find men frustrated by sexless marriages. The wives in those marriages will usually defend their lack of libido by claiming to be too stressed for sex. That, if the husband just worked 50 hours a week, came home and did all the housework, and perhaps added a footrub or two, the sexy feelings would come back. And that almost never works.

So, those wives are either ignorant of the reasons they aren't attracted to their husbands, or they are too polite to state the actual reasons they aren't attracted.

If these husbands implement Athol's MAP, or a 180, or the thermostat approach, they can often get results. Even though many women will screech that it's impossible.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> On this board, time and again, you will find men frustrated by sexless marriages. The wives in those marriages will usually defend their lack of libido by claiming to be too stressed for sex. That, if the husband just worked 50 hours a week, came home and did all the housework, and perhaps added a footrub or two, the sexy feelings would come back. And that almost never works.


Sorry to blow your stereotyping and generalization, but my spouse was the always the Low desire partner.

I didn't cheat. 

People with low desire are often fired up by the intrigue and adrenaline rush of an illicit affair and just because a spouse is not interested in sex with a long time mate, doesn't guarantee they are not cheating. 

Cheating is about attention, ego strokes and the rush of the illicit.


----------



## Cubby (Mar 28, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> And setting a boundary of no contact with other men or women is not an alpha trait in either a male or a female, it is simply self respect as complexity said, and not being willing to be a door mat.
> 
> ...


Sara, just a reminder that the theme of Athol's book is for a married man to combine both Alpha and Beta traits. He never advises to go all Alpha all the time. He's quite clear that a marriage has a better chance to thrive by combining both traits. 

Also, regarding your comment about establishing boundaries being about self-respect and not being a doormat. I agree. And those two things would be included in a description of alpha behavior.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

Cubby said:


> Sara, just a reminder that the theme of Athol's book is for a married man to combine both Alpha and Beta traits. He never advises to go all Alpha all the time. He's quite clear that a marriage has a better chance to thrive by combining both traits.
> 
> Also, regarding your comment about establishing boundaries being about self-respect and not being a doormat. I agree. And those two things would be included in a description of alpha behavior.


Establishing boundaries may be INCLUDED IN ALPHA behavior but it is not in itself an alpha act. 

It is an act of self respect. Beta's, if one buys into that crap, can respect themselves too. 

As for the reminder of the alpha beta, you need to read the entire thread. 

It has already been agreed and established that I know that, it's discussed in several posts. 

But that is not the spirit or message of Athol's book. 

Also, have you read his blog. I already mentioned this, too in another post, but he contradicts himself frequently in his blog. 

IMO, The man is a poser. Hawking books.

Nothing wrong with that. It just is what it is. 

I am glad you like him, too. I don't.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> You keep saying that someone said that "women are morally perfect.
> 
> Who said that? I missed it.


Chump lady stated that the notion that women are morally fallible and vulnerable to be tempted to sin is offensive. It logically follows that she believes that women are NOT morally fallible and NOT vulnerable to be tempted to sin. She did not use the term perfect, but I think perfect is a fairly close synonym in this case.



Sara8 said:


> In any case you ARE aware that there are people who won't cheat even when tempted.
> 
> There are people who have died in their 90s without ever cheating, despite numerous temptations.
> 
> To say everyone will is kinda' grandiose in its sweeping generality and blatant assumptive nature.


Yes. I'm aware. Are you aware that I've never said that everyone will cheat? My contention is that most people can be tempted and that a good number of those who are tempted will succumb to the temptation.

So, I contend that, in order to minimize your risk of cheating, or being cheated on, you and your spouse should have boundaries and enforce them. Also, that both spouses should try hard to meet as many of the other spouse's needs as possible, including being as attractive as possible.



Sara8 said:


> Many an alpha man has been cheated on, without his knowledge and when an alpha finds out he's been cheated on, a true alpha hands the cheater their walking papers.
> 
> He or a she doesn't twist him/herself into a pretzel to be more alpha or do anything to tempt the cheater back into the fold. He/she just boots the cheater.


One of many problems I have with your arguments is that you twist Athol's terminology around in order to try to discredit his advice. When discussing MMSL, you should really use the terms "alpha" and "beta" the way Athol uses them. Otherwise, you're just being nonsensical. If you insist on redefining his terms, you should come up with your own terminology. That would be much less confusing.

But, yes, no matter what behaviors a man exhibits, there is a chance he will be cheated on. I disagree with you that he can do nothing whatsoever to influence his wife. But I agree that some wives can not be dissuaded from cheating.

But, I don't necessarily agree that divorce=alpha behavior and reconciling=beta. Especially where children are involved. Both choices are very hard. Both choices will take a lot of work. Studies prove that children of two parent households are better off then children of divorce. My hat is off to a parent who can choose to work through a troublesome marriage to give his children the best possible life.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> I see your wife loves you and understands that she would rather stroke your ego than admit she didn't like your alpha romp.
> 
> But I am glad she noted that she didn't want you to change TOO much.
> 
> ...


However, she was very into it on the night, or seemed to be anyway. I can't remember the words as I tend to get a bit 'lost in the moment' but something like "Go for it, **** me hard" was mentioned.

Please don't think I'm talking about acting like some thug, that definitely is not me. It was just good rampant sex.

You did concern me though, so today I asked her about the other night. I know it's not the alpha thing to do as a true alpha does not care about that sort of thing but 'shrugs' thats beta me I suppose.

Anyway she was good with it, really pleased that I still have that amount of desire for her after 23 years. But that it was quite 'rough' enough.


----------



## LetDownNTX (Oct 4, 2012)

Kasler said:


> Yes, exactly the problem is being a beta, and I used (tried to anyways) non gender specific terms to imply that both men and women do this.
> 
> Betas are like this. They have partners who don't do anything for the relationship to grow, but they just keep it at.
> 
> Which is exactly why they get cheated on.


 OMG, Im a BETA through and through. I liken it to low self esteem! How depressing!! Its so true though, my husband is a total Alpha, in every aspect!


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> However, she was very into it on the night, or seemed to be anyway. I can't remember the words as I tend to get a bit 'lost in the moment' but something like "Go for it, **** me hard" was mentioned.
> 
> Please don't think I'm talking about acting like some thug, that definitely is not me. It was just good rampant sex.
> 
> ...



Changing it up every once in a while from foreplay to actual sex is better than same plain. Why keep it boring? Be a nice innocent version being taught, be the teacher disciplining, Talk dirty sometimes and nothing crazy or over board like "i hope your mom dies in a fire" but you know what I mean, keep your tie on or put it on her, sneak into the shower, fill up the hot tub while she's cleaning the kitchen so she can relax and tell her what is going to happen to her when she gets woken up at 5:30 am before you go to work.
No need to confuse alpha beta charlie here.

In the words of Paul Vunak "bam bam bam bam bam bam bamm!"


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Sara8 said:


> Sorry to blow your stereotyping and generalization, but my spouse was the always the Low desire partner.
> 
> I didn't cheat.


You're changing the subject. First, women are more commonly the LD partner, not that it's relevant here. Second, we were discussing whether women understand what attracts them and/or whether they will admit it. In my example, which is fairly frequent on this board, the wives either don't understand what attracts them, or they won't admit it.


----------



## Cubby (Mar 28, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Establishing boundaries may be INCLUDED IN ALPHA behavior but it is not in itself an alpha act.
> *There is no one description of alpha acts. It can be many things. *
> It is an act of self respect. Beta's, if one buys into that crap, can respect themselves too.
> *They can. They also are more likely to be lacking in the self-respect department than alphas. For me, adding alpha traits meant higher level of self respect.*
> ...


 *Well, I've learned a lot, and have a better marriage now, so yes I like him. I also like you and so many others here I've learned from!*


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> You're changing the subject. First, women are more commonly the LD partner, not that it's relevant here. Second, we were discussing whether women understand what attracts them and/or whether they will admit it. In my example, which is fairly frequent on this board, the wives either don't understand what attracts them, or they won't admit it.


Not sure I really want to jump in, but I agree with PHT here. My experience is that women have a good idea of the actual physical look that might attract them, but past that, an understanding of what constitutes attraction is very unformed, very intuitive. Is this really different from men? I don't know, of course, but my experience with myself and my friends is that much of this is very reactive and not consciously processed. For sure, if I'm attracted to a quality in a man that is socially stigmatized, I would not admit it. Maybe to my bf, but maybe not even her.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

So to sum it up, guys should only finish last in bed...


----------



## Cubby (Mar 28, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> I actually worry about this with my 25-yo son. He's become so cynical about women that I'm sometimes shocked and saddened by some of our conversations. He asks me to explain female behavior all the time, but I have to admit that many of his experiences leave me gobsmacked & I can easily understand where his attitude is coming from. I definitely sympathize with him.
> 
> That being said...I always emphasize that there are plenty of decent women out there, which clearly I believe & also believe that the 'nice guy' that he is will land on his feet with one of them.


I really relate to this situation. I can remember very clearly at that age being frustrated with dating women, and wondering if indeed, being nice was a liability. I also remember refusing to become a jerk and stay the course thinking just what you're telling your son. It worked out eventually for me, I love my wife and don't regret marrying her, but looking back, things would have gone easier if I had known about "game." (Alpha-beta stuff) I cringe when I think of the situations where I was actually repelling women instead of attracting them. I'm convinced that the best method is to be yourself, but add alpha or beta to the areas where you are lacking. That's the advice I'd give your son.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

Cubby said:


> I really relate to this situation. I can remember very clearly at that age being frustrated with dating women, and wondering if indeed, being nice was a liability. I also remember refusing to become a jerk and stay the course thinking just what you're telling your son. It worked out eventually for me, I love my wife and don't regret marrying her, but looking back, things would have gone easier if I had known about "game." (Alpha-beta stuff) I cringe when I think of the situations where I was actually repelling women instead of attracting them. I'm convinced that the best method is to be yourself, but add alpha or beta to the areas where you are lacking. That's the advice I'd give your son.


Thanks, Cubby. I don't think he would read MMSL, but does a lot of thinking and researching on his own. Sex and love are great motivators. (One of his signature 'please-explain-women-to-me-Mom' moments was when he was consoling the sweet gf of one of his best friends who had basically thrown her out for cheating. She said 'He doesn't understand. I really love him. I didn't know he would be bothered by it. You see, I've always done threesomes.' So, as a parent, how do you advise?)


----------



## Cubby (Mar 28, 2012)

alte Dame said:


> Thanks, Cubby. I don't think he would read MMSL, but does a lot of thinking and researching on his own. Sex and love are great motivators. (One of his signature 'please-explain-women-to-me-Mom' moments was when he was consoling the sweet gf of one of his best friends who had basically thrown her out for cheating. She said 'He doesn't understand. I really love him. I didn't know he would be bothered by it. You see, I've always done threesomes.' So, as a parent, how do you advise?)


alte Dame, I couldn't help laughing at the threesome comment! Now that's a pretty big generational gap there. A lot of things have become normalized over the years in our culture. I guess threesomes are one of them. Sigh. 

It sounds like your son's a bright guy. While he might stumble around a little bit, I'm sure he'll do fine in the long run!


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

Cubby said:


> alte Dame, I couldn't help laughing at the threesome comment! Now that's a pretty big generational gap there. A lot of things have become normalized over the years in our culture. I guess threesomes are one of them. Sigh.
> 
> It sounds like your son's a bright guy. While he might stumble around a little bit, I'm sure he'll do fine in the long run!


And here's the rub - just when you think you're figuring things out with your own marriage, you have to start focusing on your kids' relationships. The challenge never ends...nonetheless, I still have faith that nice guys don't finish last. I think weak men will, but not nice ones.


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> I think that if its destined to happen, it will and from there on out if you're destined to stay together you will.


I personally prefer to control my own destiny and not leave it in the hands of fate.


----------



## Wanting1 (Apr 26, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> I personally prefer to control my own destiny and not leave it in the hands of fate.


Exactly. No way am I giving "Destiny" credit for my hard work and it's a cop out to blame "Destiny" when you screw up. Own your sh*t, good and bad. It's the only way to live an authentic life.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> I personally prefer to control my own destiny and not leave it in the hands of fate.


Yes, but if you're destined to get screwed you are going to get screwed no matter how you fight it. You can't control someone else's actions Count, if your spouse is going to cheat on you, she's going to cheat on you, it doesn't matter if you're alpha beta gamma delta....


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

Wanting a Strong Marriage said:


> Exactly. No way am I giving "Destiny" credit for my hard work and it's a cop out to blame "Destiny" when you screw up. Own your sh*t, good and bad. It's the only way to live an authentic life.


Madam, here is my original comment



> I think people need to realize that exhibiting certain behavior will not make them immune to infidelity. I think that if its destined to happen, it will and from there on out if you're destined to stay together you will.


There's a difference between your wanting a strong marriage and your spouse wanting a strong marriage.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> Madam, here is my original comment
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between your wanting a strong marriage and your spouse wanting a strong marriage.



Perhaps. But I am not giving her any excuse to rationalize her actions. She'll own her own decisions too.

If I can be the best husband I can be, and she cheats anyway, she doesn't deserve me and she can look back at her actions with regret.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> Yes, but if you're destined to get screwed you are going to get screwed no matter how you fight it. You can't control someone else's actions Count, if your spouse is going to cheat on you, she's going to cheat on you, it doesn't matter if you're alpha beta gamma delta....


Scandanavians and their frigging Destinies. It's amazing they didn't buy into Calvinism with his Predestination.

I may very well starve to death on a camping trip. But to not _try_ pack enough food is just silly.

She might be a round heeled slvt, but to NOT try to affair proof your marriage before hand is also as silly.


----------



## Wanting1 (Apr 26, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> Madam, here is my original comment
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between your wanting a strong marriage and your spouse wanting a strong marriage.


Well, I agree that I can't control my spouse's actions, but that doesn't mean his actions are somehow predestined. He has just as much responsibility as I
do to make our marriage strong. If he chooses to destroy our marriage, he gets no free pass because "Destiny" made him do it. I think this idea of destiny is about as irrational as "the One" and "soul mates."


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

JCD said:


> I may very well starve to death on a camping trip. But to not _try_ pack enough food is just silly.
> 
> She might be a round heeled slvt, but to NOT try to affair proof your marriage before hand is also as silly.


Which reinforces my point, you can be alpha beta or gamma and still get cheated on.

Well to each his own, I believe in destiny. Perhaps I'm naive and don't wish to contemplate the intricacies of life and all it entails. Or perhaps I'm too lazy to try and fix someone else's problems.



> He has just as much responsibility as I
> do to make our marriage strong. If he chooses to destroy our marriage, he gets no free pass because "Destiny" made him do it.


But you were destined to get cheated on. This was my point and not about passing responsibility of your actions to destiny


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> Which reinforces my point, you can be alpha beta or gamma and still get cheated on.
> 
> Well to each his own, I believe in destiny. Perhaps I'm naive and don't wish to contemplate the intricacies of life and all it entails. Or perhaps I'm too lazy to try and fix someone else's problems.
> 
> ...


In another thread you posted that the OP of that thread fits a GPS to his car. If you truly believe it is destiny why did you not tell him to just trust in destiny?

Which is it? Because advising somebody to affair proof their marriage in another thread is not destiny. If it was destiny why bother?

I think you have disappeared up your own backside with your argument!


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> In another thread you posted that the OP of that thread fits a GPS to his car. If you truly believe it is destiny why did you not tell him to just trust in destiny?
> 
> Which is it? Because advising somebody to affair proof their marriage in another thread is not destiny. If it was destiny why bother?
> 
> I think you have disappeared up your own backside with your argument!


Friend, why do you not understand my point?



BjornFree said:


> Which reinforces my point, you can be alpha beta or gamma and still get cheated on.
> 
> .* Or perhaps I'm too lazy to try and fix someone else's problems.*



You can affair proof your marriage all you want but you fail to realize that it takes two to do that. You might be the best husband in the world but still get cheated on no matter what you do or say. 

The fact that your spouse cheated on you isn't because of you, its because of her problems. If I cheat its because of me, if she cheats its down to her. Destiny was my way of telling people that they were not responsible for their spouse cheating on them. That a wife cheated on her husband is the wife's problem,hers to solve. The husband's problem is deciding to stay or go, if he decides to stay good, if he decides to go good for him. He created his destiny but he can't control what another brought down on him. Do you understand my point?

I hope you do. Now, I think I'll just disappear up my own backside thank you.



WyshIknew said:


> Which is it? Because advising somebody to affair proof their marriage in another thread is not destiny. If it was destiny why bother?


 Will you folks castigate me if I say that I was destined to be bothered


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Yes I agree to a point. Some times no matter what you do, shet happens.
Destiny, like shet, happens. But you can do the best you can to shape your destiny.
You wouldn't cross the road without checking both ways to make sure there are no cars coming would you?

Reasonable precautions pay dividends.

What about this for a scenario.

John meets Jane. Jane thinks what a wonderful cool guy John is. He does wonderful exciting things with and without her. He makes wild passionate love to her, he has a good body, lovely personality, tight butt, whatever turns her on.
When Jane is out with John and they are having a good time other girls look at John and she knows they are a little jealous.

She is bonding to him, she is in love and even if she doesn't realise it her body wants to make babies with him.

Fast forward 10/15 years John has a steady but unrelenting job which occupies a lot of his time leaving him tired and possibly a little fed up. All or nearly all those exciting things John did that Jane found exciting he has had to give up for the family. He has possibly put on quite a bit of weight. 

Jane gets increasingly irritable with him, sex life goes down the tubes, the kids run them both ragged. Jane subconciously devalues him which shows in her attitude, he tries harder at all the wrong things which causes her to devalue him even more.

Simplistically there are two options here, John can trust to destiny and hopefully once the kids grow up, there is less stress in their lives and they can start to live for themselves again their love will regrow or Jane will be hit on by a (seemingly) more interesting man and start an affair with a man who she sees as having a higher sex rank than her husband. John is then emotionally destroyed, ruined lives and divorce occur. However that was his destiny.


However if he found a way to alter all this, either by working it out himself or by reading a book or soliciting advice. And put this advice into use and altered his destiny then he wins, so do his wife and kids.

Destiny may say that whatever you do something bad may happen but I for one will do my damndest to make sure my destiny is a good one.

And if my destiny is bad at least I will know that I did my best and tried all solutions.


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

I grow weary of this, you win

carry on......


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

I think a lot of men have been brainwashed into accepting unacceptable double standards from women, simply because they are * women .*

So, some men refuse to stand up for themselves because they are afraid to offend these types of women. 
They think that having a decent job, paying the bills , and being a
* nice guy * will up their rank in the eyes of a woman.
Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> I grow weary of this, you win
> 
> carry on......


Yay for me.

Do I get a medal?

It must have been my destiny to win.

Hey!!!!! Wait a minute you weren't being sarcastic there were you?

Seriously though, my last word on the subject (I think).

It is merely two differing view points.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you state that despite everything that somebody might do, destiny dictates that bad things might happen.
Well I agree, despite everything you do bad things might happen.

Well everyone, unless they are pretty dumb, realises that.

But you can alter the course of your destiny by taking positive actions to change that destiny.

I don't think we are that far apart in our viewpoints except that you seem to advocate doing nothing and let destiny take it's course.

Unless I am reading your posts wrong?


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

And yet the image that comes to mind when I think of guys who try to be alpha:

http://youtu.be/ZLsg0EvZozI

And, part of my ancestral background wound seem the opposite... Men who do most of the cooking and dancing in skirts and the modern version while still active in cultural activities rubs his wife's feet and cleans the kitchen. I don't need to learn some extremist alpha view, I simply stay grounded in culture:

http://youtu.be/pUsPbfChFBs


----------



## BjornFree (Aug 16, 2012)

No, I'm merely saying that I'm not responsible for my wife's orgasms nor am I responsible for her decisions. And I understand that no relationship is permanent, for me, it ends either when I or my wife of 27 years die or when I find out that she has cheated. I had a discussion about this very thing years ago long before I read Athol Kay or anybody else, I told her that I certainly don't expect her to take me back if I cheat(now, thats her choice) and that I wouldn't take her back if she did the same. And so far its worked for us and I haven't cheated and as far as I know, she hasn't either.

And I haven't felt the need to improve myself for her. I view fidelity as a gift and I think it is a beautiful gift to give to your wife. We're still together so I'd say that all these years good and bad were destined to happen but I'm an old man, and lack the energy to come up with strategies to make myself more attractive to her, I just assume that I am attractive.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

BjornFree said:


> No, I'm merely saying that I'm not responsible for my wife's orgasms nor am I responsible for her decisions. And I understand that no relationship is permanent, for me, it ends either when I or my wife of 27 years die or when I find out that she has cheated. I had a discussion about this very thing years ago long before I read Athol Kay or anybody else, I told her that I certainly don't expect her to take me back if I cheat(now, thats her choice) and that I wouldn't take her back if she did the same. And so far its worked for us and I haven't cheated and as far as I know, she hasn't either.
> 
> And I haven't felt the need to improve myself for her. I view fidelity as a gift and I think it is a beautiful gift to give to your wife. We're still together so I'd say that all these years good and bad were destined to happen but I'm an old man, and lack the energy to come up with strategies to make myself more attractive to her, I just assume that I am attractive.


Pleased for you! Your wife and yourself seem to have had a good life.

But you did affect your destiny, by stating your opinion on infidelity you set boundaries and consequences.

I suspect we actually agree with each other but somehow semantics have got in the way.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

drerio said:


> And yet the image that comes to mind when I think of guys who try to be alpha:
> 
> Barneys Gun - YouTube
> 
> ...



Blink blink

And you don't consider MAORI an extreme alpha culture?

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

They were HEADHUNTING up to 80 years ago!

I'm sorry but having a HEAD on the armoire tends to make up for a HELL of a lot of foot rubs!


----------



## Labcoat (Aug 12, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Establishing boundaries may be INCLUDED IN ALPHA behavior but it is not in itself an alpha act.
> 
> It is an act of self respect. Beta's, if one buys into that crap, can respect themselves too.


Sara, I don't know you from a hole-in-the-ground, but I've been following this thread. Is what really bothers you about MMSL is that it suggests that betrayed men should shoulder some of the blame for their wives’ infidelity?

In other threads, where someone peddles the "Everyone is capable of cheating" line, you've been very quick to fight back using your own story as a counter-example. I gotta say, I really like that and it was very empowering to read. I was at such a low after my fiancé cheated on me that I actually believed her bull****: "Yes, I cheated and I accept full responsibility, BUT, I had needs that weren't..."

But. I eventually realized that, even if I had been the perfect (her ideal) BF, fiancé and eventually husband, I still might have ended up, eventually betrayed in that alternate world. And yeah, there are people who would never cheat, but I believe that the average person is, of course, not on either extreme. Those of us in the middle, that don’t cheat are those who think in terms of ethics and logical outcomes to our actions (NSFW: Hall Pass End Clip Funniest scene with Stephen Merchant - YouTube)

But many (perhaps most) in the middle just don’t think that way. They aren’t inherently bad; they just aren’t smart enough to think, “If I joke with obvious ********* in the elevator, 5 scenarios later, I will be cheating on my husband of 10 years and father of my children.” They just aren’t creative enough or have enough understanding of themselves, or human beings in general, to foresee that happening until it’s too late.

Now it would be awesome if you could see these people coming and avoid them outright. But you can’t unless you want to be lonely for the rest of your life.

Enter MMSL. It’s not a book about preventing or coping with infidelity. It’s about reminding men that they still have to be the best them that they can be if they want a happy marriage. And it’s not guaranteed to work either, but if you follow the advice, at least you’ll be fit and confident when you get dumped rather than blubbery and dejected. A side effect of all this is lowering the probability that you get cheated on by that huge class of women who might never think to cheat, but could eventually be coerced into doing so.

Ignore the terms alpha and beta, they are silly, but they do resonate with men. Instead think of the qualities of attractiveness and emotional availability. Too many men concentrate too heavily on only one aspect or the other and that is what Athol theorizes contributes to a whole host of problems in marriage. Your anecdotes, about text-book alpha’s being cheated on with nerdy APs, don’t contradict that. Sure it’s probably more common the other way, but if you’re too busy pounding your chest to acknowledge that your wife’s mother just died, you’re doing it wrong.

So while, I don’t blame myself at all for her ****tiness, I do believe that I could have lowered the probability of it happening by following some the advice in the book. Not by artificially adopting some fake alpha-male persona, but by simply being a more transparent, unashamed, confident version of the guy I really am. And if it didn’t, well I’d still be a more transparent, unashamed, confident version of the guy I really am.

The question was she even worth working for in the first place.


----------



## Ostera (Nov 1, 2012)

Kasler said:


> A man can be beta but he needs alpha traits at the forefront of his relationship at least.
> 
> I won't really discuss betas losing out, truth is they do.
> 
> ...


You nailed it with my stbxw... I gave everything. I did everything (literally) all the shopping, cooking, more than half the cleaning of the house, etc.

I was Alpha but quickly became Beta thinking that would make things. Better. My NPD/BPD W would say things to me all the time like:

"You need to treat me like a princess, because that's what I am." (Mind you she's 52 yrs old)

"I have been catered to all my life."

"It's all about me."

"I could easily walk out of any relationship. It's who I am."
(hence why she has cheated on every man she has been with)

"I'm not going to change."

"Not everyone can be a trophy wife like me."

" I have always been a trophy wife, both in looks and money."



When she is hurtful, her idea of an apology would always be (and I am serios): 

"I have already forgiven myself."


----------

