# Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?



## ocotillo

In the Men's Clubhouse section there is a "sticky" entitled _The Man Up and Nice Guy Reference_ with a generous number of links.

I've spent some time reading what's freely available on the internet. It's interesting, but I have this one observation: 

There is not one woman I know who would agree with any of it. This includes my wife, my mother, my sisters, and my best friend growing up. And these are not uneducated women --not by a long shot.

Most would find the greater implications and ideology extremely offensive, but then every single one of them is a feminist to the core.

So I'm genuinely curious. What do the women of TAM think? Do you accept the starting premises as valid? Are you comfortable with all the implications?


----------



## Lon

Not a woman, so can't handle your specific query, though the females friends I've had any conversations with about relationships have, after first announcing their desire to feel respected and not objectified, definitely agreed with the principles of attraction discussed the man up thread. I think what is more important than asking the ladies though, is asking successful males what they think of those principles (and I guarantee almost all will at some point or another be onboard with it).


----------



## Tall Average Guy

ocotillo said:


> In the Men's Clubhouse section there is a "sticky" entitled _The Man Up and Nice Guy Reference_ with a generous number of links.
> 
> I've spent some time reading what's freely available on the internet. It's interesting, but I have this one observation:
> 
> There is not one woman I know who would agree with any of it. This includes my wife, my mother, my sisters, and my best friend growing up. And these are not uneducated women --not by a long shot.
> 
> Most would find the greater implications and ideology extremely offensive, but then every single one of them is a feminist to the core.
> 
> So I'm genuinely curious. What do the women of TAM think? Do you accept the starting premises as valid? Are you comfortable with all the implications?


What is it that you think that women would find offensive?


----------



## COguy

YupItsMe said:


> She thinks nice guys are fakes and pussies and alpha males attractive.


You can be a nice guy and an alpha male. The No More Mr. Nice Guy thing to me is not about not being nice, it's about not being a doormat.

I love doing nice things for my wife. But I noticed the difference pre-affair that most of the time I would do them to keep her from nagging. Whereas at the beginning of our relationship and today I do them because I enjoy making her happy. Both directions give me the appearance of being a "nice guy", but one of them makes me a slave.

I've always been a "nice guy", and always treated women with respect. Nice guys can be very alpha, an example was myself in college. I was a virgin by choice, my Rugby team would constantly give me **** about it, when they first found out they tried to embarass me in the bars. The first time they tried, I stood unwavered about how I was saving it for my wife and how I wanted to have a special wedding night. I had girls tugging on me all night telling me they wanted to be my first. No one wanted to lose game to a virgin, the joking stopped pretty quickly after that.

I knew who I was and what I stood for, to me that's the concept of being Alpha. Knowing who you are and being proud of it. Going after your goals and desires without dissuasion. Doesn't matter if you're ruthlessly pursuing hot chicks in bed, or curing cancer at a Children's Hospital.

Also, as a married man, there are times where you need to put your goals on hold to take care of your wife and family. If you're full-on alpha male 100% of the time, you're going to make an ******* husband.

I liked the Married Man Sex Primer because it talks about creating a balance. To be a good husband you need to find a mix of both. You need to know who you are and pursue your goals to be an attractive mate. But to meet your wife's emotional needs, you need to be able to pick up a vacuum or have a deep talk about feelings.

My goal is to be the best man I can be. That means I stand with integrity and do not compromise my beliefs or character. But it also means that I know how to serve my wife to meet her needs. You can still call me a Nice Guy, but don't call me a doormat (at least anymore).


----------



## ocotillo

Tall Average Guy said:


> What is it that you think that women would find offensive?


I would never presume to speak for women in general. I'm only talking about the women in my life. 

And in that regard, here's a couple of examples:

Some of what I've read is heavily laced with Christian ideology. Without trying to offend Christians, I'm just going to say that it's a big world out there and not everyone is Christian. Some women are deeply offended by the "Man is God's glory whereas woman is man's glory" thing. 

Although the concatenation is not explicitly stated, the parallel between Christianity's portrayal of women and the idea that it's up to the man to rise above his base nature and become a better person whereas a woman is inherently either unable or unwilling to do so is almost impossible to miss.

Another example is simply the character of women. I read through some of the _Married Man Sex Life_ blog and was frankly disillusioned. I showed it to my wife and she was offended. Her exact words were, "Many women are selfish, but none are that selfish." And this was specifically in reference to Kay's portrayal of the disinterested wife.


----------



## Trenton

I totally disagree with the message, the delivery and the fact that it is a sticky.


----------



## Mistys dad

What you are reading is headlines.

But you aren't reading the article.

NMMNG, Married Man's Sex Life, Man Up, etc aren't about women. They are about men, specifically you. 

It is not about how to treat women or how to "get laid". It's about making yourself a better man, more balanced, more honest, more centered, more fit, more happy. The implication is that if you are all of those things your life and your relationships with both men and women will be better.

Get the book. Get Married Man's Sex Life, read the website. Books are cheap and easy.

If you disagree, that's fine. But don't make a final judgment until you understand the whole picture.

Athol Kay writes for men, like a man. Sort of locker room Buddha as it is. Read his site, it's genius in it's simplicity. It is somebody telling you what you already know, but were afraid to admit.

Try this. Do the ten second kiss move on your SO every day. See what happens. http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2010/01/sexy-moves-ten-second-kiss.html

It's fun to be a man, remember?


----------



## ocotillo

With respect, Misty's Dad, I'm not sure if my question was understood.

This isn't about what I think.

My observation is that the captioned material would make virtually all the women* I know* as mad as "wet hens" as the saying goes. 

--Hence my invitation for *other* women to comment


----------



## heartsbeating

Maybe I pick and choose the bits I like. Ultimately I see these types of threads and discussions to be about personal growth. Alpha, Beta, whatever... I think understanding who you are, not being attached to the idea of who you are, living with authenticity and congruence, is something I consider when reading some threads.

I have also wondered why we in the Ladies Clubhouse don't discuss growth or behaviors etc very often?

I'm not religious, so with posts as mentioned in this thread, there's a good chance I skim over those. 

I've seen changes in my husband this year. Even yesterday, we were talking about the strained relationship between him and my brother. Hubs said to me that he won't allow himself to feel disrespected by my bro in his own house again - that if bro can't act accordingly, he will need to leave. He said if we arranged to meet outside our home, then fine, he can bite his tongue FOR ME and in neutral territory but only for that occasion. Hubs said, but after this event, he won't sit and take disrespectful behavior anymore, not even for me and I shouldn't expect him to. I agreed. What can I say to that? He's made his feelings and boundaries perfectly clear. It makes me feel awkward as I'm close to my brother. But that's not his problem.

This is new behavior for my husband. Is this alpha or manning up or just maturing to live in a way for him to have self-respect? I think we all have journeys like this to go on. Regardless of how we define them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## I Know

ocotillo said:


> In the Men's Clubhouse section there is a "sticky" entitled _The Man Up and Nice Guy Reference_ with a generous number of links.
> 
> I've spent some time reading what's freely available on the internet. It's interesting, but I have this one observation:
> 
> There is not one woman I know who would agree with any of it. This includes my wife, my mother, my sisters, and my best friend growing up. And these are not uneducated women --not by a long shot.
> 
> Most would find the greater implications and ideology extremely offensive, but then every single one of them is a feminist to the core.


My wife completely agrees w/ the premises. She said OBEY in our wedding vows. It is really about respect and trust. She respects my leadership and trusts that it is for the best. 

My wife is very successful and makes as much money as I do. But at home, she wants me to lead. Not be a jerk. She will not follow a jerk. She suffers fools very poorly. 

The stereotypical TV show with the husband (family leader) who comes up with the hairbrained ideas that the wife cringes at but goes along with anyway is timeless. Why? because most couples work that way. That's why so many people can relate to those shows.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> It begs the question...are men actually the weaker sex thanks to their very persistent and fragile egos?


The answer would be yes. Just look around...

1. Wife doesn't swallow and therefore doesn't love me. That by a man who said spitting "his seed" out was the same as wasting human life. Nevermind that babies aren't conceived in a mouth.
2. Wife doesn't laugh at all my jokes. If his posts are any indication about how funny he is, he's about as funny as cancer.
3. Wife doesn't admire me anymore. Granted I spend all day ripping on her on a forum and don't work but hey.
4. Wife doesn't forgive me for my cheating. Can't figure out if I want to stay with her. It's too difficult.
5. Wife got fat. I did too but she is supposed to look good.
6. Wife doesn't look at me the same as she used to. I find activities to occupy my time and ignore her but she doesn't have that gleam in her eye anymore.
7. I don't get what I want in bed. I watch porn all the time and expect what I see but she won't do it. I have the right to cheat because of it. I am being deprived.
8. Man up. After a lifetime of acting like a [email protected], I have the right to demand respect. I have spent time blaming everybody but myself for my actions and suddenly demand respect after reading a book.
9. Sex life. I am not responsible for my lack of sex. It's her fault. 
10. I deserve respect because I am a man. I work, I provide. Regardless if my wife works, I am way more important. I AM the man. 

Any of this ring a bell Trenton? All us women do is ask if our butts look fat in jeans and the smart ones don't even bother. Yup, I know who is more insecure and needy and we don't have tits and a who ha.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> I have to laugh at this because as Gandhi said...
> 
> "If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide."
> Mohandas Gandhi


Exactly. Or as Lisa Lampanelli said "I wouldn't [email protected] them with somebody else vagina".


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Oh and you forgot the cornerstone of much of the man up crap...
> 
> "Don't listen to your woman, listen to us men when it comes to getting answers about women. Women never know what they want. In fact, they actually want us to decide for them because they are moody and unreliable with their wants constantly changing. Be the alpha male and lead her and she will be a sex goddess in thanks."
> 
> Seriously? I mean...really?
> 
> Yeah, OK!


Well duh. I always listen to men for advice about women. Don't you always ask men what tampon you should use? I rely on men to tell me what mascara makes my eyelashes look longer. I don't know what I want afterall.


----------



## BigBadWolf

Trenton and TRBE are both married to alpha males.

Yet they pass their idle time heckling and shaming the men on this forum trying to work on their own selves.

I'll leave it up to the readers to put a word on this kind of behavior.

Myself, I have no use for it.


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> Oh and you forgot the cornerstone of much of the man up crap...
> 
> "Don't listen to your woman...."


--Which speaks directly to the purpose of this thread. I do like to hear what the ladies have to say, although I don't see much point in grievance lists. Men have theirs too.


----------



## Enchantment

ocotillo said:


> In the Men's Clubhouse section there is a "sticky" entitled _The Man Up and Nice Guy Reference_ with a generous number of links.
> 
> I've spent some time reading what's freely available on the internet. It's interesting, but I have this one observation:
> 
> There is not one woman I know who would agree with any of it. This includes my wife, my mother, my sisters, and my best friend growing up. And these are not uneducated women --not by a long shot.
> 
> Most would find the greater implications and ideology extremely offensive, but then every single one of them is a feminist to the core.
> 
> So I'm genuinely curious. What do the women of TAM think? Do you accept the starting premises as valid? Are you comfortable with all the implications?


I have spent some time reading the links, looking through other websites and reading some of the recommended books.

I don't think that 'man up' is about putting 'woman down'.

To me, man up is about a personal journey, a personal quest of self-improvement, gaining self-respect, maturing, growing. A woman can likewise go, and should go, on a similar journey. It is a journey we should ALL undertake. That is part of what life it all about.

And, sometimes the way the messages are 'packaged' may be more offensive to some than to others. But I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth and be concerned with the packaging. I am going to look for the underlying meaning and glean the nuggets and jewels of wisdom that can be found.


----------



## ocotillo

Enchantment said:


> To me, man up is about a personal journey, a personal quest of self-improvement, gaining self-respect, maturing, growing. A woman can likewise go, and should go, on a similar journey. It is a journey we should ALL undertake. That is part of what life it all about.


Thank you. I whole-heartedly agree with you on that. 

What offended my wife was not the self-improvement aspect. Like you said, that would be like looking a gift horse in the mouth.

What offended her were the reasons given for why it's necessary. She didn't like the idea that women are utter slaves to their reproductive instincts and hormones.


----------



## tacoma

I can see how the concept would offend todays PC woman.

In fact the environment of PC is why a lot of men need to understand the concepts.

We are told our whole lives to be "Nice Guys" from the time we`re born we`re taught to treat our women like some kind of prize.

It`s my experience women don`t really want a relationship based upon this attitude.
Oh sure they suck it up for awhile until it gets old and they start eyeing that "alpha" up the block because he`s "manly".

I have more luck in relationships utilizing the "Man Up" concepts.

Women say one thing but respond to an entirely different thing.

Maybe that`s why part of "Manning Up" is not to listen to your woman.


----------



## Halien

ocotillo said:


> Thank you. I whole-heartedly agree with you on that.
> 
> What offended my wife was not the self-improvement aspect. Like you said, that would be like looking a gift horse in the mouth.
> 
> What offended her were the reasons given for why it's necessary. She didn't like the idea that women are utter slaves to their reproductive instincts and hormones.


To be honest, I never made if very far into the links because I didn't like the flavor of some of the assumptions that seem to be made about women as some sort of a sort of universal standard. It would be nice if we tried to make the assumption that a guy was not automatically a nice guy, and his wife is not just hoarding resentment, and make it a forum about real life guy issues, like how do you answer that question if the pants do make her bottom look big, when another pair doesn't. So, I can see how a woman might be put off on the assumptions.

At the end of the day, though, there are some really good members who post in the men's clubhouse who look at it like a journey to self-actualization. I think it also frustrates them when people are only willing to interpret it with negative bias.

On a different note, there is an aspect that is often conveyed in the 'flavor of the month' types of posts in the Men's Clubhouse. I wish I knew the name for it. It pertains to how we argue with the silent, implied assumption of one partner in the marriage being the perfect partner. So if a guy comes in who demonstrates these 'nice guy' tendencies, one group of posters will implicity argue as if he is a saint within the context, and the woman is lucifer's bride. The opposite side of the debate will turn her into the implicit saint, and him as the guy who is carrying on a devious assortment of games in a passive aggressive manner. Its so sad when you really look for it, because in real life, its never that simple. Sadly, sterotypes abound, and the complex relationships of our life turn into simple truths that rarely help solve a problem.

As dramatic relief, some of this debates also involve the wise soothsayer character of literary fame. They are the wise bearers of perpetual truth, who will gently decend into the fray as its nearing its completion, and deliver ethereal nuggets of wisdom. I really suck big time at this one, but I challenge you to go back in history on this site and find the characters. Don't forget to look for the Jester too, who often runs like a dog, so to speak, delivering one line zingers into the debate.

I gotta quit writing fiction, though. I scare myself.


----------



## I'mInLoveWithMyHubby

My husband is a very nice guy. He would never in a million years need to "man up". We as a couple are extremely compatible. He doesn't walk all over me, nor do I walk over him. We love each other and the last 12 years he has always put my needs before mine. I put his needs before mine. We have the same views on how to raise and decipline our children. We live in a very happy calm enviorment. There is no yelling, nagging or telling each other what to do. We rarely ask for favors of one another. We both support one another within reason 100%. We compromise if needed and never argue. I'm in love with my husband and he is in love with me. We have been like this for the last 12 years and we communicate extremely well.

I'm the luckiest woman in the world to have met him. He goes above and beyond what any man would do in a marriage to make sure I'm happy and feeling okay. I do the same for him as much as I'm able to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FrankKissel

ocotillo said:


> Thank you. I whole-heartedly agree with you on that.
> 
> What offended my wife was not the self-improvement aspect. Like you said, that would be like looking a gift horse in the mouth.
> 
> What offended her were the reasons given for why it's necessary. She didn't like the idea that women are utter slaves to their reproductive instincts and hormones.


I think that pretty much nails it. Nothing wrong with a guy trying to better himself, become more manly, etc. In fact, all that's great.
But the other half of the Man Up thing seems to work on a theory that women are simple, primary and homogenous creatures who can't help but react in a predetermined manner depending on what stimuli a man is throwing their way.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TotoWeRNotInKansasAnymore

Call me simple-minded, but a guy who can “Man up” will:

Treat his wife with honor and respect.
Maintain his integrity by doing what is right, even when it’s hard.
Take pride in his home and family.
Discourage predators from his wife and children, without having to say a word. 


Oh yeah ...... and when he get's bucked off that horse, he gets his a$$ back on and takes his reride.


----------



## LovesHerMan

This topic is a great Rorschach test of how each person views male-female dynamics.

Does Man Up mean that a husband should treat his wife like an emotional child, or does it mean that he should set boundaries if his wife does not respect him?

Does being a Nice Guy mean that a man is playing games to get sex, or is he a pleaser who does not know how to assert himself in the relationship?

I think the Man Up and No More Mr. Nice Guy is intended for both men and women who do not stand up for themselves in their marriages. They need guidance about how to re-claim their role in the relationship. They tend to be easy-going people pleasers who have inadvertantly taught their spouses that they are doormats. The strong-willed spouse then loses sexual attraction for the clingy, weak partner.

The weaker one thinks by doing more of the same, being nice, that the stronger one will appreciate their efforts. They need to learn that by setting boundaries, they have a chance to re-gain the respect and sexual attraction of their spouse.

When you fall in love, you do not imagine that your partner will take advantage of your good nature, so you need advice about how to change the dynamic of your relationship. That is what I see as the intention behind Man (or Woman) Up.


----------



## greenpearl

What would we do when we see a woman been treated poorly? Same thing, we will tell her to gain more confidence, stand up for herself, learn to protect herself. She can do it or not, we don't know. 

Long time ago, women couldn't work and they had to be dependent on their husbands, so their husbands had more power over them and some of the women got treated poorly. 

Now women can work, and the roles are changing. I don't think men get treated poorly by their women, but they certainly don't enjoy the power and privileges they had before. 

The society is changing, and we have to learn to change to adapt to our new roles.


----------



## AFEH

One of my friends was shocked about the state I was in at one time. She knew my wife and we’d got together as friends about 6 months after my wife had left. She’s a really good friend and really helped me out as she’d been through stuff when her husbandly suddenly passed away some 10 years previously.

Previously she’d seen me as a big guy who’s got it all together with a wife he was in love with and together for decades. When she saw me in my “state” she said something like “Now I know what a woman can do to a man, I wouldn’t have believed it”. That was 6 months after I’d ended it with my wife.

But she’d caught me off guard, having popped round on her way to shopping. She saw a side of me that, as a man, I don’t show others. And that’s part of the problem that a wife’s abuse of her husband is hidden from the view of others plus the husband as a man will not show to others what it is he is going through.


Part of the manning up process is to teach the husband how to better handle his wife’s abuse. In fact it is more in that it is partly to help him recognise when his very good nature is being abused and what to do about it.


----------



## AFEH

For me your opening line is very wrong. It’s not what I “think” was my wife’s abuse, it’s what I “know” was my wife’s abuse. And I “know” it for such that I’ll never see her again. The only way you can ever “know” these things is to actually experience them.

It’s like a wife who’s been beaten by her husband. No way she’ll go back to him because she knows what he’s capable of. Or if she does go back to him she’ll live in fear of him. I know the abuse my wife is capable of and came to fear her because of what she is capable of.

It is so very difficult for a husband who is being severely emotionally abused by his wife. Some husbands give in to their capability of physical dominance and actually hit their wife to shut her up. Others like me don’t give in to violence so we let it out with anger or internalise it.

But you are one of the biggest opponents to the manning up processes on TAM. And I think I know why. It is to do with your 100% feminist agenda and within that agenda you will always see man as the abuser. You will never see woman as the abuser. And for me that’s why you just don’t get and continuously try to discredit the manning up advice given in the Men’s Clubhouse.

Until you do see woman’s capability of being the abuser you will always fall short of helping women to help themselves.


----------



## SockPuppet

FrenchFry said:


> I'm an extremely feminine feminist, fyvm.  The reliance on BS evopsych and constant trotting out of "biotruths" is irritating and often erroneous as well as insulting to men and women.
> Some of the articles reek of the creeper moves used by Pick Up Artists (PUAs) that treat women as an emotionally unstable monolith, that if you use the right (manipulative, objectifying) manuevers you ican TAME THE BEAST into the perfect docile sex doll without regard for an individual womans agency. There is nothing wrong with attaing personal balance in order to create marital harmony, but i'm not convinced that some of the articles are actually advocating for that. Well intentioned, maybe, but for me a total turn off.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Keep in mind that the stuff at mmsl.com and most other articles written about manning-up are writen for a mans ear, and understandably some women will take offence to that.

A lot of men also mis-interperet Athol, and other man-up sources. For instance, after my father finished reading NMMNG, he announced he needs to be more of a jerk. And thats how he worded it.


----------



## BigBadWolf

AFEH said:


> But you are one of the biggest opponents to the manning up processes on TAM.


ANd it's a shame that Trenton trys to derail other men's progress that her own husband already posseses, and she herself benefits from.




> And I think I know why. It is to do with your 100% feminist agenda and within that agenda you will always see man as the abuser. You will never see woman as the abuser. And for me that’s why you just don’t get and continuously try to discredit the manning up advice given in the Men’s Clubhouse.
> 
> Until you do see woman’s capability of being the abuser you will always fall short of helping women to help themselves.


Well said AFEH.



tacoma said:


> Women say one thing but respond to an entirely different thing.
> 
> Maybe that`s why part of "Manning Up" is not to listen to your woman.


Men have GOT to realize this, no matter how non politically correct or deprogramming or simple "faith".


Even the most disrespectful critic of the Men's Forum is herself more often than not the perfect example of this.

Trenton 2011:



Trenton said:


> Oh and you forgot the cornerstone of much of the man up crap...
> 
> "Don't listen to your woman, listen to us men when it comes to getting answers about women. Women never know what they want.


Trenton 2010:



Trenton said:


> Big Bad Wolf, didn't even know that's what I wanted as a woman but I think you are right, it is exactly what I want.



So is the lesson in a nutshell of the Men's Clubhouse, actions speak louder than words. 

THis goes both for men and women.


----------



## [email protected]

ocotillo said:


> In the Men's Clubhouse section there is a "sticky" entitled _The Man Up and Nice Guy Reference_ with a generous number of links.
> 
> I've spent some time reading what's freely available on the internet. It's interesting, but I have this one observation:
> 
> There is not one woman I know who would agree with any of it. This includes my wife, my mother, my sisters, and my best friend growing up. And these are not uneducated women --not by a long shot.
> 
> Most would find the greater implications and ideology extremely offensive, but then every single one of them is a feminist to the core.
> 
> So I'm genuinely curious. What do the women of TAM think? Do you accept the starting premises as valid? Are you comfortable with all the implications?


 could you send me a link to this thread? i'd like to check out the links


----------



## AFEH

[email protected] said:


> could you send me a link to this thread? i'd like to check out the links


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/18181-man-up-nice-guy-reference.html


----------



## AFEH

Trenton said:


> I often wonder. If we stood outside of our relationship and were privy to all the details of both perspectives without the bias of our own, what would we truly see? How different would we feel?


There are people that can do that. A few on TAM, women and men, have gone through big positive changes because they learnt that skill. They learnt about it in the Men's Clubhouse. But with your massive feminist bias you would have missed it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I don't think it is a feminist agenda at all, not for me at least. BBW, you got me all wrong in that my husband is alpha. He is ANYTHING but alpha within our marriage. He is a passive aggressive conflict avoider who married a strong woman because he doesn't want to do the heavy lifting. Never had and never will and so I am left with what to do next. 
I do not disagree with the message, hell I read Athol's book and wrote a very positive review of it. So keeping Athol's book out of it, I will instead talk about what I see going on here. I oftentimes see men taking the man up meme and misusing it. To me, being a strong male means to focus on himself and his actions, not to commandeer his wife's actions and change her but I see that so often here. I also see a lot of manipulation and game playing when (for me) all I want is an equal partner. I in no way speak for all women, I am just talking about myself here. I wish my husband "manned up" to become my equal but he will not as he doesn't have it in him or rather enjoys being lazy within our marriage. Oddly, he is anything but lazy in his career and does all the heavy lifting. 
What am I trying to say here? Not sure but I think a lot of women read the man up threads and so much of it is about the men changing the women, rather than themselves. Everything is a test, a trick or a game and it doesn't resonate well with me. If my husband did that to me, I'd view him less than I already do. What would I like to see here and within my own marriage? Men who actually change themselves and look within to see that they are not being who they need to be and that doesn't start with finger pointing or trying to change her.
BBW, I think you have deeply misunderstood me.


----------



## SockPuppet

AFEH said:


> There are people that can do that. A few on TAM, women and men, have gone through big positive changes because they learnt that skill. They learnt about it in the Men's Clubhouse. But with your massive feminist bias you would have missed it.


I highly suggest "The 5th Agreement" by Don Miguel for this. Not saying I am completely capable of being objective 100% of the time. Just that I am finally aware of it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

AFEH said:


> There are people that can do that. A few on TAM, women and men, have gone through big positive changes because they learnt that skill. They learnt about it in the Men's Clubhouse. But with your massive feminist bias you would have missed it.


I posted a thread on general a few months back about what would your spouse say about you. It got limited responses and even less so from men. I think we all need to remember that what we read here is one sided and few ever post about the other side. 
I have posted here about what my husband would say about me and it is spot on and yes, woman can most certainly abuse. I struggles early on with verbal abuse directed towards my husband and have written about that. I would most certainly say I was an abuser and it hurt my marriage tremendously. I have however worked very hard to get things back on track while my husband has not. He has literally done nothing I have asked. Every book I suggested was read maybe 1/3 and never picked up again. Every attempt I have made to seek answers from him has been met with "busy, later or next week" and never mentioned again. He is the abuser now. 
Bob, you know better than anyone here what damage passive aggressive behavior does to another. I have suffered tremendously because of it and am making plans to remove myself from this hell. I would like nothing more however than for him to TRULY man up instead of blame shifting, finger pointing and manipulation. It is anything but manly and frankly I find it revolting, just as I do when I see it here.


----------



## Chelle D

I heard someone referred to "Being just a Nice Guy, is looked upon as being weak." It's too bad that society views common curtsey that way.
j


----------



## This is me

Chelle D said:


> If the "manning up" is an issue of building better self confidence for the man, and reflecting on his own needs by becoming a better self.. Great.. go for it guys.
> 
> I heard someone referred to "Being just a Nice Guy, is looked upon as being weak." It's too bad that society views common curtsey that way.


I think some people will always confuse kindness for weakness. Being brought up with traditional values which included behaviors like opening doors and generally treating women with kindness, we were given the idea this would gain their respect and rewards. 

But I believe the rules have changed and Nice Guys that were born out of the traditional training can now be viewed as weak. Their kindness and common courtesies directed at Women who are making it on their own generally will find "bad boys' more appealing.

IMHO.


----------



## I Know

Trenton said:


> Men undeniably feel they have to be strong and they view emotional weakness as a flaw for themselves. I don't think women have this same viewpoint as it's acceptable for women to be emotional.
> 
> I get that I am different. I don't view men's ability to feel emotion and express it as weak. I think, given the taboo, a man who can show his emotions is extremely strong.


Actually Trenton, men these days are socialized to show emotional weakness. problem is most women do not find such weakness attractive. It's a real bitter pill to find out that bringing the vulnerability just gets you the "I just want to be friends" and "I love you but I'm not in love with you" speeches. 

My wife has always been deeply in love with me (25 years). But after reading and implementing some of the man up principles, her behavior is more like she just cannot resist me. Sex was kind of a chore for her before. Now SHE is after me for it. I am surprised at what a difference it has made in her behavior. 

My wife is very successful in the world, educated, smart. Yet the man up techniques apparently reached something emotional in her that I was not reaching before. She's still in love with me as before. But she wants me more now. 

I'm still a nice guy. I still treat her as well as ever. Many of the changes I have made are simply selling my strengths and minimizing references and appearances of weaknesses. 

Moral of the story is that "man up" doesn't have to mean "treat my wife bad". Man up is just that. Be a better man. 

Best regards


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ocotillo said:


> So I'm genuinely curious. What do the women of TAM think? Do you accept the starting premises as valid? Are you comfortable with all the implications?


I am the wife of the typical loving Nice Guy type -but mine is Genuine & authentically just a hell of a NICE MAN at his core to begin with..... He was like that when I met him, it was not something that changed after marraige. 

After finding TAM, I often felt my husbands type was being slammed & I wanted to stick up for him somehow. I ended up 
buying *No More Mr Nice Guy*, and *Hold onto your Nuts*- just to see if I had a problem with them... I am the reader, he is NOT.... out of pure curisoity, I wanted to see where he was missing it, according to these books - which he clearly was -with me. 

Here is a list of NICE GUY Characteristics - Most guys have a few of these, but the headed for doormat status "NICE guys"- posses these in abundance . The book has more detail to each little item of coarse.



> Nice Guys are Givers
> 
> Nice Guys fix & Caretake
> 
> Nice Guys seek approval from others
> 
> Nice Guys avoid Conflict
> 
> Nice Guys believe they must hide their perceived flaws & mistakes
> 
> Nice Guys seek the "right" way to do things
> 
> Nice Guys REPRESS their feelings
> 
> Nice Guys often try to be different from their fathers
> 
> Nice Guys are often more comfortable relating to women than to men
> 
> Nice Guys have difficulty making their needs a priority
> 
> Nice Guys often make their partner their emotional center


There is problems with each one of those -the motivation behind the doing is the issue. What is happening is -- These men have been conditioned to believe that if they are "NICE" they will be loved, get their needs met and have a smooth life. 

Now I believe had my husband LIVED what was taught in those books, that he would have NOT suffered so much sexually in our marraige. It wasn't all that bad compared to many stories on this site -as I needed it once a week or I would chase him down. 

But my husband has had me on a pedestal from day 1 and literally, he pretty much gave me anything my heart desired, even 6 kids. He spoiled me, I guess I was like a child who pushed the limits of a parent, anything I wanted, he would Jump......was this healthy -NO!!! 

He was so darn quiet about his own needs, never fighting with me, conflict was something he avoided, he cared about my 
approval at every turn, and what I ended up doing was taking him for granted.

I never wanted anyone else mind you, he knew that , we were pathetically close even back then compared to most marraiges, but I did get carried away with other priorities over "US" ...like acheiving our dreams, goals, making the kids happy. 

I didn't understand the male sex drive, for all I knew, he wanted it equally as often as me . He never tried to clue me in. I was a bit demanding on getting things done....those growing "honey to do lists" .......only thing good about me was ....I helped plan every project down to where to buy the supplies to helping him with my bare hands.. doing roofs, laying cement, digging ditches, building clubhouses, knocking down barns, swapping transmissions, you name it - we were do it yourselfers every step of the way . 

We accomplished ALOT over the years , but we were missing each other being so darn BUSY, the only thing he says he was missing was MORE SEX, he even says he was happy back then, but still he didn't want to rock the boat, let me know how he was suffering inside wanting more. Or just going for what he wanted, he feared rejection. Which just shouldn't have been!

My husband would have NEVER changed, *it was ME who changed. *What is really funny about him is this....he learned where he screwed up trying to please me while putting himself down, hiding a part of who he was - being too helpful , allowing me everything I wanted .. we read pages of NMMNG together........and I asked him oneday ......if he could go back in time & do this all over again, would he have told me what for.... and he said he doubts it - he still wouldn't have changed, he would have treated me the same -he said "he couldn't hurt me"... I just threw my hands up in the air and said "Oh my goodnesss, you are hopeless"!! 

It is sweet in its own way. I no longer take him for granted, I know what I have, I was just missing it , I love his emotional side and would likely be upset if he didn't show it, so no complaints from this woman. We both love "the mush", the sentimental, the vulnerable. 

I am more the Old fashioned -Traditional marraige type, I LOVE being a SAHM barefoot & pregnant (literally). 

But I also love a man who can tell me what he wants , when he wants it , is not afraid of a little confrontation and can tell me off - put me in my place (with humor anyway)-If I am getting out of hand....my husband has gotten better here -and I wouldn't want it any other way!! Before He felt less loved somehow, now he doesn't feel that way, our pedestals are equal.


----------



## FourtyPlus

coguy said:


> you can be a nice guy and an alpha male. The no more mr. Nice guy thing to me is not about not being nice, it's about not being a doormat.
> 
> I love doing nice things for my wife. But i noticed the difference pre-affair that most of the time i would do them to keep her from nagging. Whereas at the beginning of our relationship and today i do them because i enjoy making her happy. Both directions give me the appearance of being a "nice guy", but one of them makes me a slave.
> 
> I've always been a "nice guy", and always treated women with respect. Nice guys can be very alpha, an example was myself in college. I was a virgin by choice, my rugby team would constantly give me **** about it, when they first found out they tried to embarass me in the bars. The first time they tried, i stood unwavered about how i was saving it for my wife and how i wanted to have a special wedding night. I had girls tugging on me all night telling me they wanted to be my first. No one wanted to lose game to a virgin, the joking stopped pretty quickly after that.
> 
> I knew who i was and what i stood for, to me that's the concept of being alpha. Knowing who you are and being proud of it. Going after your goals and desires without dissuasion. Doesn't matter if you're ruthlessly pursuing hot chicks in bed, or curing cancer at a children's hospital.
> 
> Also, as a married man, there are times where you need to put your goals on hold to take care of your wife and family. If you're full-on alpha male 100% of the time, you're going to make an ******* husband.
> 
> I liked the married man sex primer because it talks about creating a balance. To be a good husband you need to find a mix of both. You need to know who you are and pursue your goals to be an attractive mate. But to meet your wife's emotional needs, you need to be able to pick up a vacuum or have a deep talk about feelings.
> 
> My goal is to be the best man i can be. That means i stand with integrity and do not compromise my beliefs or character. But it also means that i know how to serve my wife to meet her needs. You can still call me a nice guy, but don't call me a doormat (at least anymore).


this!


----------



## Mistys dad

You nailed it. It was nice reading your assessment of your situation. There are many women who become defensive about this subject, you really seem to understand.

One more result of the "Nice Guy" characteristics that you outlined is the frustrations the men feel about not getting their internal bargains fulfilled. They are afraid to make waves and ask for what they want, that causes frustration. That frustration leads to bottled up, silent, anger. Then comes the passive aggressive blow back that turns the nice guy into a liar and poor partner.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I am the wife of the typical loving Nice Guy type -but mine is Genuine & authentically just a hell of a NICE MAN at his core to begin with..... He was like that when I met him, it was not something that changed after marraige.
> 
> After finding TAM, I often felt my husbands type was being slammed & I wanted to stick up for him somehow. I ended up
> buying *No More Mr Nice Guy*, and *Hold onto your Nuts*- just to see if I had a problem with them... I am the reader, he is NOT.... out of pure curisoity, I wanted to see where he was missing it, according to these books - which he clearly was -with me.
> 
> Here is a list of NICE GUY Characteristics - Most guys have a few of these, but the headed for doormat status "NICE guys"- posses these in abundance . The book has more detail to each little item of coarse.
> 
> 
> 
> There is problems with each one of those -the motivation behind the doing is the issue. What is happening is -- These men have been conditioned to believe that if they are "NICE" they will be loved, get their needs met and have a smooth life.
> 
> Now I believe had my husband LIVED what was taught in those books, that he would have NOT suffered so much sexually in our marraige. It wasn't all that bad compared to many stories on this site -as I needed it once a week or I would chase him down.
> 
> But my husband has had me on a pedestal from day 1 and literally, he pretty much gave me anything my heart desired, even 6 kids. He spoiled me, I guess I was like a child who pushed the limits of a parent, anything I wanted, he would Jump......was this healthy -NO!!!
> 
> He was so darn quiet about his own needs, never fighting with me, conflict was something he avoided, he cared about my
> approval at every turn, and what I ended up doing was taking him for granted.
> 
> I never wanted anyone else mind you, he knew that , we were pathetically close even back then compared to most marraiges, but I did get carried away with other priorities over "US" ...like acheiving our dreams, goals, making the kids happy.
> 
> I didn't understand the male sex drive, for all I knew, he wanted it equally as often as me . He never tried to clue me in. I was a bit demanding on getting things done....those growing "honey to do lists" .......only thing good about me was ....I helped plan every project down to where to buy the supplies to helping him with my bare hands.. doing roofs, laying cement, digging ditches, building clubhouses, knocking down barns, swapping transmissions, you name it - we were do it yourselfers every step of the way .
> 
> We accomplished ALOT over the years , but we were missing each other being so darn BUSY, the only thing he says he was missing was MORE SEX, he even says he was happy back then, but still he didn't want to rock the boat, let me know how he was suffering inside wanting more. Or just going for what he wanted, he feared rejection. Which just shouldn't have been!
> 
> My husband would have NEVER changed, *it was ME who changed. *What is really funny about him is this....he learned where he screwed up trying to please me while putting himself down, hiding a part of who he was - being too helpful , allowing me everything I wanted .. we read pages of NMMNG together........and I asked him oneday ......if he could go back in time & do this all over again, would he have told me what for.... and he said he doubts it - he still wouldn't have changed, he would have treated me the same -he said "he couldn't hurt me"... I just threw my hands up in the air and said "Oh my goodnesss, you are hopeless"!!
> 
> It is sweet in its own way. I no longer take him for granted, I know what I have, I was just missing it , I love his emotional side and would likely be upset if he didn't show it, so no complaints from this woman. We both love "the mush", the sentimental, the vulnerable.
> 
> I am more the Old fashioned -Traditional marraige type, I LOVE being a SAHM barefoot & pregnant (literally).
> 
> But I also love a man who can tell me what he wants , when he wants it , is not afraid of a little confrontation and can tell me off - put me in my place (with humor anyway)-If I am getting out of hand....my husband has gotten better here -and I wouldn't want it any other way!! Before He felt less loved somehow, now he doesn't feel that way, our pedestals are equal.


----------



## 2sick

Trenton said:


> Oh and you forgot the cornerstone of much of the man up crap...
> 
> "Don't listen to your woman, listen to us men when it comes to getting answers about women. Women never know what they want. In fact, they actually want us to decide for them because they are moody and unreliable with their wants constantly changing. Be the alpha male and lead her and she will be a sex goddess in thanks."
> 
> Seriously? I mean...really?
> 
> Yeah, OK!


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Love it!!!!!...You left out grab the biotch by the hair and lead her....:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## 2sick

ocotillo said:


> Thank you. I whole-heartedly agree with you on that.
> 
> What offended my wife was not the self-improvement aspect. Like you said, that would be like looking a gift horse in the mouth.
> 
> What offended her were the reasons given for why it's necessary. She didn't like the idea that women are utter slaves to their reproductive instincts and hormones.


:iagree: Self improvement isn't limited to either sex(EVERYONE should try improve on themselves and grow..no ones perfect), it's the way most of the forum articles are written that turns my stomach.


----------



## Acorn

I am a reforming "nice guy" and tbh as someone that has tried to follow the basic concepts, I have found it really worthwhile. 

For me, the day I realized things were changing was when my wife started saying things like, "Well, I know I said that but it's not what I meant." It has forced my wife to be more forthcoming with her needs, and led to many conversations where I have said something like, "I hear that you want xxx, and I'd love to do that, but the problem is you are not willing to do the same for me. Do you find that fair?"

There have been times in these conversations where she has admitted that she thought she wanted one thing, but in reality she wanted something completely different. I do not like to equate that to my wife being clueless about what she wants; I prefer to think that through the conversation that I was now leading and participating in (in a way I haven't in the past), *we* learned a lot about each other and moved forward.


----------



## joelmacdad

:iagree::iagree: Very well said and one of the best reply posts in this thread.

I could have written the same exact post!




I Know said:


> Actually Trenton, men these days are socialized to show emotional weakness. problem is most women do not find such weakness attractive. It's a real bitter pill to find out that bringing the vulnerability just gets you the "I just want to be friends" and "I love you but I'm not in love with you" speeches.
> 
> My wife has always been deeply in love with me (25 years). But after reading and implementing some of the man up principles, her behavior is more like she just cannot resist me. Sex was kind of a chore for her before. Now SHE is after me for it. I am surprised at what a difference it has made in her behavior.
> 
> My wife is very successful in the world, educated, smart. Yet the man up techniques apparently reached something emotional in her that I was not reaching before. She's still in love with me as before. But she wants me more now.
> 
> I'm still a nice guy. I still treat her as well as ever. Many of the changes I have made are simply selling my strengths and minimizing references and appearances of weaknesses.
> 
> Moral of the story is that "man up" doesn't have to mean "treat my wife bad". Man up is just that. Be a better man.
> 
> Best regards


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> I've spent some time reading what's freely available on the internet. It's interesting, but I have this one observation:
> 
> There is not one woman I know who would agree with any of it. This includes my wife, my mother, my sisters, and my best friend growing up. And these are not uneducated women --not by a long shot.
> 
> Most would find the greater implications and ideology extremely offensive, but then every single one of them is a feminist to the core.
> 
> So I'm genuinely curious. What do the women of TAM think? Do you accept the starting premises as valid? Are you comfortable with all the implications?


The women of TAM are pretty excited about it, and give it their full support and blessing.

Except for when they don't.


----------



## SolidSnake

Its funny because I was just thinking about this exact question and then someone posted this thread! I think we need to differentiate between "No More Mr. Nice Guy" as a protocol for some individuals to follow in certain adverse circumstances, as opposed to the "Alpha" philosophy as an approach to life. The Aplha philosophy is a fallacy that ignores free will, individual character and choice. 

I'm a woman and I don't consider myself a feminist because I don't like any philosophy of collectivism, whether it relates to gender, race, etc. Collectivist beliefs and ideologies assume that everyone in group X is always Y. 

The Alpha philosophy is utterly collectivist. It assumes that all men are one way and all women are another. Racism is also a form of collectivism...anything is collectivist which assumes group X is always a certain way (Y). 

I can see that the No More Mr. Nice Guy protocol can be useful to someone who has been emotionally abused to the extent that it helps them transcend their way of thinking about their particular situation and gain self respect. But taking the Alpha ideology to its logical extreme of assuming all women want X, is collectivist and wrong. 

Everything comes down to the individual; the strength of their character and the choices they make. While not everybody has the same needs, in relationship, both individual's needs should be met equally. Both individuals should respect themselves and their partner. Partners should find a mutually agreeable compromise when necessary. Lack of respect for others is indicative of a weak character, regardless of gender or race. 

I can see where there are situations where No More Mr. Nice Guy is useful to some individuals, but it should not be pushed to its collectivist extreme of assuming all women want Alpha. We need to respect individual differences.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Great thread, oco! 

I have read the books and most of the links on that thread.

Yes, it is the silly sl*t shaming and patriarchal ideology that is the problem in those relationship models that bother me personally. But I recognize those models work superbly for many people, namely religious hetero-sexual people, of which most people in the USA are.

When a person's personal beliefs dictate that they should behave this way or that way and they do it...I'm all good with that. That's why I think burkas are beautiful. 

But when a person's personal beliefs come raging out against others who don't believe the same and they try to dictate what others "should" do in the name of their belief OR in the name of their science, then the non-believers are going to be like "chyuh, no, I do not actually have to follow your made up rules, in fact".

Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to try to narrow down into "one true" way of doing it. 

Which doesn't mean the ways in the Man Up thread don't work or are bad. It just means they won't work for quite a lot of people and they are not the ONE TRUE WAY. They are one of many ways.


----------



## AliceA

I don't read most of that stuff, I find that many of the men who think it's gospel also say stuff like, "Feminists aren't women." I can therefore conclude that it's most likely not worthwhile reading.

People can be walked all over in a relationship, male or female, and no doubt some of that material would be helpful to them. Most often I see 'No more mr. nice guy' being referred to for helping a man divorce his wife, rather than help his marriage. I've been curious as to whether anyone has applied it's principles and actually stayed with their partner.


----------



## Deejo

breeze said:


> I don't read most of that stuff, I find that many of the men who think it's gospel also say stuff like, "Feminists aren't women." I can therefore conclude that it's most likely not worthwhile reading.
> 
> People can be walked all over in a relationship, male or female, and no doubt some of that material would be helpful to them. Most often I see 'No more mr. nice guy' being referred to for helping a man divorce his wife, rather than help his marriage. I've been curious as to whether anyone has applied it's principles and actually stayed with their partner.


This is the one that stands out. He returns from time to time and provides updates. There have been others, perhaps they'll chime in. There are of course many, like myself who made the journey are now divorced and are perfectly resolved with that outcome as well.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/27426-what-ive-learned-past-year-good-news-story.html

You actually participated a good deal in one of the threads from a few years ago, but then removed your posts. I liked what you had to say. So did the other participants. I like when people paint a picture of hope.

I will admit that I cringe when I read about a guy 'doing it wrong'. Not that I did it right. I have conveyed on multiple occasions that the anger I unleashed when I strangled my inner Nice Guy and left him for dead on the side of the road, made the already bad circumstances in my marriage even worse.

But manning up isn't about divorcing your wife ... unless divorcing your wife is what you need to do to take care of yourself.

About 3 years ago we went through one of those cyclical phases where lots of men coming here were asking about NMMNG and Manning Up. I don't think the current environment on the boards is like that any longer.

I like when women participate in the threads. I don't like when it looks like they are being ganged up on, or dismissed ... unless they are way off the range.

I STILL don't care if it's Evo psych, biology, PUA, neural feedback, chanting, reading chicken bones, the power of crystals or 12 steps ... I don't care what we call it. I care if it works.


----------



## Deejo

I'll also state that even Athol has modified a good amount of his thinking. 

His new book is a lot less inflammatory than MMSLP. It's called "The Mindful Attraction Plan"

I remember posts on his blog where he was taking issue with how a number of men were applying the concepts of MMSLP. He even flat out stated that he had come to see that in many cases that the men were the engineers of their own destruction, even in light of knowing if they did the right work ... their wives would be on board. They simply, didn't. It was easier for them to just blame their wives instead.


----------



## Racer

breeze said:


> ... I've been curious as to whether anyone has applied it's principles and actually stayed with their partner.


Sorry, long as hell......

I did. It was sort of bizarre route though. My WW is SA; in the early stages she was unremorseful and the entitled sort. Back then, I was a total Nice Guy, doormat and seriously co-dependant. So my default on DD was to R since the mindset is more like “How can I go on without her!?” NMMNG was suggested to me. Our MC at the time was familiar with it and recommended it too. 

First time through it.. Wasn’t a good one. I still kept her in mind so it was tempered with “what would she like” (earning her love) instead of just “what do I want” (whether or not she likes the result). It is hard for a co-dependant NG to put themselves first knowing some of what they want isn’t what their spouse would want or like. You don’t like ‘testing’ troubled waters. 

Meanwhile; False R occurred (cont EA). That was my breaking....... It should be noted that during this time, my wife was beginning to address some marriage issues and treatment toward me, but was not addressing her infidelity (nor really admitting it)

After the breaking, I changed. F’her. From that point on it wasn’t hard at all to put myself first and foremost. Started the program over with a whole new perception of a single man (dropped the “what would a husband do” expectations of myself). 

This no longer caring about her and working hard on myself had a reaction. She started TT’ing and talking about her affairs. And anyone who’s been through adultery knows what it’s like when you start finding details and get them talking. You stick around because you really want to know how the hell this all happened and what happened. Concurrently, I continued working very hard on myself.

After about 8 months or so, I had most of her long and torrid story. And because that Nice Guy thing was sort of abolished, I recognized and owned how I myself allowed her to treat me with such disrespect and contempt. I should have divorced a good decade ago. But I didn’t. I own those horrible choices and carry a lot of shame of how I was.

And how it starts looking. She’s owning her own mental damage and what she did to me. I’m owning my own part in how our marriage and my messes. And we are both working on ourselves. I grew a ton and the relationship is looking a ton better. 

So the question that comes back is whether or not I hold that terrible past against the relationship or not. I can argue either side. It is horrible. At the same time, neither of us feels like those people who did that to each other and ourselves. Because of NMMNG I made a choice based on nothing more than a gut feeling without trying to rationalize, predict outcomes, or plot a end game. I went “bull moose” on whether or not to continue. My relationship will be what it’s going to be and I’m not trying terribly hard to push it one way or another. I just set my new boundaries to define how I would be treated. I continued the relationship and deal with ‘how it is’ until such time as my gut tells me I no longer want to. It is a choice. Not for her, for the family, for whatever... it is a choice I make for myself.

The ‘after’ of this some two years later after completing the program (that second time for me). When I first started, though my wife’s words were condesending about how I was going to turn into a a’hole, she actually did find she was a lot more attracted to me challenging her and holding my own ground. 

The last year or so, as I’ve allowed myself to start slipping back into ‘husband mode’, the dynamics are changing again. She’s simply less attracted. Somewhere in there is a balance and I need to get back to more of ‘what do I want’ than placing the relationship first (which is what she wants). She simply tends to devalue things when I’m expected to do them as a husband. 

So I’m finding that our relationship is better when I act like a individual and not a husband. It’s seems totally contradictory, yet that is my conclusion. My wife feels best in the struggle to get what she wants, and doesn’t seem to value when she finally gets it. She needs that challenge to stay engaged. Weird, but that’s the dynamic in my relationship. I need to be ‘a challenge’ for her.


----------



## fightforher

breeze said:


> I don't read most of that stuff, I find that many of the men who think it's gospel also say stuff like, "Feminists aren't women." I can therefore conclude that it's most likely not worthwhile reading.
> 
> People can be walked all over in a relationship, male or female, and no doubt some of that material would be helpful to them. *Most often I see 'No more mr. nice guy' being referred to for helping a man divorce his wife, rather than help his marriage.* I've been curious as to whether anyone has applied it's principles and actually stayed with their partner.


I am wondering if examples of how people use and refer "No More Mr. Nice Guy" look biased about helping a man divorce his wife because of where the information is coming from (i.e. post that have to do with infidelity etc.) I too would be very interested in hearing stories about men that found the book helpful in staying with their marriage and making their marriage stronger. It would be very nice to hear from a woman that gave the book to her husband that has a success story to tell about it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NMMNG has their own forum, and many guys have discussed their success stories there. There are also some sour grapes guys, so not everyone has the same story. But for the ones it has worked for, it has worked well.

No More Mr. Nice Guy Online Support Group - Powered by vBulletin


----------



## Tall Average Guy

breeze said:


> I've been curious as to whether anyone has applied it's principles and actually stayed with their partner.


I have and it really worked well for us. I cleaned up a lot of crap on my side of the street and be the type of man I wanted to be. In doing that, I also figured out what I needed to do to meet her needs and keep us happy. It does not work for everyone, but I think it can be useful for many.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

from the thread just referenced by Deejo:

_Just last month she told me “I think you’d be more ok without me than I’d be without you.”_


that's the key I think, what the books mentioned are (at least trying to) accomplish. To instruct the person how to get into a much better power position in the marriage. The power to continue on with a good spouse, and the power to cut off the relationship with a bad one. i.e. the oppossite of codependence.


----------



## AliceA

Sounds like NMMNG is worthwhile then. Much of the things learnt by the men from this book seem applicable to women also imo.

I see that confidence, self respect and assertiveness are qualities both partners can respect and admire in each other. Maybe it's more obvious when a man isn't displaying these qualities, since they are expected of men in our society. When a woman doesn't display these qualities, maybe it's just brushed off as her being feminine, a mere woman? Then when she's unhappy in her marriage and her husband is walking all over her, the 'man up' advice is a lot more watered down. Just pondering.


----------



## Mr The Other

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Well duh. I always listen to men for advice about women. Don't you always ask men what tampon you should use? I rely on men to tell me what mascara makes my eyelashes look longer. I don't know what I want afterall.


I agree with most of your posts, however.....

When it comes to advice on going out with straight men, it is best to seek advice of people who have done it, i.e. straight women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I'll also state that even Athol has modified a good amount of his thinking.
> 
> His new book is a lot less inflammatory than MMSLP. It's called "The Mindful Attraction Plan"
> 
> I remember posts on his blog where he was taking issue with how a number of men were applying the concepts of MMSLP. He even flat out stated that he had come to see that in many cases that the men were the engineers of their own destruction, even in light of knowing if they did the right work ... their wives would be on board. They simply, didn't. It was easier for them to just blame their wives instead.


Yes it was interesting that his first book claimed that "his way" was the right way because "science". And then he realized "wait more books will be sold if I do not act like I hate women" and then modified his "science" around that new flavor.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it was interesting that his first book claimed that "his way" was the right way because "science". And then he realized "wait more books will be sold if I do not act like I hate women" and then modified his "science" around that new flavor.


You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

A very large portion of his readership has always been women. Women are also a marketing segment far more likely to buy a 'relationship book'.

I'm not criticizing, I think it's smart business. And besides, the principles can work for either gender.

The whole 'science' thing gets bandied about here all the time. I don't care if it's based in science or not. It works.

I don't think it's the right solution for everyone, nor do I ever recall him saying that it was.

I knew Athol had truly 'made it', when he started having haters. You haven't really made it if there isn't a segment of people out there who can't stand you, or whatever you're peddling.


----------



## Faithful Wife

If you read his original book, which I did and paid full price for by the way...he does indeed say that his "science" works for "everyone".

Until he realized he could sell more books if he said "but ladies, I will try to include you too, while covering up my tracks and deleting old blog posts where I called women chubby screechtards".

But yeah hey, what ever it takes to sell books, because that is really what is important.


----------



## Deejo

Are you saying there are no 'chubby screetchtards'?

I realize it's easy to pigeon-hole as a blanket statement meant to diminish ALL women, but I never saw it that way.

I've known chubby screetchtards. I've seen them in action.

Basically, whenever I see someone, male or female who so clearly has NO idea of what their sexual market value is, and therefore submits themselves to a horrid, low value spouse, I feel bad. I've seen it happen to both genders.

I don't know if you saw the posts that I'm referring to, where Athol basically called 'bullsh!t' on a lot of the guys who were looking for a cozy place where someone would rub their beer belly and tell them that women are just mean and wrong. Was probably over 2 years ago.

And there was a lot of red pill stuff for women even before the new book. I bought a hard copy of MMSLP myself.

I know you have issues with Athol, but unless you and I have totally miscommunicated, you do agree that gaming mechanics work, no?

Again, when it comes to game, I'm not interested in neg theory, or approaches. I'm interested in the _dynamic_ particularly over the long term.

Glover's book was probably the most radical eye-opener for me in a self-help, or personal relationship book that I have ever read.

It directly and succinctly made things clear to me that I hadn't even considered. And importantly, made me want to change them.

Did I buy all of it? Nope. I rarely do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Honestly? I wouldn't have had a problem with ANYTHING in Athol's book or blog...if he had never tried to say that it is all true because "science".

For that alone, I mock him and always will. And yes he does in fact say it will work for everyone. For those it doesn't work for, he says they did it wrong. Yes I did see the posts you are talking about. Don't care. He's the one who brought "science" as his proof.

You know what's funny?

When you venture outside of this board...most people have never heard of him.


----------



## Sandfly

Interesting comments. 

I feel that the better sort of writers are not trying to educate or change a person into something he/she isn't, but are about undoing illusions people have had put into their heads. 



> He who neglects what _is_ done for what _ought to be_ done, sooner brings about his ruin than his preservation.


 (Machiavelli, The prince.)

It's about _de_programming people, from moralistic ideologies to practical thinking.

I am alarmed when I hear people talking about solving problems through 'education'. With "education" it's just 'this is how we think it _ought to _be'. 

When I went to high-school, the talk about the 'free-market' involved discussion about the 'perfectly competitive market'. This wasn't enlightening, this was propaganda, because no markets in the real world actually had those characteristics. 

When I got to _university_, all this bollocks was thrown overboard. We learnt about manipulating workers, glamourising the numbers, detecting lies on the balance sheet, financial formulas, and the focus was on creating monopoly through branding, patents and ruining the competition (etc.) No more dreamy ideas about how wonderful the market is, just '_how_ to get profit'.

So example is better than education. With example-based learning an integral component is "this actually works". 

The mistake is when they say in a definite voice 'why' when they are not really sure. Maybe that's where the chimp thing is: too much theorising.

Carnegies books are number one bestsellers, Machiavelli is a bestseller, and to some extent it explains the draw toward Jesus, the political successes of Lenin, Washington...

_Practical people_ using results-focussed arguments. 

(They also have another thing in common: they are accused at the time of being Amoral (even Jesus, accused of it by the Rabbis of the time - of not 'following the laws of our fathers')).

These fellas say: This is what we will _do_ (Sometimes it is even in the title! Shto delat' - "What to do" - Lenin; "_How_ to win friends and influence people - Carnegie) 

Perhaps they all _start with _'what works' .... and then find their way back to 'how'. 

Seeing as we're talking chauvinists and feminists, a great feminist I respect is Sheila Rowbotham,

Rowbotham looks at how things are, how they have been, gives examples of successes which could be expanded upon/spread to other areas... she's all about results.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> You know what's funny?
> 
> When you venture outside of this board...most people have never heard of him.


Which again, I think is fine. Five years ago, he was just another guy posting here, probably some other boards too.

Then he wrote a book, and was able to quit his day job.
Same could be said of E.L. James. Most everyone who's anyone thinks her writing is sophomoric and sh!tty. That her novels are based on online fan fiction. Hell, I bet 95% of the people familiar with Fifty Shades, couldn't tell you who wrote it. But I'd say she's done well for herself.

'Making it' to me, doesn't necessarily mean NYT bestseller list or a reality show on TNT.


----------



## fightforher

Deejo said:


> Glover's book was probably the most radical eye-opener for me in a self-help, or personal relationship book that I have ever read.
> 
> It directly and succinctly made things clear to me that I hadn't even considered. And importantly, made me want to change them.


I have read Glover's book - and a lot of it makes sense and is an eye-opener. Especially where there is a "nice guy trait" that actually backfires and makes him the not nice guy (see things like hidden contracts).

I find that MMSLP was a bit of a challenge to get a hold of. Not in the library or books stores around here. I ordered a copy and it is coming from clear across the US.

After I read it I may have something productive to add to this thread about it. But for right now, all I can say about it is that it is not the most popular book in the world now.


----------



## Fozzy

I read MMSLP and NMMNG. I found NMMNG more helpful to me personally, but I always viewed them as two separate books trying to accomplish different things.

In my mind, MMSLP is more about improving the front window, and NMMNG is more about cleaning up the back room.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> If you read his original book, which I did and paid full price for by the way...he does indeed say that his "science" works for "everyone".


Well, if you discount every person who oversold how well their advice would work, there would be no one to listen to, including any of us.



> Until he realized he could sell more books if he said "but ladies, I will try to include you too, while covering up my tracks and deleting old blog posts where I called women chubby screechtards".
> 
> But yeah hey, what ever it takes to sell books, because that is really what is important.


I get that you do not like him or his approach. I also get that there is nothing any one can say that will change your mind. But I do know that it did work for me. And nothing you say will change that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAG - I am honestly happy for anyone who has improved their marriage, by whatever means possible.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I knew Athol had truly 'made it', when he started having haters. You haven't really made it if there isn't a segment of people out there who can't stand you, or whatever you're peddling.


AMEN!

_" Soon as they see success, haters reinvest.."_

Every successful businessman know that.

I think those who were blindly opposed Athol were actually helping generate interest in his book.
In other words, they inevitably made his work more popular online.

I've never read his entire book, neither have I ever prescribed it to anyone. 
But I highly respect any man who could get an idea from an internet self help forum , produce a piece of work that could generate so much discussion, and turn it into hard , solid cash.

That's my definition of an entrepreneur.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Tall Average Guy said:


> I have and it really worked well for us. I cleaned up a lot of crap on my side of the street and be the type of man I wanted to be. In doing that, I also figured out what I needed to do to meet her needs and keep us happy. It does not work for everyone, but I think it can be useful for many.


That's pretty much our story. My husband has found both MNMNG and MMSL Forums extremely helpful. I could give a flying pig about what Athol says; something in his message or his method made something click for my husband and he's back to being hugely attractive to me. 

FTR my husband things Athol is an azzhole, but he'll take the results.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG - I am honestly happy for anyone who has improved their marriage, by whatever means possible.


Yet from your own words, you will forever mock someone who gave advice that helped others. Your continued insistence on dismissing his views belies your claim above.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Judging by the way some people seem to follow me around just to oppose what I'm saying (I don't mean you, GettingIt) I got plenty of haters myself. I'm on my way to fame then! Whoop!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tall Average Guy said:


> Yet from your own words, you will forever mock someone who gave advice that helped others. Your continued insistence on dismissing his views belies your claim above.


TAG, don't confuse what I think about an author's work with whether I think it can work to help an individual or not.

Look at the bible. I'm not a Christian, don't read the bible, but I'm keenly aware that it works for millions...and I'm happy for them.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG, don't confuse what I think about an author's work with whether I think it can work to help an individual or not.
> 
> Look at the bible. I'm not a Christian, don't read the bible, but I'm keenly aware that it works for millions...and I'm happy for them.


Your posts don't provide that distinction. When you seek to invalidate an author and his ideas, you are implicitly saying they do not work. To pretend otherwise strikes me as far to fine a distinction by half.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Judging by the way some people seem to follow me around just to oppose what I'm saying (I don't mean you, GettingIt) I got plenty of haters myself. I'm on my way to fame then! Whoop!


No dear ... you're awesome. I'll be right there saying so if you make it too.

Ian Underwood used to post here too. He's got a book on Amazon. Used to work in porn. Interesting dude.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAG - Am I not allowed an opinion if it is different than yours or the majority at TAM? Why am I not allowed to say what I think without being challenged endlessly? Who gives a flip what I think, honestly? Trust me...I don't think anyone here cares what I think, nor should they.

I'm not seeking to invalidate an author. I'm expressing my opinion.

Has it escaped your noticed that I'm a mouthy b*tch in general? Take everything I say with this in mind.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Aw thanks, Deejo. You're awesome, too. I'll be putting you on my panel of awesome dudes who get $300K annual salaries just for lookin' good.


----------



## Deejo

Tall Average Guy said:


> Your posts don't provide that distinction. When you seek to invalidate an author and his ideas, you are implicitly saying they do not work. To pretend otherwise strikes me as far to fine a distinction by half.


My rationalization for this is simple, Athol's ideas aren't really his ideas. Kind of like all of the pickup stuff. It's a catalogue, a reference.

What I do really appreciate about what Athol did, much to the chagrine and dismissal of the pickup community was he morphed pickup or game, into LTR game. In other words it's not about seeing how many women you can bed, it's about whether or not you can keep the one you married interested in getting under the sheets, which I think is a noble and worthwhile effort.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> My rationalization for this is simple, Athol's ideas aren't really his ideas. Kind of like all of the pickup stuff. It's a catalogue, a reference.
> 
> What I do really appreciate about what Athol did, much to the chagrine and dismissal of the pickup community was he morphed pickup or game, into LTR game. In other words it's not about seeing how many women you can bed, it's about whether or not you can keep the one you married interested in getting under the sheets, which I think is a noble and worthwhile effort.


I can tell you it works.

And, it's never too late to turn things around.


----------



## Deejo

Conrad said:


> I can tell you it works.
> 
> And, it's never too late to turn things around.


That's the plot line that keeps folks coming back here Conrad.

Everybody may want to post in the sex with a clown, or drunken father in law threads, but everyone likes reading about the success stories.

We have a lot of them. They just don't grab headlines the same way our penis size and 3some threads do.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG - Am I not allowed an opinion if it is different than yours or the majority at TAM? Why am I not allowed to say what I think without being challenged endlessly? Who gives a flip what I think, honestly? Trust me...I don't think anyone here cares what I think, nor should they.
> 
> I'm not seeking to invalidate an author. I'm expressing my opinion.
> 
> Has it escaped your noticed that I'm a mouthy b*tch in general? Take everything I say with this in mind.


You are certainly allowed a different opinion. I disagree, but that is no issue - I disagree with a lot of folks and lots of folks disagree with me. Debate and challenge is good. It certainly helps me when others challenge my opinions. 

As for your opinions, you apparently want them ignored except when you don't. I am sure that is a convenient position to hold.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAG...All of my opinions are ignored. Who cares? If you think I care otherwise, you are wrong. But feel free to keep coming back at me...for whatever good that is doing you. I'm here for the hatin'.


----------



## WyshIknew

One thing I have difficulty understanding is the reaction of many men to MMSLP.

I know there is more to the book than this but the book basically says that women like attractive men. Fit, slim and healthy men, confident men, men who make the best of their life and career, men who dress well and men who can step up and lead where necessary but still be loving fathers.

And this is hailed as groundbreaking.:scratchhead:

What I find amazing is that guys have to be told that women generally aren't attracted to overweight, burger scoffing, beer swilling, WoW playing slobs.


----------



## naiveonedave

MMSLP is contradictory to everything else out there in popular culture. Men are taught from day 1 to be betas. I think part of this is from women's lib's impact on men. and the fact that boys spend much less time with men since the 1950s, then the prior 1000's of years.


----------



## ocotillo

WyshIknew said:


> What I find amazing is that guys have to be told that women generally aren't attracted to overweight, burger scoffing, beer swilling, WoW playing slobs.


I would agree with your amazement and add that any man who needs to be told this probably deserves to sleep on the couch. 

Sections dealing with personal hygiene in MMSLP actually amounted to only a handful of pages though.


----------



## Blonde

I think both can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Imagine a fella who is very self-centered and controls the bank accounts reading this encouragement from NMMNG to "put yourself first" 

page 66:
When the Nice Guy *puts himself first *there is only one voice to consider —* his own.* Decisions are now made by *one individual*, rather than by a committee. He no longer has to mind read, predict, or try to please multiple voices with conflicting agendas.* When putting himself first* all the information he needs to make a decision is within him: "*Is this what I want? Yes. Then that's what I'll do."*​
So, if he "wants" to drink, gamble, and use prostitutes instead of paying for his child's braces, heat for the house, rent, or whatever else it is the "multiple voices" of his wife and children at home want...
well he has just been validated in his selfishness by what the book said.

Personally, I think the Boundaries books by Cloud and Townsend might yield similar personal growth without the same potential for twisting to justify evil.

Some men use the book to be pricks Just sayin'


----------



## Blonde

As for MMSL, I dislike Kay's "men are the leaders/ captain of the ship" schtick. Lived under the "submissive wife/ husband the leader" because of religion for the first 22 years of M and it was awful- like a concentration camp, just utterly oppressive. So that part can go right in the ash heap where it belongs IMO.

OTH, I LOVE that Kay speaks out against porn. My 27 yos told me about "yourbrainonporn" and he got it from Kay. He preaches to his 13 and 11 yob about the risk of porn use. Totally awesome!!!

High Fructose Porn Syrup | Married Man Sex Life


----------



## GettingIt_2

Blonde said:


> I think both can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
> 
> Imagine a fella who is very self-centered and controls the bank accounts reading this encouragement from NMMNG to "put yourself first"
> 
> page 66:
> When the Nice Guy *puts himself first *there is only one voice to consider —* his own.* Decisions are now made by *one individual*, rather than by a committee. He no longer has to mind read, predict, or try to please multiple voices with conflicting agendas.* When putting himself first* all the information he needs to make a decision is within him: "*Is this what I want? Yes. Then that's what I'll do."*​
> So, if he "wants" to drink, gamble, and use prostitutes instead of paying for his child's braces, heat for the house, rent, or whatever else it is the "multiple voices" of his wife and children at home want...
> well he has just been validated in his selfishness by what the book said.


I'm imagining that fella . . . and now I'm imagining myself divorcing that fella. 

Bu and large, men who turn to MMSLP and NMMNG want to improve their marriages and themselves. Any book of advice from the Bible to Chicken Soup for the Cat Lover's Soul can be used to justify bad behavior by people who don't want to change.


----------



## jld

Tall Average Guy said:


> You are certainly allowed a different opinion. I disagree, but that is no issue - I disagree with a lot of folks and lots of folks disagree with me. Debate and challenge is good. * It certainly helps me when others challenge my opinions. *


Really? When I challenged your opinion, you refused to discuss the issue anymore.


----------



## jld

Sandfly said:


> I feel that the better sort of writers are not trying to educate or change a person into something he/she isn't, but are about undoing illusions people have had put into their heads.
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as we're talking chauvinists and feminists, a great feminist I respect is Sheila Rowbotham,
> 
> Rowbotham looks at how things are, how they have been, gives examples of successes which could be expanded upon/spread to other areas... she's all about results.


Could you give a few examples of the results she promotes?


----------



## heartsbeating

It can be strange when thoughts/something written re-emerges after a time. What I'd expressed before was really just the tip of the iceberg. My husband went on a journey for himself... which I only now realize began well before I joined TAM. He was already questioning, reflecting and looking to changes before I was aware that he was. Or maybe I was too wrapped in my own bullsh*t to recognize this.

And then, well, my time arrived to go through a similar journey. I have a feeling I'll be discovering new paths in this journey for a long time to come. That's kind of the point isn't it? Just when we think we have something figured out, something else comes along, another chance for growth and understanding. Certain alterations of self can feel challenging when going through it but it seems, to me at least, the more these challenges / script we've developed is confronted mentally, the easier it actually becomes to keep facing them and trying out new things. There's a certain reassurance and humor to be had in recognizing most of us are just fumbling about on this big ball of dirt, being awkwardly human ...it's to be embraced.

I wrote before that ultimately I see these types of threads and discussions to be about personal growth. Alpha, Beta, whatever... I think it's about developing understanding, not being attached to the idea of who you are, and living with authenticity and congruence.

I still also wonder why we in the Ladies Lounge don't seem to discuss growth or behaviors etc very often?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*

A true 'Nice Guy' needs to learn to be selfish. Self serving, self reliant, self actualized. 

Primarily because they make others responsible for how they feel, or in meeting their needs.

People consistently take that out of context. And if he messes up along the way? Good. He'll learn from it.

I've dealt with a lot of Nice Guys. Only one that I know that went off the range a bit, was me. That anger you saw from that other poster? That is the result of someone who feels utterly and completely emotionally abandoned by his wife.

I didn't come on a forum and post about it. I expressed it ... at her ... every chance I got. The woman who had never seen me raise my voice in 14 years together, was terrified of me, and I liked it. In my opinion at that time, my wife had more than earned it.

That was also actually long before I read NMMNG.

One needs to consider the kind of man that is going to pickup and read either of those books. They aren't men looking to screw their wives over. They are almost universally men looking to reconnect with their wives, whom they feel they are losing.

Saying either of those titles justify evil is a bit of a stretch. The book encourages self interest because that concept is grossly underdeveloped or completely absent from a classic Nice Guy.



Blonde said:


> I think both can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
> 
> Imagine a fella who is very self-centered and controls the bank accounts reading this encouragement from NMMNG to "put yourself first"
> 
> page 66:
> When the Nice Guy *puts himself first *there is only one voice to consider —* his own.* Decisions are now made by *one individual*, rather than by a committee. He no longer has to mind read, predict, or try to please multiple voices with conflicting agendas.* When putting himself first* all the information he needs to make a decision is within him: "*Is this what I want? Yes. Then that's what I'll do."*​
> So, if he "wants" to drink, gamble, and use prostitutes instead of paying for his child's braces, heat for the house, rent, or whatever else it is the "multiple voices" of his wife and children at home want...
> well he has just been validated in his selfishness by what the book said.
> 
> Personally, I think the Boundaries books by Cloud and Townsend might yield similar personal growth without the same potential for twisting to justify evil.
> 
> Some men use the book to be pricks Just sayin'


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> My rationalization for this is simple, Athol's ideas aren't really his ideas. Kind of like all of the pickup stuff. It's a catalogue, a reference.
> 
> What I do really appreciate about what Athol did, much to the chagrine and dismissal of the pickup community was he morphed pickup or game, into LTR game. In other words it's not about seeing how many women you can bed, it's about whether or not you can keep the one you married interested in getting under the sheets, which I think is a noble and worthwhile effort.



The thing I respect most about Athol is his success.

There would always be critics, but in the end what matters is results and numbers.

I like his business model.
His use of social media and blogs to drive interests in his work.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> The thing I respect most about Athol is his success.
> 
> There would always be critics, but in the end what matters is results and numbers.


I disagree. I think what matters is truth, justice, health, and love.

If you make millions being an a$$hole, all that does is make you a rich a$$hole in my books.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



always_alone said:


> I disagree. I think what matters is truth, justice, health, and love.
> 
> If you make millions being an a$$hole, all that does is make you a rich a$$hole in my books.


Don't understand. So you think E.L. James is an a$$hole?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I disagree. I think what matters is truth, justice, health, and love.
> 
> If you make millions being an a$$hole, all that does is make you a rich a$$hole in my books.


Sorry,
I don't believe in the assumption that if a person is rich or successful , that it automatically means that they are evil , or that wealth is intrinsically bad.

Success favors the bold.


----------



## SolidSnake

Lots of good opinions here. I have read Athol Kay's blog, and I agree with the posters who have said that it is based on pseudo science and biological reductionism. Making sweeping generalizations about how something is true for every member of a certain gender, is in fact a logical fallacy. It also implies that there is no free will if we are slaves to our biology. 

On the flip side though, MMSLP works and is necessary for a certain group of men who have domineering, controlling, lower drive wives, or wives who need the man to have really strong boundaries in order to stay attracted to their husband. But it is fallacious to assume MMSLP applies to everybody all of the time. 

I agree with Deejo that comparatively speaking, it is better to apply these techniques in a committed relationship than for PUA purposes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> A true 'Nice Guy' needs to learn to be selfish. Self serving, self reliant, self actualized.
> 
> Primarily because they make others responsible for how they feel, or in meeting their needs.
> 
> People consistently take that out of context. And if he messes up along the way? Good. He'll learn from it.
> 
> I've dealt with a lot of Nice Guys. Only one that I know that went off the range a bit, was me. That anger you saw from that other poster? That is the result of someone who feels utterly and completely emotionally abandoned by his wife.
> 
> I didn't come on a forum and post about it. I expressed it ... at her ... every chance I got. The woman who had never seen me raise my voice in 14 years together, was terrified of me, and I liked it. In my opinion at that time, my wife had more than earned it.
> 
> That was also actually long before I read NMMNG.
> 
> One needs to consider the kind of man that is going to pickup and read either of those books. They aren't men looking to screw their wives over. They are almost universally men looking to reconnect with their wives, whom they feel they are losing.
> 
> Saying either of those titles justify evil is a bit of a stretch. The book encourages self interest because that concept is grossly underdeveloped or completely absent from a classic Nice Guy.


Deej,

Even in the middle of a "3 yards and a cloud of dust" reconciliation that grinds ever forward, I found myself livid with rage from time to time - and I let her have it.

I would never have dreamed of doing that as a "niceguy" who had her on a pedestal. I'd have just stuffed it like the rest.

The rage was actually a cleansing..... as it drained from my body, I felt peace intruding around the edges.

Damn, that feels good.

I know what I think and why I think it. I know what I want and I'm damned sure to go get it.


----------



## ocotillo

SolidSnake said:


> Lots of good opinions here. I have read Athol Kay's blog, and I agree with the posters who have said that it is based on pseudo science and biological reductionism. Making sweeping generalizations about how something is true for every member of a certain gender, is in fact a logical fallacy. It also implies that there is no free will.


Yes. For me, it revolves around free will.

I don't know if anyone remembers (Because I eventually deleted the thread) an ill-advised attempt at ironic form I floated here on TAM shortly after reading MMSLP.

I took the following syllogism: 

A. The rational brain is a relatively recent development in human evolutionary history

B. Despite what we may think, our superior brains are really a tool at the beck and call of our bodies, rather than the other way around. 

Therefore we are inherently irrational creatures with a pronounced tendency to obey the urgings of our primal minds first and use the rational portion of our brains only as a means of justifying those actions after the fact.​
...and applied it to an equally destructive human tendency.

I have an Uncle who shows up at family gatherings with a thirty-something on his arm. I could name fifty Hollywood actors whose wives are >20 years their junior without even breaking a sweat. You can go down the Forbes 100 list and you'll find a who's who in men with trophy second wives.

I wasn't trying to be a jerk in pointing out this human tendency. (Although that's probably how it came out.) I was trying to point out that the "Fit candidate for reproduction" criteria in our primal minds is not gender exclusive; it can't rule our lives and it certainly doesn't give us _carte blanche_ in how we treat our spouse. It struck me as ironic indeed for it to be accepted as a given on one end of the relationship.


----------



## GettingIt_2

SolidSnake said:


> On the flip side though, MMSLP works and is necessary for a certain group of men who have domineering, controlling, lower drive wives, or *wives who need really strong boundaries in order to stay attracted to their husband*. But it is fallicious to assume MMSLP applies to everybody all of the time.


I gotta say, I agree with this, especially the bolded part. Then again, relationships are dynamics . . . what one man might experience as domineering, the next might experience as attractively spirited. 

You can flip that around, too--some women's sexual desire is not affected by "nice guy" tendencies, while others are attracted to the more confident, unwavering lead from their man. 

Desire is a funny thing, and can be hard to pin down, especially in this day and age when "love" gets all the credit for the success and failures in marriage and we are all mindful of gender equality in society--as we should be. 

However, I've learned not to bring politics, education, and polite society into the bedroom to mess with my desire. I do think my desire is in my DNA; and more and more I've been learning to listen to and follow what it suggests *in my private life*. That is a *choice* I make; I'm not saying my DNA--or biology in other words--is my "destiny".


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> Therefore we are inherently irrational creatures with a pronounced tendency to obey the urgings of our primal minds first and use the rational portion of our brains only as a means of justifying those actions after the fact. [/INDENT]
> 
> ...and applied it to an equally destructive human tendency.
> 
> I have an Uncle who shows up at family gatherings with a thirty-something on his arm. I could name fifty Hollywood actors whose wives are >20 years their junior without even breaking a sweat. You can go down the Forbes 100 list and you'll find a who's who in men with trophy second wives.
> 
> I wasn't trying to be a jerk in pointing out this human tendency. (Although that's probably how it came out.) I was trying to point out that the "Fit candidate for reproduction" criteria in our primal minds is not gender exclusive; it can't rule our lives and it certainly doesn't give us _carte blanche_ in how we treat our spouse. It struck me as ironic indeed for it to be accepted as a given on one end of the relationship.


I do not remember your thread, sorry.

I did just want to say that now that SCIENCE has DEBUNKED the false idea that men are fertile well into their golden years (yes, they have spunk but the swimmers are old and rotten and make birth defect babies), I wonder if they might also realize that young women are NOT NATURALLY physically attracted to old men? See, it seems normal that a man would naturally be attracted to a fertile woman. But somehow it seems natural that a young, fertile woman would be physically attracted to a dried up old man? And yet...this very thing is a large part of the premise behind the "science" in MMSL/PUA/MRA crap.

Oh and before anyone tries to tell me....yes, I understand, the old dried up man will have MONEY and this will make the young fertile woman's panties wet. Right?

Except it doesn't. It might make her choose him, yes that is true. But on the biological level of sexual attraction, she knows he is dried up and can't make good babies anymore. And again, since it is all about having sex to make babies (according to them, not me)...she will not want to have sex with him. (And if you are a young woman having sex with an old man, please do not chime in to tell me that I am wrong. I understand individual differences will exist. But biology tells us that as far as mating goes, which is what the "science" is based on...young female animals do not have sex with old infertile male animals.)

MMSL (the book and blog) spent a fair amount of time agreeing with those PUA/MRA creeps about the fact that a woman who is past child bearing years has literally no value on the sexual market, yet a man who is older does. The REASON they tried to base this on was the now debunked data about men being fertile into old age.

These people have an agenda. But it will be blown out of the water over time, so I can wait it out.

The parts they get right which have to do with real sexual attraction (not just mating to make babies) have some merit to them....but so do many other books that say it in a way that applies to women, too. Both men and women can be and act more attractive and there are soft "rules" that apply to the male-female dynamic in hetero sexual relationships.

I do understand the need for NG men to learn some different skills.

But when it is wrapped in a hateful message based on junk science and geared toward misogyny...I'm going to speak against it.

And the title of this thread is, by the way, "what do the women think"?


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> In the Men's Clubhouse section there is a "sticky" entitled _The Man Up and Nice Guy Reference_ with a generous number of links.
> 
> I've spent some time reading what's freely available on the internet. It's interesting, but I have this one observation:
> 
> There is not one woman I know who would agree with any of it. This includes my wife, my mother, my sisters, and my best friend growing up. And these are not uneducated women --not by a long shot.


I do. The sad bit is that so often slang is used to describe things that would more clearly be described with regular language. When someone says nice guy, they really mean "Nice Guy". A nice guy is NOT really nice. He will pick an object (and yes I mean OBJECT) of his affection and proceed to do things that he THINKS she will want in a mate without ever knowing her. Often those things are Definitely Not Nice. Everyone wants someone who is a genuinely nice! But not someone with the slang Nice Guy. 

He is the dude who always complains (not in front of women he is targetting, mind you) that he is unlucky with women, women only care about money or looks, and winds up with an evil hatred of all women because of the women who "rejected" him.

Manning up is likewise a misunderstood slang term often confused with alpha or *******. But it simply means maintaining confidence, as well as a sense of humor around non-negotiable limits. We ALL have and occasionally need to enforce limits. That is all this really is. While doing so in a manner that is not detrimental to the feeling of attraction to a masculine person.



> Most would find the greater implications and ideology extremely offensive, but then every single one of them is a feminist to the core.


I am a feminist to the core as well. I see lots of these supposed implications to range from misunderstanding to outright hysteria.



> So I'm genuinely curious. What do the women of TAM think? Do you accept the starting premises as valid? Are you comfortable with all the implications?



yup.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> I would never presume to speak for women in general. I'm only talking about the women in my life.
> 
> And in that regard, here's a couple of examples:
> 
> Some of what I've read is heavily laced with Christian ideology. Without trying to offend Christians, I'm just going to say that it's a big world out there and not everyone is Christian. Some women are deeply offended by the "Man is God's glory whereas woman is man's glory" thing.


Ew. I rather missed that part. A good man is good enough on his own. He does not need to be glory.



> Although the concatenation is not explicitly stated, the parallel between Christianity's portrayal of women and the idea that it's up to the man to rise above his base nature and become a better person whereas a woman is inherently either unable or unwilling to do so is almost impossible to miss.


I have never once seen that inference before. There is nothing inherently inconsistent with relationship equality and the principles of retaining masculine attraction. 



> Another example is simply the character of women. I read through some of the _Married Man Sex Life_ blog and was frankly disillusioned. I showed it to my wife and she was offended. Her exact words were, "Many women are selfish, but none are that selfish." And this was specifically in reference to Kay's portrayal of the disinterested wife.


Some ARE that selfish. Which is irrelevant. Since a good man would not want that one.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Don't understand. So you think E.L. James is an a$$hole?


I didn't say that successful people are a$$holes; I said that if you are an a$$hole, and you get rich being one, all that makes you is a rich a$$hole.

In other words, I'm not impressed by how much money you make or how many books you sell, I'm impressed by what kind of person you are and what kind of message you are sharing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Ew. I rather missed that part. A good man is good enough on his own. He does not need to be glory.
> 
> 
> I have never once seen that inference before. There is nothing inherently inconsistent with relationship equality and the principles of retaining masculine attraction.
> 
> 
> 
> Some ARE that selfish. Which is irrelevant. Since a good man would not want that one.


You perhaps haven't read the books in question.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Therefore we are inherently irrational creatures with a pronounced tendency to obey the urgings of our primal minds first and use the rational portion of our brains only as a means of justifying those actions after the fact.


I actually agree that humans are not terribly rational creatures, but I disagree that the primal brain is actually the way it is characterized by evo-psych PUA BS that makes everything about pseudo-scientific mating strategy.

Our emotional systems are complex, and human history often disproves the overly simplistic emphasis on perceived fertility and assumed stereotypes.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> MMSLP is contradictory to everything else out there in popular culture. Men are taught from day 1 to be betas. I think part of this is from women's lib's impact on men. and the fact that boys spend much less time with men since the 1950s, then the prior 1000's of years.



I am curious who is doing this teaching? I would venture some thoughts. This books

The Wonder of Boys: Michael Gurian: 9781585425280: Amazon.com: Books

Talks about a change in society that operates within families and schools. It talks about valuing what is perceived as female traits, caring. But we fail to see and value the positive traits inherent to people with testosterone. For example, aggression is equated with violence. Aggression properly applied is a very positive motivational tool. They are encouraged instead to seek solutions through authority or dialog that may be less meaningful to the situation presented.

Take a case from my life. My son is a self described dork. He enjoys D&D, wears a fedora, writes computer games. But he is no one's door mat. When the bully at school picked on him for being smart, he retorted yah but at least I won't be working at McDonald's when I am 30. When the bully said he was going to beat his ***, he relied "bring it" while looking the giant dude squarely in the face. Guess who the bully picks on now? The kid whose Mom went to the principal. 

These are just teeny little snapshots that obviously don't encompass the whole story. Heck I referenced a whole book then made a single paragraph! 

I would be curious how you see this miseducation of boys playing out in real life, if for no other reason than the selfish one of doing better with my son.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> You perhaps haven't read the books in question.


That is absolutely true. The main source of my reading has been the internet. My point was that with anything, one can and should separate the wheat from the chafe for themselves.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, for several years I read about these issues randomly here and there on the internet and had no idea that there was a huge agenda by a group of very nasty people behind some of it...not all of it, but some. It wasn't until I started reading a little closer (and reading specific books) that I saw behind the curtain.

But at the same time...if these issues don't affect someone's life, there's not much reason to check them out closer.

The only reason I did eventually was because I'm a dating coach, and someone pointed me to it and asked if it was good advice. Then the floodgate opened and I saw the rest of the stuff behind it.

There is definitely some good stuff out there...and definitely some crap.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, for several years I read about these issues randomly here and there on the internet and had no idea that there was a huge agenda by a group of very nasty people behind some of it...not all of it, but some. It wasn't until I started reading a little closer that I saw behind the curtain.
> 
> But at the same time...if these issues don't affect someone's life, there's not much reason to check them out closer.
> 
> The only reason I did eventually was because I'm a dating coach, and someone pointed me to it and asked if it was good advice. Then the floodgate opened and I saw the rest of the stuff behind it.
> 
> There is definitely some good stuff out there...and definitely some crap.


Aint that the truth. Viva la interweb. And everywhere else.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> Ew. I rather missed that part. A good man is good enough on his own. He does not need to be glory.


Have you read any of Calle Zorro? 




NobodySpecial said:


> I have never once seen that inference before. There is nothing inherently inconsistent with relationship equality and the principles of retaining masculine attraction.


As a simple example; What kind of advice do men who have fallen out of love with their wives typically get? Have you ever heard of Stephen Covey's "Love is a verb" speech? 

What kind of advice do men get when their wives have fallen out of love with them? Perhaps something like, "You have to fix the problem because you are the only one who *can* fix the problem" (?)

I can flesh this out quite a bit if you want, but there are parallels in ancient literature from the Adam and Eve story on down. The man can master the flesh because he's created in God's image, whereas the woman is going to be led by it.

If that is true, then I should probably just shut up, because looking for equality in situations that clearly can't be equitable is simply childish. But like I observed at the start of the thread, that idea runs contrary to my own (Admittedly limited) experience with women.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> Have you read any of Calle Zorro?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a simple example; What kind of advice do men who have fallen out of love with their wives typically get? Have you ever heard of Stephen Covey's "Love is a verb" speech?


LOL. Chafe.



> What kind of advice do men get when their wives have fallen out of love with them? Perhaps something like, "You have to fix the problem because you are the only one who *can* fix the problem" (?)


Wheat.

Actually that is not very accurate or kind of me. I think both of these attitudes and outlooks are very useful for both men AND women. Among the many parts of a loving marriage active loving AND effective limit setting or response actions are necessary for BOTH genders. 

For my part, I often find myself rejecting gender based advice. Tell women to fix it vs tell men to love more is category boxing and not problem solving. 

So yah, I do continue to think that all advice is best viewed with a buyer beware attitude. But that ALSO includes rejecting all of it out of hand. 




> I can flesh this out quite a bit if you want, but there are parallels in ancient literature from the Adam and Eve story on down. The man can master the flesh because he's created in God's image, whereas the woman is going to be led by it.
> 
> If that is true,


Is there any reason to take undue advice from an ancient piece of fiction for those of us who do not adhere to this as a divine work?

I mean, I have seen these traditional models work well when they are believed and honored by BOTH. I cannot completely understand modelling one's life this way. But the strictures properly adhered to don't HAVE to be a model for destruction. This model requires the supposedly stronger man to be a benevolent caring authority, not an autocrat. 

It can work within the framework of human biological attraction. But does not need to be the one and only interpretation or application.



> then I should probably just shut up, because looking for equality in situations that clearly can't be equitable is simply childish. But like I observed at the start of the thread, that idea runs contrary to my own (Admittedly limited) experience with women.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> Tell women to fix it vs tell men to love more is category boxing and not problem solving.


Women aren't being told to fix it. Not in the examples I gave. In both examples, if falls upon the man to fix it. The message to men is that women simply can't. 



NobodySpecial said:


> Is there any reason to take undue advice from an ancient piece of fiction...


No. --Which was entirely the point  The women in my life regard that ideology as offensive.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> I wonder if they might also realize that young women are NOT NATURALLY physically attracted to old men?


I would think (Hope) that most people understand that. I'm sure my Uncle realizes the mercenary nature of the relationship. He's probably just cynical enough at this point that it doesn't bother him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ocotillo...you must not have seen the MANY threads around here where men over and over and over proclaim that money makes panties wet when the man is old and the woman is young.

The example given at the PUA/MRA/MMSL sites is Hugh Hefner and playboy bunnies, and they argue that these women are actually sexually hot for him...and not only that, they say this would happen for any rich, powerful man. And that this is natural and biological, and that yes, they are as physically/sexually attracted to him as they would be to a poor Tatum Channing (even though supposedly sex is only about making babies, and even though Tatum would make a healthy baby and Hugh would not).

IOW, they think women's special gold-digger/hypergamy gene is somehow immune to an infertile male if he has money.

Science?

:rofl:


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> Women aren't being told to fix it. Not in the examples I gave. In both examples, if falls upon the man to fix it. The message to men is that women simply can't.


Oh. I went back and looked. I misread you.

Truth is, we ALL have to face that we can only change ourselves. In so doing we hope to evoke a respond from our partner. So if I were writing a book to men, I would say, you can only change yourself. But likewise, if I were to write a book to women, I would say the same.




> No. --Which was entirely the point  The women in my life regard that ideology as offensive.


I do not see that ideology as the same as ... I wish we could put a different word to it that Man Up or Nice Guy. But there it is.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> And the title of this thread is, by the way, "what do the women think"?


I absolutely want to know what you think, as long as you agree with me. ;-)

The winky is for Always to clearly denote sarcasm.

I enjoy the irony we all share.


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> LOL. Chafe.
> 
> 
> Wheat.
> 
> Actually that is not very accurate or kind of me. I think both of these attitudes and outlooks are very useful for both men AND women. Among the many parts of a loving marriage active loving AND effective limit setting or response actions are necessary for BOTH genders.
> 
> For my part, I often find myself rejecting gender based advice. Tell women to fix it vs tell men to love more is category boxing and not problem solving.
> 
> So yah, I do continue to think that all advice is best viewed with a buyer beware attitude. But that ALSO includes rejecting all of it out of hand.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any reason to take undue advice from an ancient piece of fiction for those of us who do not adhere to this as a divine work?
> 
> I mean, I have seen these traditional models work well when they are believed and honored by BOTH. I cannot completely understand modelling one's life this way. But the strictures properly adhered to don't HAVE to be a model for destruction. This model requires the supposedly stronger man to be a benevolent caring authority, not an autocrat.
> 
> It can work within the framework of human biological attraction. But does not need to be the one and only interpretation or application.


Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat the mistakes. Carry on.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Ocotillo...you must not have seen the MANY threads around here where men over and over and over proclaim that money makes panties wet when the man is old and the woman is young.


I wonder if they're confusing actions with the motivation behind them? 

I can't imagine Malia Andelin's panties being wet for Sumner Redstone myself.


----------



## SolidSnake

GettingIt said:


> I gotta say, I agree with this, especially the bolded part. Then again, relationships are dynamics . . . what one man might experience as domineering, the next might experience as attractively spirited.
> 
> You can flip that around, too--some women's sexual desire is not affected by "nice guy" tendencies, while others are attracted to the more confident, unwavering lead from their man.
> 
> Desire is a funny thing, and can be hard to pin down, especially in this day and age when "love" gets all the credit for the success and failures in marriage and we are all mindful of gender equality in society--as we should be.
> 
> However, I've learned not to bring politics, education, and polite society into the bedroom to mess with my desire. I do think my desire is in my DNA; and more and more I've been learning to listen to and follow what it suggests *in my private life*. That is a *choice* I make; I'm not saying my DNA--or biology in other words--is my "destiny".


Yes, well its not that one has to be either a "nice guy," or an alpha jerk. Its a false dichotomy. 

There are "good" men, who have a strong character and also meet their wives needs well. That is what attracts me. And if a wife has the same traits, and a reasonable sex drive, its all good in the relationship. 

And I would say that you can control what you desire to large extent. If what you desire in your private life happens to go against your character or values, then do the inner work to change yourself, and your desires will align with your values.

We as humans aren't just beasts of the field. We are capable of higher order thought and action.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh no ocotillo....they are quite clear on this...it is BIOLOGY and young playboy bunnies sexually desire rich old dudes. It is all based on their.....


----------



## jld

SolidSnake said:


> Yes, well its not that one has to be either a "nice guy," or an alpha jerk. Its a false dichotomy.
> 
> There are "good" men, who have a strong character and also meet their wives needs well. That is what attracts me. And if a wife has the same traits, and a reasonable sex drive, its all good in the relationship.
> 
> And I would say that you can control what you desire to large extent. If what you desire in your private life happens to go against your character or values, then do the inner work to change yourself, and your desires will align with your values.
> 
> We as humans aren't just beasts of the field. We are capable of higher order thought and action.


I really liked this post, SS. The men that I am naturally attracted to are not good life partner choices. My dh is a great life partner choice. Many, many times I have had to tell myself that I made a wise decision to accept his love for me, that it is the difference between whole, natural peanut butter, and Jif, or Peter Pan, or whatever partially hydrogenated spread is out there. I really appreciate your support for going this route.


----------



## ocotillo

SolidSnake said:


> And I would say that you can control what you desire to large extent. If what you desire in your private life happens to go against your character or values, then do the inner work to change yourself, and your desires will align with your values.


This.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld...My husband actually is the type of guy that the MMSL/PUA crowd says turns women on the most...or so it would appear at a glance (because he is tall and manly, and he comes after me aggressively for sex). But when you look deeper, they claim it is not just the size and shape of a man, it is also his lack of feminine qualities and his tendency to be an azzhole that creates the attraction.

Also other things like...a woman will never be attracted to a man who turns her down for sex (even though he turns me down anytime it isn't right for him and I am hot for him constantly, still).

And a woman will never be attracted to a man who is "too" into her and has "oneitis" (even though he and I both definitely have "oneitis").

And the best one...love really is nothing but a lot of chemicals that then cause you to want to have sex....so in essence, a man who truly believes otherwise is unmanly (even though my husband knows more about love and intimacy than anyone I've ever known, male or female).


----------



## GettingIt_2

SolidSnake said:


> Yes, well its not that one has to be either a "nice guy," or an alpha jerk. Its a false dichotomy.
> 
> Yep. I agree.
> 
> There are "good" men, who have a strong character and also meet their wives needs well. That is what attracts me. And if a wife has the same traits, and a reasonable sex drive, its all good in the relationship.
> 
> And I would say that you can control what you desire to large extent. If what you desire in your private life happens to go against your character or values, then do the inner work to change yourself, and your desires will align with your values.
> 
> We as humans aren't just beasts of the field. We are capable of higher order thought and action.


Yes . . . and no . . . 

I don't think if you take any two people of good character and reasonable sex drive all will be good in a relationship. I think there is such a thing as "sexual chemistry." What we find sexually attractive varies, and we're going to be more sexually attracted to someone who has it than to someone who does not, no matter how much we like their character. Now, if "good character" is what truly floats your desire boat, then you're set. Otherwise, the best case scenario is to find someone with the traits that float your boat . . . AND has a good character to boot. 'Cause who wants to be married to a jerk, no matter how sexy he might be? 

I think if what you desire does goes against your values, you can _*choose*_ to try to change yourself. (Although as long as its legal and consensual, I wonder if denying desire is a can or worms better left unopened. Topic for another thread, I suppose). My husband and I _*chose*_ to take the opposite route in order to fix my marriage (which had suffered from a deplorable dip in intimacy for ten years). We realized that our actions had been working against my desire for those ten years, and decided to honor that desire in our day to day lives instead of leaving it unfed. We are both highly sexual people, so working from a place of desire and not duty or reason is our preferred modus operandi. 

I think this model would not work for everyone; but it works well for me based on my spirituality and basic philosophy regarding myself: which is that I'm happiest when understanding and honoring my primal nature. And this is how "higher order thought and action" works for me.


----------



## SolidSnake

GettingIt said:


> Yes . . . and no . . .
> 
> I don't think if you take any two people of good character and reasonable sex drive all will be good in a relationship. I think there is such a thing as "sexual chemistry." What we find sexually attractive varies, and we're going to be more sexually attracted to someone who has it than to someone who does not, no matter how much we like their character. Now, if "good character" is what truly floats your desire boat, then you're set. Otherwise, the best case scenario is to find someone with the traits that float your boat . . . AND has a good character to boot. 'Cause who wants to be married to a jerk, no matter how sexy he might be?


I'm sorry, I thought sexual chemistry was implied, but should have explicitly stated that. I agree. I was focusing on the context of once you are already in the marriage and maintaining desire, as in MMSLP.


----------



## Conrad

GettingIt said:


> Yes . . . and no . . .
> 
> I don't think if you take any two people of good character and reasonable sex drive all will be good in a relationship. I think there is such a thing as "sexual chemistry." What we find sexually attractive varies, and we're going to be more sexually attracted to someone who has it than to someone who does not, no matter how much we like their character. Now, if "good character" is what truly floats your desire boat, then you're set. Otherwise, the best case scenario is to find someone with the traits that float your boat . . . AND has a good character to boot. 'Cause who wants to be married to a jerk, no matter how sexy he might be?
> 
> I think if what you desire does goes against your values, you can _*choose*_ to try to change yourself. (Although as long as its legal and consensual, I wonder if denying desire is a can or worms better left unopened. Topic for another thread, I suppose). My husband and I _*chose*_ to take the opposite route in order to fix my marriage (which had suffered from a deplorable dip in intimacy for ten years). We realized that our actions had been working against my desire for those ten years, and decided to honor that desire in our day to day lives instead of leaving it unfed. We are both highly sexual people, so working from a place of desire and not duty or reason is our preferred modus operandi.
> 
> I think this model would not work for everyone; but it works well for me based on my spirituality and basic philosophy regarding myself: which is that I'm happiest when understanding and honoring my primal nature. And this is how "higher order thought and action" works for me.


I don't think I've ever encountered the person where "good character" floats their sexual desire boat.


----------



## Faithful Wife

What about SimplyAmorous?


----------



## SolidSnake

Conrad said:


> I don't think I've ever encountered the person where "good character" floats their sexual desire boat.


You are talking to one. I will take a "good," man with character and intellect over a jerky alpha who does whatever he wants any day of the week. 

I'm not saying looks have nothing to do with it, but an equally attractive "good" man beats out a jerky alpha anytime. Even a less attractive "good" man beats an alpha jerk. 

Granted, I'm coming at this as a person who has gratitude for my husband and who has strong personal boundaries. If I were an ingrate gold digger, had weak opposite sex boundaries, the need to dominate others, or a poor character, then maybe I would need to be "gamed" in order to stay interested and respectful. 

But thats not the case, nor is it my preference. 

The applicability of MMSLP completely depends on the people involved. That is the larger point I am making.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> I do not remember your thread, sorry.
> 
> I did just want to say that now that SCIENCE has DEBUNKED the false idea that men are fertile well into their golden years (yes, they have spunk but the swimmers are old and rotten and make birth defect babies), I wonder if they might also realize that young women are NOT NATURALLY physically attracted to old men? See, it seems normal that a man would naturally be attracted to a fertile woman. But somehow it seems natural that a young, fertile woman would be physically attracted to a dried up old man? And yet...this very thing is a large part of the premise behind the "science" in MMSL/PUA/MRA crap.
> 
> Oh and before anyone tries to tell me....yes, I understand, the old dried up man will have MONEY and this will make the young fertile woman's panties wet. Right?
> 
> Except it doesn't. It might make her choose him, yes that is true. But on the biological level of sexual attraction, she knows he is dried up and can't make good babies anymore. And again, since it is all about having sex to make babies (according to them, not me)...she will not want to have sex with him. (And if you are a young woman having sex with an old man, please do not chime in to tell me that I am wrong. I understand individual differences will exist. But biology tells us that as far as mating goes, which is what the "science" is based on...young female animals do not have sex with old infertile male animals.)
> 
> MMSL (the book and blog) spent a fair amount of time agreeing with those PUA/MRA creeps about the fact that a woman who is past child bearing years has literally no value on the sexual market, yet a man who is older does. The REASON they tried to base this on was the now debunked data about men being fertile into old age.
> 
> These people have an agenda. But it will be blown out of the water over time, so I can wait it out.
> 
> The parts they get right which have to do with real sexual attraction (not just mating to make babies) have some merit to them....but so do many other books that say it in a way that applies to women, too. Both men and women can be and act more attractive and there are soft "rules" that apply to the male-female dynamic in hetero sexual relationships.
> 
> I do understand the need for NG men to learn some different skills.
> 
> But when it is wrapped in a hateful message based on junk science and geared toward misogyny...I'm going to speak against it.
> 
> *And the title of this thread is, by the way, "what do the women think*"?



You won't be posting in any of the mens threads then?


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> jld...My husband actually is the type of guy that the MMSL/PUA crowd says turns women on the most...or so it would appear at a glance (because he is tall and manly, and he comes after me aggressively for sex). But when you look deeper, they claim it is not just the size and shape of a man, it is also his lack of feminine qualities and his tendency to be an azzhole that creates the attraction.
> 
> Also other things like...a woman will never be attracted to a man who turns her down for sex (even though he turns me down anytime it isn't right for him and I am hot for him constantly, still).
> 
> And a woman will never be attracted to a man who is "too" into her and has "oneitis" (even though he and I both definitely have "oneitis").
> 
> And the best one...love really is nothing but a lot of chemicals that then cause you to want to have sex....so in essence, a man who truly believes otherwise is unmanly (even though my husband knows more about love and intimacy than anyone I've ever known, male or female).


I think relationships are much deeper than is reflected in books like MMSL. And I don't mean any disrespect to folks who have benefitted from them.

For me, I may be attracted to a man, but that doesn't mean I would really want to be with him. We all understand that, right? We can be attracted to many people we would not really want to make a life with. I was really attracted to that prof that I had an affair with in college. I mean, right from the get go I was dazzled. What a smile. What an intellect. He had written books! (swoon)

What a jerk. How selfish. What a user. What was I thinking? And I couldn't get out. I was addicted.

I think we are all attracted by shiny trinkets. But it might not be a good idea to trade the summer harvest for them.

I think you understand yourself very well, FW. And you really want the best for people. I am not sure some authors out there do. I think they have, as you said, found something that can sell, and is not too hard (does not require fundamental character change). It is the low carb diet of the relationship scene, I think. 

But a healthy relationship is complex. It is not based on just attraction, though attraction is there. Poor dh. I never comment on his physical attractiveness, lol. It is not like I am not attracted to him. I certainly am. But his character is what has really carried us through many times. And you know, probably my character has helped out, too.


----------



## Conrad

Faithful Wife said:


> What about SimplyAmorous?


She put him in sexual jail for the first 15 years of their relationship.


----------



## Faithful Wife

WyshIknew said:


> You won't be posting in any of the mens threads then?


LOL! I might, but what I won't do is go to a thread that says "hey guys, what do YOU think?" and tell the guys that what they think is wrong.

Oh wait...I might do that, too. 

No...I just put that there because of TAG giving me a hard time yesterday on this thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Conrad said:


> She put him in sexual jail for the first 15 years of their relationship.


:rofl:

I'm pretty sure neither of them would have called it sexual jail.

And I'm pretty sure they still had sex (they were not sexless). And I know for a fact that she was then and is now sexually attracted to him. Also she has stated that during that period, he did not TELL her that he wanted more sex.


----------



## Conrad

Faithful Wife said:


> :rofl:
> 
> I'm pretty sure neither of them would have called it sexual jail.


He's too nice of a guy to refer to it as it was.

Having your kids in bed with you years at a time is unacceptable.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Conrad said:


> He's too nice of a guy to refer to it as it was.
> 
> Having your kids in bed with you years at a time is unacceptable.


But GOOD CHARACTER does float her boat, which is what I quoted of yours and why I brought her up.


----------



## SolidSnake

Conrad said:


> He's too nice of a guy to refer to it as it was.
> 
> Having your kids in bed with you years at a time is unacceptable.


Poor simplyamorous! You are all talking about her sex life while she isn't her to defend herself!

I'm saying good character floats my boat too. And my husband is not in sexual jail, believe me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

She'll be here soon...she will speak for herself, I'm sure.


----------



## NobodySpecial

SolidSnake said:


> You are talking to one. I will take a "good," man with character and intellect over a jerky alpha who does whatever he wants any day of the week.


From what I think I understand of the alpha male, there is no reason to assume that one who is is a jerk or that being alpha is incompatible with character and intellect.


----------



## SolidSnake

NobodySpecial said:


> From what I think I understand of the alpha male, there is no reason to assume that one who is is a jerk or that being alpha is incompatible with character and intellect.


I'm sorry, let me define terms. I realize it is ambiguous. 

Never mind "alpha," per se. When I say a jerk, generally I mean a man who does whatever he wants without reference to his partner's needs either because he is selfish, or because he thinks that it will increase his wife's desire for him. 

To me, a selfish person actually _lacks_ character and fellowship. But, I am _not _saying a "nice guy" who lets people walk on him is good either. 

You need a balance of respect for self and others. 

I am defining a "good" man as someone who possess both firm personal boundaries, and a strong sense of fellowship and respect for the needs of others.

On the whole I am saying that this is my own preference. 

I realize there are people who can benefit from MMSLP.


----------



## jld

Conrad said:


> He's too nice of a guy to refer to it as it was.
> 
> Having your kids in bed with you years at a time is unacceptable.


Conrad, our kids slept with us due to breastfeeding. It makes nursing easier. And we still had sex, either when they were sleeping, or in another room. Dh was never denied.

Let's not blame the family bed, okay?


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> From what I think I understand of the alpha male, there is no reason to assume that one who is is a jerk or that being alpha is incompatible with character and intellect.


You must not be familiar with what they call negging?

Or how they tell guys to never get hung up on just one woman?

And that if he does, he's a beta wuss and no women will want him?


----------



## Caribbean Man

In the meantime...

Athol's books are _still _selling and getting great reviews.

And of course it would , given that there are no other credible books out there on how a genuine " nice guy " who's in a sexless marriage could turn it around.

I wonder what is preventing those opposed to his books from coming up with something better that those men in that type of relationship would benefit from?


----------



## GettingIt_2

I want my sexual attraction AND good character. It's not like the two are mutually exclusive. The key is understanding what really gets your juices flowing and making sure you find a good character man who can _also_ tick your desire box. (erm, no pun intended. okay, that's a lie; it was intended.)

I think sometimes it can be difficult to understand our own desire. Sometimes women don't even want to--it makes them uncomfortable for cultural or religious or political reasons. The thing it, IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR SEXUAL MAKEUP. And if you are human, then you have a sexual make up. (Yes, there are exceptions, but lets put aside the outliers for a moment.) 

And, as we all know from TAM, sex is important in marriage. 

Understand how you tick sexually, and then share that information with your man. Chances are, he'll be happy to help keep your desire in good working order.


----------



## SolidSnake

Caribbean Man said:


> In the meantime...
> 
> Athol's books are _still _selling and getting great reviews.
> 
> And of course it would , given that there are no other credible books out there on how a genuine " nice guy " who's in a sexless marriage could turn it around.
> 
> I wonder what is preventing those opposed to his books from coming up with something better that those men in that type of relationship would benefit from?


Yeah sure, he identified a niche market and filled it well. Its definitely necessary and useful for some people. 

But its just a sad commentary on the state of humanity if you ask me.


----------



## jld

That book The Way of the Superior Man is good, CM. Are you going to read it?

Has your husband read it, GI? I am just wondering how it compares to MMSL.


----------



## Caribbean Man

LOL!

My wife and I neg each other all the time!

It is what keeps us laughing at ourselves and keeps unnecessary tensions out.

We have our very own private jokes about each other that only we know.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Actually there are hundreds of great books that sell much better than MMSL and which can be applied by a NG very well.

Here's just one of them, which is actually heralded in academic circles, whereas MMSL is not even heard of:

http://www.amazon.com/Passionate-Ma...393537768&sr=1-1&keywords=passionate+marriage

It gives many examples of men who are Nice Guys and how to deal with it.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> LOL!
> 
> My wife and I neg each other all the time!
> 
> It is what keeps us laughing at ourselves and keeps unnecessary tensions out.
> 
> We have our very own private jokes about each other that only we know.


CM, did you ever answer that question I posed to you yesterday, on how different marriage is without kids? You don't have kids, right?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually there are hundreds of great books that sell much better than MMSL and which can be applied by a NG very well.
> 
> Here's just one of them, which is actually heralded in academic circles, whereas MMSL is not even heard of:
> 
> Passionate Marriage: Keeping Love and Intimacy Alive in Committed Relationships: David Schnarch: 9780393334272: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> It gives many examples of men who are Nice Guys and how to deal with it.


Great book.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Except that negging in the way they talk about it at MMSL/PUA is actually INTENDED to cause insecurity...so I'm pretty sure CM you are not using it in the way they are talking about.

I wonder why you are pitching so hard for a book you haven't actually read? I'm sure it does look good from its cover...but inside are things that when examined, are quite hateful. If you had actually read it, I'd be more inclined to listen to your review of it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SolidSnake said:


> Yeah sure, he identified a niche market and filled it well. Its definitely necessary and useful for some people.
> 
> *But its just a sad commentary on the state of humanity if you ask me.*


That's why I never finished reading it.
It's an extremely sad commentary on the state of marriages in Western societies.

And that's why it has gained popularity.

If there weren't so many good men suffering in sexless marriages, then Athol Kay's work wouldn't be so popular.

I don't need it, because our marriage isn't like that.
But not every woman is like my wife.
Not every marriage is as happy as ours.


As the poster Sandfly often says, education no matter how well intended ,doesn't cause people to change their attitudes.
People must first want to change.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Urban dictionary:
Low-grade insults meant to undermine the self-confidence of a woman so she might be more vulnerable to your advances. This is something no decent guy would do. They say that the *******s get the girls, but I can spot negging a mile away and I reject these ****ers straight off.
Everywhere there is an insecure pretty girl, there is some guy negging. 
Negging can be so subtle, it's pratically undetectable. 
I was wondering why that guy was complimenting me while putting me down. He was negging of course.


----------



## always_alone

SolidSnake said:


> You are talking to one. I will take a "good," man with character and intellect over a jerky alpha who does whatever he wants any day of the week.
> 
> I'm not saying looks have nothing to do with it, but an equally attractive "good" man beats out a jerky alpha anytime. Even a less attractive "good" man beats an alpha jerk.


:iagree: Good character totally floats my boat!

I also think it's something that doesn't necessarily require in-depth knowledge to sense -- as you can glean it from stance, expression, voice, and vibe. Not with complete accuracy of course, but generally speaking.

There have been a few men that I've been very drawn to right from the beginning, and they weren't all exceptionally attractive, but they were all exceptional. There've been a few that I felt a brief pull towards, but 4 words was enough to kill it completely.

This is not to say that I haven't made bad judgements, as I surely have. But I think we often see a lot more of a person than we realize right from the beginning, and that this in part drives our attraction. And partly what makes attraction so variable and difficult to quantify.

My SO said that when he met me, he knew from the get go that we were very sympatico.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> CM, did you ever answer that question I posed to you yesterday, on how different marriage is without kids? You don't have kids, right?


Nope.

No kids...


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> :iagree: Good character totally floats my boat!
> 
> I also think it's something that doesn't necessarily require in-depth knowledge to sense -- as you can glean it from stance, expression, voice, and vibe. Not with complete accuracy of course, but generally speaking.
> 
> There have been a few men that I've been very drawn to right from the beginning, and they weren't all exceptionally attractive, but they were all exceptional. There've been a few that I felt a brief pull towards, but 4 words was enough to kill it completely.
> 
> This is not to say that I haven't made bad judgements, as I surely have. But I think we often see a lot more of a person than we realize right from the beginning, and that this in part drives our attraction. And partly what makes attraction so variable and difficult to quantify.
> 
> My SO said that when he met me, he knew from the get go that we were very sympatico.


Yes, but that's just you.

But how many young women look for a guy with ' good character " to date?

How many young men look for a " good girl" with high moral values to date?


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Nope.
> 
> No kids...


Please, just understand that for those of us with kids, even though we love them a lot, they do get in the way of complete focus on the marriage.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> That book The Way of the Superior Man is good, CM. Are you going to read it?
> 
> Has your husband read it, GI? I am just wondering how it compares to MMSL.


I'm reading Superior Man and Surrender Wife at the same time. 

It's all the same stuff, really. Just different delivery. 

Superior Man is a little "out there" with its non specific references to "finding your true purpose" and what not. 

Surrendered Wife is kind of insulting to men, I think, in that it encourages women to patronize their husbands: "Whatever you think, dear."

But I don't get all that invested in any of the books as the One True Method. I'm good at reading between the lines and extracting what I find useful based on what I know about myself an my marriage. As is my husband. If you're a basically healthy person who really wants to improve as a person and as a spouse, just about any of these popular books will work. Read a variety of them. Don't take any as gospel. And don't ever think that you'll be "done."


----------



## Caribbean Man

GettingIt said:


> But I don't get all that invested in any of the books as the One True Method. I'm good at reading between the lines and extracting what I find useful based on what I know about myself an my marriage. As is my husband. If you're a basically healthy person who really wants to improve as a person and as a spouse, just about any of these popular books will work. Read a variety of them. Don't take any as gospel. And don't ever think that you'll be "done."


YES^^^..

And this is what I've been saying anytime this discussion about MMSL and NMNG comes up.

Take what is useful and dump the rest.
Simple as that.
If something doesn't apply to your marriage , then it makes no sense using it.
Don't take anything as " gospel " but only use in the required dosage and move to the next stage.

Life is about continuous growth.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Please, just understand that for those of us with kids, even though we love them a lot, they do get in the way of complete focus on the marriage.


Of course I understand it's a completely different dynamic.
I once did an entire thread here entitled ; " What happens to sex after marriage."
It was quite interesting , especially after kids come on the scene.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> I'm reading Superior Man and Surrender Wife at the same time.
> 
> It's all the same stuff, really. Just different delivery.
> 
> Superior Man is a little "out there" with its non specific references to "finding your true purpose" and what not.
> 
> Surrendered Wife is kind of insulting to men, I think, in that it encourages women to patronize their husbands: "Whatever you think, dear."
> 
> But I don't get all that invested in any of the books as the One True Method. I'm good at reading between the lines and extracting what I find useful based on what I know about myself an my marriage. As is my husband. If you're a basically healthy person who really wants to improve as a person and as a spouse, just about any of these popular books will work. Read a variety of them. Don't take any as gospel. And don't ever think that you'll be "done."


I read the SW, and thought it was interesting, but kind of light. A friend of mine told me it was exactly perfect for her.

I think WOTSM is pretty profound. You find it to be the same as SW?

I think we need to respect one another's reading choices. If something has helped someone, good enough. We all want to feel respected.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> I read the SW, and thought it was interesting, but kind of light. A friend of mine told me it was exactly perfect for her.
> 
> I think WOTSM is pretty profound. You find it to be the same as SW?
> 
> I think we need to respect one another's reading choices. If something has helped someone, good enough. We all want to feel respected.


I think there's also a thread here [ TAM] on the book " The Surrendered Wife."
I think it was Dejoo who started it.
[ LOL, I might be wrong, but I know he would remember that thread.]


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Except that negging in the way they talk about it at MMSL/PUA is actually INTENDED to cause insecurity...so I'm pretty sure CM you are not using it in the way they are talking about.


Regardless of how Athol conveys the concept, its not really meant to make her insecure. And Urban Dictionary is definitely not a source that's going to cover such nuance. Its meant to turn the tables. Instead of the traditional script that "nice guys" run, of trying to be impressive to the woman - making his case to her, proper negging induces a woman to make her case to the man. Its not that you actually want her to feel bad about herself. Its a weird value play that is pretty hard to explain and easier to demonstrate - hence why I always use examples.

Its effectiveness is also limited to women who are clearly pretty sure of themselves if not aloof, but for whatever reason, it still flips the script and induces a defensive posture where she is selling herself to him. It can be silly and flustering, but regardless she is compelled to defend herself instead of casually rejecting his conversation because her "don't hit on me" shields are way up. Somewhere in that weird, often funny process a lot of other doors are opened and there becomes a lot of room to make connections. The best negs are not overtly rude... they're subtle and leave her guessing, but with a clear feeling that he's not hitting on her. That alone is enough to get past many hot women's knee jerk cold-shoulder.

You're not going to get any traction negging a woman who in her heart of hearts, believes it to be a valid criticism. You're only going to hurt such a woman... but then, that woman probably isn't the seemingly aloof woman the guy is after. Again, its a value play - its saying, "I'm not going to suck up to you. You're not better than me." - the reverse of the prototypical nice guy problem.


----------



## jld

Do you remember one on WOTSM, CM?


----------



## jld

DA8, I don't know you very well. Do you rely on MMSL? What do you think of the importance of character in relationships?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes, but that's just you.
> 
> But how many young women look for a guy with ' good character " to date?
> 
> How many young men look for a " good girl" with high moral values to date?


No idea. Maybe very few. But I think many, if not most, are looking for a complimentary character, and someone who will value them for who they are, rather than someone who fits a profile of alpha, beta, omega or whatever.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Do you remember one on WOTSM, CM?


No, I don't recall seeing any, but I've seen Dejoo mention it several times.

Maybe he could start a thread on it.

Maybe he would if you ask him nicely. 

My problem is time.
Right now I do a lot of business online ,and working on a project that's taking lots of time.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> No, I don't recall seeing any, but I've seen Dejoo mention it several times.
> 
> Maybe he could start a thread on it.
> 
> Maybe he would if you ask him nicely.


I need to finish reading it first. Dh took it with him, though I don't think he has any time to read.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> No idea. Maybe very few. But I think many, if not most, are looking for a complimentary character, and someone who will value them for who they are, rather than someone who fits a profile of alpha, beta, omega or whatever.


I think serious people do. Esp. people who are planning to have a family.


----------



## Faithful Wife

How to Avoid Mansplaining | Rascality: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers


----------



## Deejo

Caribbean Man said:


> I think there's also a thread here [ TAM] on the book " The Surrendered Wife."
> I think it was Dejoo who started it.
> [ LOL, I might be wrong, but I know he would remember that thread.]


Linky ...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/64548-reading-surrendered-wife-wow-what-eye-opener.html

I did read Way of the Superior Man as well, and as GettingIt said, some of it is a little out there.

There is some really, really good stuff, and then there is a bunch of existential hoodoo BS. Author likes the sound of his own voice.

Fire In the Belly, is written by an academic. Bored me to tears.

Here is a list I provided a while ago regarding books I had read. 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/10676-man-up-books.html


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> *I think serious people do*. Esp. people who are planning to have a family.


:iagree:

But part of the problem is that people seem only to grasp the seriousness of choosing the right partner for the right reasons _after _they're married.
Then all sorts of problems start.
Kids come along and that compounds the problem till they don't even know how or where to start figuring out their problem.

But I still feel a willingness to work on problems by BOTH parties is the only way forward.
However, it seems that is often not the case.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> DA8, I don't know you very well. Do you rely on MMSL? What do you think of the importance of character in relationships?


Not specifically MMSL, no - but I've read it. I'm very familiar with the game concepts Athol is trying to relate and who he is trying to reach. He's talking to the kind of guy that sells out and holds no value. The guy that buys into the notion that "if I'm just really nice, compliment her and get her stuff, she'll like me". But most women don't actually want such a puppy.

I don't think negging is in violation of having good character. These aren't mean spirited things unless someone doesn't really understand it. Obviously good character is conducive to a good relationship. However, my own character has plenty of blemishes... I imagine most folks have some. Poor decisions and mistakes happen and its hard to say what your character is until its tested. I tend to think most people will break under the right circumstances. Certainly makes me feel better about my own poor decisions anyway.


----------



## Deejo

And ... 

Way of the Superior Man

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/49799-sh-t-tests-way-superior-man.html


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> But I still feel a willingness to work on problems by BOTH parties is the only way forward.
> However, it seems that is often not the case.


Here I think that is true. But I hope in real life most people are working together on their problems.

Okay, I realize how idealistic that sounds.


----------



## jld

Hey, thanks for those links, Deejo. I really like WOTSM, and dh has only read a little bit, but seems to enjoy it, too. 

I only skimmed MMSL. I was afraid it would be gimmicky, but had never heard of it, and the library did not have it, so I bought it.

To me, MMSL and SW are not even in the same class as WOTSM. But maybe I just like that philosophical stuff.

Again, not saying MMSL and SW are bad at all. To each his own. Whatever works. Please do not be offended, anyone. It is just one person's modest opinion.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not specifically MMSL, no - but I've read it. I'm very familiar with the game concepts Athol is trying to relate and who he is trying to reach. He's talking to the kind of guy that sells out and holds no value. The guy that buys into the notion that "if I'm just really nice, compliment her and get her stuff, she'll like me". But most women don't actually want such a puppy.
> 
> I don't think negging is in violation of having good character. These aren't mean spirited things unless someone doesn't really understand it. Obviously good character is conducive to a good relationship. However, my own character has plenty of blemishes... I imagine most folks have some. Poor decisions and mistakes happen and its hard to say what your character is until its tested. I tend to think most people will break under the right circumstances. Certainly makes me feel better about my own poor decisions anyway.


Everybody has made mistakes. It is what you do with it that counts. Though I am not sure everyone can change. I think some people cannot.

I think everyone will break under the right circumstances.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Deejo said:


> Linky ...
> 
> I did read Way of the Superior Man as well, and as GettingIt said, some of it is a little out there.
> 
> There is some really, really good stuff, and then there is a bunch of existential hoodoo BS. Author likes the sound of his own voice.


I found myself alternating between extreme eye rolling, and dashing to my husband with certain passages and saying, "THIS! THIS! DO THIS!"

My husband says he wants to read it, but is not sure he can stomach what you aptly term the "existential hoodoo BS." 

I'm not sure I'll finish Surrendered Wife. I've read about half and think I can surmise the rest. 

I do think both of these books talk about gender differentiation being important for high desire sex, and how modern notions of gender equality have muted that differentiation. Maybe that's the similarity I see in them?


----------



## Middle of Everything

Admittedly I haven't read any of the man up stuff. The mmsl or any of the other alphabet soups.

I used to think it sounded like a bunch of horse sh!t when I first started coming here.

After reading more and more here, and other books, and most importantly the same sh!t month after month after month wife my wife?

Being the nice "good" guy gets you sh!t. Yeah they love the nice "good" guy as a companion and father. But do they "want" him? No they "want" the bad a$$ tough guy.

Trick is being both I guess. Maybe I should read some alphabet soup.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> I found myself alternating between extreme eye rolling, and dashing to my husband with certain passages and saying, "THIS! THIS! DO THIS!"
> 
> My husband says he wants to read it, but is not sure he can stomach what you aptly term the "existential hoodoo BS."
> 
> I'm not sure I'll finish Surrendered Wife. I've read about half and think I can surmise the rest.
> 
> I do think both of these books talk about gender differentiation being important for high desire sex, and how modern notions of gender equality have muted that differentiation. Maybe that's the similarity I see in them?


I think you are right about the gender differentiation, GI. I guess I like all the hoodoo in WOTSM.

I think the thing about SW is that so often women take everything on their shoulders, and men are happy to let them. That has been a challenge with feminism, I think. We can do everything now, so we should do everything. But doing everything is very tiring.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad

Middle of Everything said:


> Admittedly I haven't read any of the man up stuff. The mmsl or any of the other alphabet soups.
> 
> I used to think it sounded like a bunch of horse sh!t when I first started coming here.
> 
> After reading more and more here, and other books, and most importantly the same sh!t month after month after month wife my wife?
> 
> Being the nice "good" guy gets you sh!t. Yeah they love the nice "good" guy as a companion and father. But do they "want" him? No they "want" the bad a$$ tough guy.
> 
> Trick is being both I guess. Maybe I should read some alphabet soup.


Constructively changing the relationship dynamic can unlock parts of her you don't even know exist.


----------



## Conrad

FrenchFry said:


> My husband unlocked the crazy B inside of me.
> 
> He might be regretting that one.


High Risk - High Reward


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> I think serious people do. Esp. people who are planning to have a family.


I would venture that even the free-wheelin' bohemians, the fun-seeking swingers, the thrill seeking kinky are also looking for compatible characters who will appreciate them for who they are and have compatible values and interests.

People seem to treat sexuality as if it is somehow separate from all other aspects of our personality, especially for men, but in so many ways it's all wrapped together with our other desires, interests, proclivities, emotions, self-image, needs.


----------



## Deejo

Then in your case, I recommend, "Hold Onto Your N.U.T's"

This is a good book for husbands that have become overly domesticated, but aren't in the 'Nice Guy' category.

A lot of stuff about rediscovering the spark of what made you attractive in the first place.



Middle of Everything said:


> Admittedly I haven't read any of the man up stuff. The mmsl or any of the other alphabet soups.
> 
> I used to think it sounded like a bunch of horse sh!t when I first started coming here.
> 
> After reading more and more here, and other books, and most importantly the same sh!t month after month after month wife my wife?
> 
> Being the nice "good" guy gets you sh!t. Yeah they love the nice "good" guy as a companion and father. But do they "want" him? No they "want" the bad a$$ tough guy.
> 
> Trick is being both I guess. Maybe I should read some alphabet soup.


----------



## SolidSnake

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not specifically MMSL, no - but I've read it. I'm very familiar with the game concepts Athol is trying to relate and who he is trying to reach. He's talking to the kind of guy that sells out and holds no value. The guy that buys into the notion that "if I'm just really nice, compliment her and get her stuff, she'll like me". But most women don't actually want such a puppy.
> 
> I don't think negging is in violation of having good character. These aren't mean spirited things unless someone doesn't really understand it. Obviously good character is conducive to a good relationship. However, my own character has plenty of blemishes... I imagine most folks have some. Poor decisions and mistakes happen and its hard to say what your character is until its tested. I tend to think most people will break under the right circumstances. Certainly makes me feel better about my own poor decisions anyway.


I think its the intention of the person negging to an extent, and the relationship between them, but I agree with faithful wife that the point of a lot of those techniques is to cause insecurity. 

I think that covert manipulation techniques like the type used in PUA are unethical. I dislike the idea of someone manipulating me without my knowledge, so I don't do it to others. Treat people how you would like to be treated.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Middle of Everything

Deejo said:


> Then in your case, I recommend, "Hold Onto Your N.U.T's"
> 
> This is a good book for husbands that have become overly domesticated, but aren't in the 'Nice Guy' category.
> 
> A lot of stuff about rediscovering the spark of what made you attractive in the first place.


Have to give it a try. Thanks.


----------



## always_alone

SolidSnake said:


> I think that covert manipulation techniques like the type used in PUA are unethical. I dislike the idea of someone manipulating me without my knowledge, so I don't do it to others. Treat people how you would like to be treated.


I agree. There's a big difference between friendly banter and social engineering mind games (and a lot of PUA is about the latter).

Just as there's quite a difference between saying women appreciate a man who is his own person or claiming that they will helplessly swoon after some alpha bad boy.


----------



## Conrad

SolidSnake said:


> I think its the intention of the person negging to an extent, and the relationship between them, but I agree with faithful wife that the point of a lot of those techniques is to cause insecurity.
> 
> I think that covert manipulation techniques like the type used in PUA are unethical. I dislike the idea of someone manipulating me without my knowledge, so I don't do it to others. Treat people how you would like to be treated.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My experience indicates negging is largely indistinguishable from playing. Mine likes to be amused. Teasing is part of that.


----------



## Deejo

SolidSnake said:


> I think its the intention of the person negging to an extent, and the relationship between them, but I agree with faithful wife that the point of a lot of those techniques is to cause insecurity.
> 
> I think that covert manipulation techniques like the type used in PUA are unethical. I dislike the idea of someone manipulating me without my knowledge, so I don't do it to others. Treat people how you would like to be treated.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


We've ventured around this bend once or twice before. Is it manipulative and unethical if you enjoy and benefit from the outcome?

If your partner texts you throughout the day, telling you how beautiful you are and how good you make him feel, and on his way home from work splashes on your favorite cologne and picks up flowers, gets home, seduces you and you have a great time making love, do you feel manipulated? Was he being unethical?

We've talked about negging before as well. We don't have many frat boy types here ... some may disagree.

I use negs all of the time. They are comfort builders, not insecurity builders. In my current relationship, so does she, which I really like. They are playful, not hurtful.

Her: texting me after a wonderful evening of intimacy. "Do you know what the most incredible thing about tonight was?"

Me: "Can't wait to hear."

Her: "The pizza."


----------



## Horizon

always_alone said:


> I would venture that even the free-wheelin' bohemians, the fun-seeking swingers, the thrill seeking kinky are also looking for compatible characters who will appreciate them for who they are and have compatible values and interests.
> 
> People seem to treat sexuality as if it is somehow separate from all other aspects of our personality, especially for men, but in so many ways it's all wrapped together with our other desires, interests, proclivities, emotions, self-image, needs.


great point - if a couple get all their ducks lined up, or at least most of them, if they are pulling in the right direction then they have a shot at contentment. If sex is one of the ducks that will not align then that is problematic - I don't care how nice you are!


----------



## Lyris

Al I want from my husband is his authentic self. All he has to do to be attractive to me is smell the way he always has, touch me the way he always has and be who he really is.

None of this man up stuff makes any sense to me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> *My husband unlocked the crazy B inside of me.
> *
> He might be regretting that one.


A quotation like this^^^ with an avatar like yours = Priceless!:rofl:


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

A guy here, but personally everything I have read about alpha males makes me ill. I wouldn't want to hang around much less follow someone who didn't consider the feelings of others. 

My wife describes me as a strong leader and says she likes a 60/40 power split. She needs to have input and her voice heard, but she is okay -most of the time- with me making the final decision. Why? Because she knows I am going to put her needs and our family's needs in consideration when I make my decision. 

Dominate without being dominating. The definitions I have read about alpha males don't sound like that to me.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Deejo said:


> We've ventured around this bend once or twice before. Is it manipulative and unethical if you enjoy and benefit from the outcome?
> 
> If your partner texts you throughout the day, telling you how beautiful you are and how good you make him feel, and on his way home from work splashes on your favorite cologne and picks up flowers, gets home, seduces you and you have a great time making love, do you feel manipulated? Was he being unethical?
> 
> We've talked about negging before as well. We don't have many frat boy types here ... some may disagree.
> 
> I use negs all of the time. They are comfort builders, not insecurity builders. In my current relationship, so does she, which I really like. They are playful, not hurtful.
> 
> Her: texting me after a wonderful evening of intimacy. "Do you know what the most incredible thing about tonight was?"
> 
> Me: "Can't wait to hear."
> 
> Her: "The pizza."


Nothing wrong with that as long as there are also authentic positive comments. The negging gets old really fast if that is all one hears.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SolidSnake said:


> I think its the intention of the person negging to an extent, and the relationship between them, but I agree with faithful wife that the point of a lot of those techniques is to cause insecurity.
> 
> I think that covert manipulation techniques like the type used in PUA are unethical. I dislike the idea of someone manipulating me without my knowledge, so I don't do it to others. Treat people how you would like to be treated.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I guess it depends on intention.
If the intention is to deceive or coerce someone against their will to do something that is bad or injurious to themselves or society then I would say that is bad.

Here's an example of a " neg " my wife played on me , and yes , it was manipulative.

I was a bit upset because I was looking for something in the bedroom which I'm sure that I put on my side of the dresser, and I couldn't find it.

We were lying in bed , ready to sleep , and I blamed her, telling her that everything she puts her hands on , simply disappears.

She started laughing and I asked her whats so funny?
She said ," YOU , smarty pants !" <--- neg.
Me : huh?
Then she slipped her hands into my boxers and said : " how come this man down here doesn't look like he's disappearing, in fact , wow , WOW !look! He's APPEARING!"

I began to laugh at myself, because it's bedtime , in bed with my wife who wants to have sex , but I'm fussing about some insignificant thing.

I wasn't thinking about sex , in fact I was upset , but she was , and she manipulated me into it, by throwing a negative comment , followed by an affirmative action , signaling her intentions.
She was swift, before I could even respond she was all over me.

Her intentions were manipulative , but not bad or wrong.

I had two choices.
1) I could have accepted it for what it was intended to be , something lighthearted , meant to throw me a bit off balance , and diffuse a situation.

2) I could have taken it as an " insult to my intelligence ", acted like a azz ,up the ante and start a verbal 
war.

I chose the first , and most times i do .
I works better for us and is a good way of diffusing tension.


----------



## heartsbeating

My husband hasn't read the books mentioned in this thread.

He started journaling, reading about psychology, reading Taoist philosophy, reflecting about his upbringing and realizing how this impacted and affected him. From my perspective, I saw that he was considering the type of man he wanted to be, the type of people he wanted to be surrounded by, and then let his behavior bring about congruency... however... this doesn't just 'happen' for people. It takes time and learning. It's through having awareness, facing (and perhaps accepting) our own limitations, as well as challenging ourselves to break the conditioning we might have. Although deceptive, it feels much easier to remain in the familiar mold than go through the hard stuff of facing yourself.

We don't all start out on an even keel in terms of good role models, healthy dynamics, and with certain opportunities ahead of us in life. So for many of us, there's certain perceptions and coping mechanisms we develop. It's when we reach a certain point of awareness of how this affects us - along with wanting a different outcome - that change/progress can begin. 

A marriage can provide a close mirror of ourselves. It can also be a safe and trusting relationship that allows us to be vulnerable for growth.

I've not read the books mentioned in this thread either and like I said, I perhaps pick and choose what I read here. My general take though, is that anyone willing to take responsibility for their lives, to set on a path of personal growth, has my respect - as that sh*t is not easy to do. In my eyes, it's not about 'manning up' or being more alpha or not, it's just about recognizing where you're at and where you want to be, then bridging the gap between the two.

I do, however, know that some of what first appealed to me about my husband were the very traits I've seen emerge over the last few years - but perhaps now with more grounding and understanding. He's far more resilient than I am and inspires the pants off me. Figuratively and literally.


----------



## heartsbeating

always_alone said:


> :iagree: Good character totally floats my boat!
> 
> I also think it's something that doesn't necessarily require in-depth knowledge to sense -- as you can glean it from stance, expression, voice, and vibe. Not with complete accuracy of course, but generally speaking.


Yes, the all important vibe of a person.


----------



## heartsbeating

I do often see on TAM, the advise (mostly to the men) to start working-out. This wasn't a step my husband took for himself but I think there's a lot to be said for living healthily and exercising - for both state of mind and the physical benefits. Heck and if it means that catwoman suit fits a little bit better, then bonus points. 

I've recently started working-out and changing eating habits. Right now I have blisters from the barbell and hanging from the chin-up bar. Apparently my traps are actually in there! I can't do chin-ups yet but I will. I'll show that bar what I'm made of. I'm building up to feel comfortable to hit the free weights section of the gym by myself amongst the buff dudes. It's rare to see women there. Even though I recognize that everyone is just focused on doing their thing, for some weird reason, I have insecurity around this. Still, I know the body shape, fitness, and lifestyle I want to achieve, and that includes strength-training, so I'll get over it - next week - with a deep breath and dumbbells in hand.

It feels strangely empowering to observe my own strength improving. Blisters and all.


----------



## Conrad

jld said:


> Conrad, our kids slept with us due to breastfeeding. It makes nursing easier. And we still had sex, either when they were sleeping, or in another room. Dh was never denied.
> 
> Let's not blame the family bed, okay?


I was just referring to her personal testimony.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Lyris said:


> Al I want from my husband is his authentic self. All he has to do to be attractive to me is smell the way he always has, touch me the way he always has and be who he really is.
> 
> None of this man up stuff makes any sense to me.


Because you fall into the categoryof folks that see it as contrived and inauthentic. 

What you are asking for from your partner is completely valid.

Odds are, if he were a classic 'Nice Guy' you wouldn't like him much. Primarily because neither you, nor he, would know who is authentic self is, because he'd be striving to be the person he thinks YOU want, and will approve of, rather than the person he is.


----------



## SolidSnake

Deejo said:


> We've ventured around this bend once or twice before. Is it manipulative and unethical if you enjoy and benefit from the outcome?
> 
> If your partner texts you throughout the day, telling you how beautiful you are and how good you make him feel, and on his way home from work splashes on your favorite cologne and picks up flowers, gets home, seduces you and you have a great time making love, do you feel manipulated? Was he being unethical?
> 
> We've talked about negging before as well. We don't have many frat boy types here ... some may disagree.
> 
> I use negs all of the time. They are comfort builders, not insecurity builders. In my current relationship, so does she, which I really like. They are playful, not hurtful.
> 
> Her: texting me after a wonderful evening of intimacy. "Do you know what the most incredible thing about tonight was?"
> 
> Me: "Can't wait to hear."
> 
> Her: "The pizza."


You'll notice that in my post I said it depends on the the intention of the person negging and the relationship between them. I think to an extent, its fine between a married couple if it leads to good sex. That is not what I am criticizing here. Negging isn't necessarily unethical in marriage, and I didn't say that it was. What you are describing isn't really what I was talking about. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. 

Let me clarify that specifically, I was referring to ethics of PUA...*the type where the goal is to meet a stranger and try to bed them as quickly as possible by using covert manipulation/social engineering techniques, or the type who actually believe negative sweeping generalizations about all women. 
*
There are two ethical problems with this:

The first is that, rather than approaching someone from a position of equality or human dignity, you approach them from a position of dominance and superficial judgment of their sexual relative worth. If you think only of what you can gain from them, or how you can use your superior knowledge of psychology to manipulate or influence them to sleep with you without tipping your hand, yes that is covert manipulation. Its a failure of egalitarianism. 

I realize that it can be hard to meet partners, and that there are a mass of superficial and social conventions which are supposed to govern the courting and mating processes. 

But even if you are not predatory in your use of PUA, the practice of the same includes exercising hidden power over others, and for predatory pick up artists, using that power someone at else's expense.

The second problem is some PUAs who actually believe that "women don't know what they want sexually, and you should exploit that," or similar ideologies. They make sweeping generalizations which do not apply to every woman. 

Note that I am not coming at this from a feminist perspective. Sweeping generalizations are equally irrational if stated about all men.


----------



## SolidSnake

Lyris said:


> Al I want from my husband is his authentic self. All he has to do to be attractive to me is smell the way he always has, touch me the way he always has and be who he really is.
> 
> None of this man up stuff makes any sense to me.


:iagree:

To many people undervalue what they are, and overvalue what they are not.


----------



## SolidSnake

Deejo said:


> Because you fall into the categoryof folks that see it as contrived and inauthentic.
> 
> What you are asking for from your partner is completely valid.
> 
> Odds are, if he were a classic 'Nice Guy' you wouldn't like him much. Primarily because neither you, nor he, would know who is authentic self is, because he'd be striving to be the person he thinks YOU want, and will approve of, rather than the person he is.


I agree. The nice guy doesn't know himself, and that is a problem. 

"Know thyself, and you shall know the mysteries of the gods and the universe." - Pythagoras/Socrates/Delphic Oracle.


----------



## Conrad

SolidSnake said:


> I agree. The nice guy doesn't know himself, and that is a problem.
> 
> "Know thyself, and you shall know the mysteries of the gods and the universe." - Pythagoras/Socrates/Delphic Oracle.


Our personalities have many different parts.

Whenever I hear someone say, "I'm just that way", I hear an excuse to remain a slave to your emotional reactivity.


----------



## SolidSnake

Conrad said:


> Our personalities have many different parts.
> 
> Whenever I hear someone say, "I'm just that way", I hear an excuse to remain a slave to your emotional reactivity.


:iagree:

"Know thyself," at a deeper level means looking at your negative qualities and shadow self, learning from them, and integrating them into your conscious personality. It isn't an excuse for remaining nescient.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> Al I want from my husband is his authentic self. All he has to do to be attractive to me is smell the way he always has, touch me the way he always has and be who he really is.
> 
> None of this man up stuff makes any sense to me.



Well quite a lot of stuff in life doesn't make sense to me either.

For example politics and government.
Why would any sane , rational human being give a bunch of people they've never met power to control their lives and under the threat of the loss of personal freedom , in exchange for so called " free choice " aka democracy?
Aren't we all born free?

And then there's life insurance.
Why would any sane, rational person spend their entire working lives , taking their hard earned money and placing it in the hands of complete strangers in exchange for a piece of paper with a promise to pay in emergencies but only under a few nebulous conditions?

What about hire purchase?
Why would any sane , rational person agree to pay up to four or five times the cost of an item which they most certainly could live without, instead of saving their money to purchase it at the cash price when they would probably be able to purchase it _and _another item ?

I won't bother to mention credit cards , but I assume you get the drift.

I personally don't believe in any of the above .

I do not vote, I will not give anyone my permission to steal the resources of this country and misappropriate it to friends , and party financiers under the guise of state contracts and 
* good governance.*

I don't believe in life insurance , and I'm extremely upset that in order to acquire anything significant like a vehicle or property, I must have an insurance policy.

I don't purchase anything on hire purchase. Even my vehicles are leased.


But my guess is that you _do _believe in them, because you assume they work in your best interests.
Many other people do to , for the same reason.

The same rationale can be applied to self help concepts like
" Man Up " or NMNG.

It might not make sense to you , but bet your money, 
It works for others.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Because you fall into the categoryof folks that see it as contrived and inauthentic.
> 
> What you are asking for from your partner is completely valid.
> 
> Odds are, if he were a classic 'Nice Guy' you wouldn't like him much. Primarily because neither you, nor he, would know who is authentic self is, because he'd be striving to be the person he thinks YOU want, and will approve of, rather than the person he is.


Furthermore, if he does not know who HE is authentically, he is likely not looking at YOU authentically. So he will wind up striving to be what a "woman" would want. Not what YOU want.


----------



## Caribbean Man

heartsbeating said:


> I do often see on TAM, the advise (mostly to the men) to start working-out. This wasn't a step my husband took for himself but I think there's a lot to be said for living healthily and exercising - for both state of mind and the physical benefits. Heck and if it means that catwoman suit fits a little bit better, then bonus points.
> 
> *I've recently started working-out and changing eating habits. Right now I have blisters from the barbell and hanging from the chin-up bar. Apparently my traps are actually in there! I can't do chin-ups yet but I will. I'll show that bar what I'm made of. I'm building up to feel comfortable to hit the free weights section of the gym by myself amongst the buff dudes. It's rare to see women there.* Even though I recognize that everyone is just focused on doing their thing, for some weird reason, I have insecurity around this. Still, I know the body shape, fitness, and lifestyle I want to achieve, and that includes strength-training, so I'll get over it - next week - with a deep breath and dumbbells in hand.
> 
> It feels strangely empowering to observe my own strength improving. Blisters and all.


Firstly, CONGRATULATIONS! You've seen the light.

Secondly, I just wanted to say that in my gym, lots of ladies do free weights , squats , bench press , everything.[ we have quite a few fitness models, I train with one.]
But I haven't seen many of them on the chin up bar.

_
BTW, weighted chins are my favorites!_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SolidSnake said:


> I think its the intention of the person negging to an extent, and the relationship between them, but I agree with faithful wife that the point of a lot of those techniques is to cause insecurity.
> 
> I think that covert manipulation techniques like the type used in PUA are unethical. I dislike the idea of someone manipulating me without my knowledge, so I don't do it to others. Treat people how you would like to be treated.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I used it regularly and not once was I trying to make a woman insecure or otherwise cause harm. Negging is the male equivalent of a woman punching the guy she's interested in, in the arm.

Fundamentally, its a form of teasing. A negative attention getter and a lot of people do it without giving it a name. Negging is just a dumb name given to a behavior that's always been there.

To say that its manipulating is to say that any natural courtship behavior is manipulating. The one interested in you, is often the one "picking" at you.


----------



## SolidSnake

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I used it regularly and not once was I trying to make a woman insecure or otherwise cause harm. Negging is the male equivalent of a woman punching the guy she's interested in, in the arm.
> 
> Fundamentally, its a form of teasing. A negative attention getter and a lot of people do it without giving it a name. Negging is just a dumb name given to a behavior that's always been there.
> 
> To say that its manipulating is to say that any natural courtship behavior is manipulating. The one interested in you, is often the one "picking" at you.


Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree. I clarified my position in a later post. "Natural" courtship is fine.


----------



## Conrad

SolidSnake said:


> :iagree:
> 
> "Know thyself," at a deeper level means looking at your negative qualities and shadow self, learning from them, and integrating them into your conscious personality. It isn't an excuse for remaining nescient.


This is the reason why I reject the criticism that this is contrived.

We're just emphasizing a different part of ourselves.

I believe it's our duty as a spouse.


----------



## GettingIt_2

heartsbeating said:


> I do often see on TAM, the advise (mostly to the men) to start working-out. This wasn't a step my husband took for himself but I think there's a lot to be said for living healthily and exercising - for both state of mind and the physical benefits. Heck and if it means that catwoman suit fits a little bit better, then bonus points.
> 
> I've recently started working-out and changing eating habits. Right now I have blisters from the barbell and hanging from the chin-up bar. Apparently my traps are actually in there! I can't do chin-ups yet but I will. I'll show that bar what I'm made of. I'm building up to feel comfortable to hit the free weights section of the gym by myself amongst the buff dudes. It's rare to see women there. Even though I recognize that everyone is just focused on doing their thing, for some weird reason, I have insecurity around this. Still, I know the body shape, fitness, and lifestyle I want to achieve, and that includes strength-training, so I'll get over it - next week - with a deep breath and dumbbells in hand.
> 
> It feels strangely empowering to observe my own strength improving. Blisters and all.


You'd see this woman on the chin up bar--I'm on it several times a week--and in the free weights section even more often! Getting strong is very empowering; the appeal is how it makes me feel far more than how it makes me look (okay, I'd be lying if I didn't admit I like that my husband finds it hot.) 

Take a deep breath and jump in--and you won't be by yourself. ASK those buff guys for help. I've learned so much by talking to and watching others, and I've shared my knowledge with plenty of people in return. And when you do become and old hand in the free weights area, look for other women who seem like they might be interested, but are feeling intimidated, and see if you can shepherd them along. 

Another thing that might help you feel less intimidated--spend time learning about body building online. There are a lot of good resources out there (including trainers, if you can afford one) that won't make it seem like you're starting "cold." Before I add in a new lift or exercise, I'll often watch some youtube videos of it being done. 

I'm the only woman at my gym who does olympic lifts--but adding them in has seriously upped my game. I recommend them! 

Sorry for the hijack--glad to know other gals out there like strength training!


----------



## Caribbean Man

GettingIt said:


> I'm the only woman at my gym who does olympic lifts--but adding them in has seriously upped my game. I recommend them!
> 
> Sorry for the hijack--glad to know other gals out there like strength training!


Just click on the first link at the bottom of my post [ entitled FITNESS~ our lifestyle ] on top my signature, and you would see awe an inspiring youtube vid.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SolidSnake said:


> The first is that, rather than approaching someone from a position of equality or human dignity, you approach them from a position of dominance and superficial judgment of their sexual relative worth. If you think only of what you can gain from them, or how you can use your superior knowledge of psychology to manipulate or influence them to sleep with you without tipping your hand, yes that is covert manipulation. Its a failure of egalitarianism.


So, awareness of how this behavior can be applied to driving attraction renders it manipulative whereas those who naturally apply it is innocent? Pre-adolescents on the playground naturally neg the girl/boy they're interested in and I don't think we can say they're manipulating each other.

What exactly is the ill-intention you object to? The pursuit of sex? Negging isn't coercive. At the end of the night, its still the other person acting on their own desire that results in sex. Are you saying its wrong to seduce? Its wrong to entice someone into being attracted to you? Isn't that what wearing makeup and nice clothes is all about too?



SolidSnake said:


> But even if you are not predatory in your use of PUA, the practice of the same includes exercising hidden power over others, and for predatory pick up artists, using that power someone at else's expense.


This notion of predatory is problematic. So someone sleeps with someone when they didn't actually want to? They're victimized? Negging isn't a sex switch. Its just one small piece of playful interaction. If all you do is neg you're not going anywhere.



SolidSnake said:


> The second problem is some PUAs who actually believe that "women don't know what they want sexually, and you should exploit that," or similar ideologies. They make sweeping generalizations which do not apply to every woman.


I'm probably in the group of men you're meaning to refer to, but this isn't quite an accurate depiction of the concept I believe. My saying "women don't know what they want", is more my experience that "women don't know what they want until they see it" or otherwise have difficulty verbalizing/admitting wants. This is how guys like me explain the common female behavior of claiming to want type A, but rarely if every dating them... instead, they always date type B. In fact, in my experience they respond very well to many of the things they claim not to respond to at all. Its maddening for someone like me who tries to fit everything into nice little buckets of understanding. It appears irrational. However, I've come to believe that many of the things women say, are what they are supposed to say. There are even other things that drive attraction that they don't admit to themselves. Near universally women claim negging would never work on them... but I've yet to hit on a woman and have negging fail to return a net positive, playful interaction.

I can only imagine that the conception of this in your mind, is quite different than real-world application. This is why its better to think of it as an edgy form of teasing or as its called here in the southern US, "picking" - most people have a better idea of what that entails.


----------



## Conrad

Predatory in a long-term relationship?

That's mighty harsh.

Aren't married couples supposed to actually have sex with each other?


----------



## jld

CM, some of those things you list in your post are unique to your economic class. You have ways around those things that middle class people do not.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Caribbean Man said:


> Just click on the first link at the bottom of my post [ entitled FITNESS~ our lifestyle ] on top my signature, and you would see awe an inspiring youtube vid.


I'll have to add that one to my extensive "inspiration" library. I sent it to my brother, too--he frequently works with his two young sons loaded onto his body and hanging on for dear life. Guess he could give it a try with his wife.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> he frequently works with his two young sons loaded onto his body and hanging on for dear life. Guess he could give it a try with his wife.


I do this! lol I have a pull up bar at home and can do about 5-6 pull ups with my gf hanging on. She's small, but still always seems blown away by it. The first time she did it she just jumped on unexpected and afterwards said "its so sexy to know that if we're ever dangling from a cliff you can save me". Yes... cause that's a major concern. haha.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I do this! lol I have a pull up bar at home and can do about 5-6 pull ups with my gf hanging on. She's small, but still always seems blown away by it. The first time she did it she just jumped on unexpected and afterwards said "its so sexy to know that if we're ever dangling from a cliff you can save me". Yes... cause that's a major concern. haha.


Let her know it might be a little more difficult in the moment


----------



## SolidSnake

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So, awareness of how this behavior can be applied to driving attraction renders it manipulative whereas those who naturally apply it is innocent? Pre-adolescents on the playground naturally neg the girl/boy they're interested in and I don't think we can say they're manipulating each other.
> 
> What exactly is the ill-intention you object to? The pursuit of sex? Negging isn't coercive. At the end of the night, its still the other person acting on their own desire that results in sex. Are you saying its wrong to seduce? Its wrong to entice someone into being attracted to you? Isn't that what wearing makeup and nice clothes is all about too?
> 
> 
> 
> This notion of predatory is problematic. So someone sleeps with someone when they didn't actually want to? They're victimized? Negging isn't a sex switch. Its just one small piece of playful interaction. If all you do is neg you're not going anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm probably in the group of men you're meaning to refer to, but this isn't quite an accurate depiction of the concept I believe. My saying "women don't know what they want", is more my experience that "women don't know what they want until they see it" or otherwise have difficulty verbalizing/admitting wants. This is how guys like me explain the common female behavior of claiming to want type A, but rarely if every dating them... instead, they always date type B. In fact, in my experience they respond very well to many of the things they claim not to respond to at all. Its maddening for someone like me who tries to fit everything into nice little buckets of understanding. It appears irrational. However, I've come to believe that many of the things women say, are what they are supposed to say. There are even other things that drive attraction that they don't admit to themselves. Near universally women claim negging would never work on them... but I've yet to hit on a woman and have negging fail to return a net positive, playful interaction.
> 
> I can only imagine that the conception of this in your mind, is quite different than real-world application. This is why its better to think of it as an edgy form of teasing or as its called here in the southern US, "picking" - most people have a better idea of what that entails.


I agree with your first paragraph, and I specifically clarified that I _don't _include negging in the category of PUA behaviors that I am objecting to. Negging isn't coercive. Disassociate negging with the rest of my post about predatory PUA behaviors. 

Let me give a specific example of what I am referring to so there is no confusion: *some PUA sites advocate using disingenuous means*...like saying you also like something a woman likes ("Wow! I love that book too!") just to quickly build rapport (even if you really don't like it). This is a lie for manipulative purposes. 

*If you were to say out loud what you are really doing, as in "I really don't like that, but I am just saying that I do in order to build rapport between us so that you will trust me, and I can f*ck you this afternoon." Its false. Its lying. You either like the book or you don't. Don't pretend you do in order to manipulate. *

When I say predatory behavior, I mean that the ends don't always justify the means. I have no problem with voluntary sex. But it does come down to your intent. If your intent is to have power over someone and to satisfy yourself, and you are willing to be disingenuous in order to do so, then take a hard look at your motives. 

Consider Kant's categorical imperative in the context of PUA: 

“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” Humans are by nature rational beings possessing dignity. This dignity prevents us from being used by others, and hence we have rights against such use.

Its fine of you clarify that something is your opinion, which you did by adding "in my experience," to your statement "women don't know what they want until they see it or otherwise have difficulty verbalizing/admitting wants."

I have zero problem with the above statement if you add an additional quantifier "some women," or even "most women."

The problem is that the statement as it stands is a sweeping generalization, and a logical fallacy. It is equally illogical for me to say " in my experience, men don't know what they want until they see it." 

*It can't possibly be true of every person on earth, even if it is true for a majority or for the ones you have direct experience with. *

My larger point is that all of this stuff, whether ethical or not, is true and applicable to *some people* but *not all people, all of the time.*


----------



## SolidSnake

Conrad said:


> Predatory in a long-term relationship?
> 
> That's mighty harsh.
> 
> Aren't married couples supposed to actually have sex with each other?


If you are referring to me, you are taking what I said out of context. I was talking about PUA for singles.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SolidSnake said:


> Let me give a specific example of what I am referring to so there is no confusion: *some PUA sights advocate using disingenuous means*...like saying you also like something a woman likes ("Wow! I love that book too!") just to quickly build rapport (even if you really don't like it). This is a lie for manipulative purposes.


Ah I see. I agree with not lying, period. Women are especially prone to this liking what you like and agreeing with everything you say play - again, in my experience. OMG! I LOVE MOTORCYCLES! I used to have a Yamaha CBR1000 Hayabusa!!! Meanwhile, Yamaha is a manufacturer, and CBR1000 and Hayabusa are models of Honda and Suzuki motorcycles. Still, its flattering... so I don't know that this is really an evil thing.

Funny negging tie to the book thing: if I'm not actually a fan of the book, I'm probably going to exaggerate and play it as a neg. ha. "That book was terrible!! How could you like that?" -tone of voice and expression important here. They defend, you resist, over time move a little closer to accepting it - "Okay, I'll give you that... so it just half-sucks."

Btw, brilliant post. You had me at Kant and really locked it down with clarity. I completely agree with your stance. However, I don't think that when most people say "women do x", that they're really meaning "all women do x". The qualifiers - some, many, most - I think are implied. So I tend to be lax on generalizations. I view such statements as expressing a prevalence of some characteristic per our own experience (the only thing most of us have to speak from at all), not an authoritative declaration that all have that characteristic (entirely unrealistic, which renders the qualifier sort of superfluous). Consider it lazy speech.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> CM, some of those things you list in your post are unique to your economic class. * You have ways around those things that middle class people do not*.


Good point!

And that's what I'm trying to say in response to Lyris.

Not all men are the same , or have the capacity to deal with the negative fallout from the curve balls life throws at us in the form of abusive relationship dynamics.

Not all men have the benefit of being brought up in a family where good human values were taught, including healthy self respect and how to protect one's personal boundaries.

Not all men had good , solid male role models when they were growing up.

Not all men know how to effectively deal with a manipulative , entitled little princess who doesn't give a fcuk about his needs, whilst he is doing his best to please her. 

Not every man has the balls to stand up to an employer who's taking advantage of him.

Not every man the mental stamina that it takes to put an out of place in law , neighbor , sibling , mother, father, who's taking advantage of him and his family back in their place because they're trampling his personal boundaries , and causing his family grief.


Telling a man like that to be his " _authentic self_ " would mean further injury to the relationship and even his family.

And for men like that,
There are a quite a few self help books that could help him identify his problem without changing his authentic good nature. 
" _No More Nice Guy_ ", with it's " Man Up " principles, is one such book.


Incidentally , IMO , the exact same principles can be applied to a woman in an abusive relationship where she's lost her self respect and sense of agency.


----------



## Conrad

SolidSnake said:


> If you are referring to me, you are taking what I said out of context. I was talking about PUA for singles.


Athol's book is for married men.

I neg my wife when we play. There's quite often a very passionate outcome.

I also think the number of couples who "naturally" behave in attractive ways over the course of a lifetime relationship likely approaches zero.


----------



## jld

Okay, I hear you. But I think a book like Seven Habits of Highly Effective People would be better. Jmo.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> Okay, I hear you. But I think a book like Seven Habits of Highly Effective People would be better. Jmo.


Yeah but that book as I recall, doesn't have a chapter on how to handle sh!t tests.


----------



## SolidSnake

Conrad said:


> Athol's book is for married men.
> 
> I neg my wife when we play. There's quite often a very passionate outcome.
> 
> I also think the number of couples who "naturally" behave in attractive ways over the course of a lifetime relationship likely approaches zero.


I know, we got slightly off topic. Sorry. But there are definitely some sweeping generalizations in his book as well. 

And considering the categorical imperative, if we acknowledge that we should treat people with dignity, then I'm not sure how proper it is to call someone a "chubby screechtard," (Athol's words). 

But that doesn't invalidate the book as a whole, and if it works for you, then that's great.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Yeah but that book as I recall, doesn't have a chapter on how to handle sh!t tests.


Nor does it address the _root_ of his problem, which usually goes way back into his childhood.


----------



## Deejo

I am an advocate of game. Dvls is pretty open about it too, as are a number of men in healthy committed marriages and relationships, here on the board. Most believe conducting it with the premise of 'do no harm'. I have no control over what some 20 year college kid does with it in a bar on a Saturday night. Only have control over myself.

We had a tiny little discussion about game last year

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/69905-pickup-game-never-ever-works-ever.html

Nobody here advocates diminishing a partner or calling them a chubby screetchtard. Nobody here uses game to minimize, dehumanize, or objectify women. But ... that doesn't stop people from thinking we do.

So be it.

I thought the whole notion of pickup and man-up was utter horsesh!t when I first came here. Then I decided to actually read about it and try it, in lieu of crapping all over it.

And my life has not been the same ever since. And I mean that in a good way.

We recognize that classic 'Pickup' revolves around a lot of misogynistic themes. 
Despite being a consumer and user of the content, I'm not a misogynist. I'm a reformed Nice Guy that flat out believed that women belonged on a pedestal, and they would never go for the kind of things game, dominance, alpha ... pick your theme ... offered. Nor did I think that women were capable of the kind of behavior in doing harm to their partner that I now know first hand, they are.

I adjusted my thinking and my behavior, and everyone, myself, and the women I interact with are better served for it.

It has made me a better man, and a better partner.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Okay, I hear you. But I think a book like Seven Habits of Highly Effective People would be better. Jmo.


There are things I respect about Covey, but last time I checked, he was a member of the Quorum of the Seventy in The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints. 

I suspect that marital relations are a little different in a semi-closed endogamous system that teaches both male headship and procreation as Divine requirements.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I honestly have no problem with game...and I have expressed before that there is girl game, too.

The only problem I have with any of these is when they try to claim that science is behind it and that it applies to every man and woman on the planet on a biological level.

I agree that many of these ideas will work on many people, and I agree that you can show that it works using research and data. (By works, I mean, can get you sex or dates, sometimes).

But when someone tries to promote it as if it is biology (instead of cultural and other influences) I'm done with whatever angle they are going. Many of the ones that point to biology also ignore homosexuality and gender bending and asexuality. They literally claim people "like that" are "just freaks" because they don't blend in with their weird science.

There is game in the LBGT and gender bent communities, too. Fun stuff.

Just do what works for you and stop pretending it is science, that's my only beef. Because it is when they try to say "because science" is when they also end up saying "no woman will ever be into a beta wuss"...which is not true. Some are.

There are men who are submissive and women who are dominant.

There are straight men who are cross dressers.

There are women who want to strap one on.

The "science" followers would claim that none of these people can have a good time getting it on and that they can't have long term sustained attraction because "only" the alpha-bits are hot to women, ALWAYS.

(cough cough bullsh*t)


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I honestly have no problem with game...and I have expressed before that there is girl game, too.


Yes you have. And we thank you for that.



Faithful Wife said:


> The only problem I have with any of these is when they try to claim that science is behind it and that it applies to every man and woman on the planet on a biological level.
> 
> I agree that many of these ideas will work on many people, and I agree that you can show this using research and data.
> 
> But when someone tries to promote it as if it is biology (instead of cultural and other influences) I'm done with whatever angle they are going. Many of the ones that point to biology also ignore homosexuality and gender bending and asexuality. They literally claim people "like that" are "just freaks" because they don't blend in with their weird science.
> 
> There is game in the LBGT and gender bent communities, too. Fun stuff.
> 
> Just do what works for you and stop pretending it is science, that's my only beef. Because it is when they try to say "because science" is when they also end up saying "no woman will ever be into a beta wuss"...which is not true. Some are.
> 
> There are men who are submissive and women who are dominant.
> 
> There are straight men who are cross dressers.
> 
> There are women who want to strap one on.
> 
> The "science" followers would claim that none of these people can have a good time getting it on and that they can't have long term sustained attraction because "only" the alpha-bits are hot to women, ALWAYS.
> 
> (cough cough bullsh*t)


And this is why I kill a chicken and read it's innards before applying game, rather than calling it science ... despite the fact it would work either way. :bunny:


----------



## Faithful Wife

As long as you don't try to tell some guy or gal that she is a biological slave and should be in love with a 70 y/o grandpa when she is 22 because "science", then we're all good.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> And this is why I kill a chicken and read it's innards before applying game, rather than calling it science ... despite the fact it would work either way. :bunny:


:rofl:


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> As long as you don't try to tell some guy or gal that she is a biological slave and should be in love with a 70 y/o grandpa when she is 22 because "science", then we're all good.


That sounds like those scary Mormon sects . . .


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I used to be attracted to men who were old enough to be my father. It wasn't science,it was due to mental problems LOL


----------



## SolidSnake

I am not attacking anyone on TAM personally for liking MMSLP. I'm not claiming that game never works, or even that it can't be applied in an ethical or healthy way in a marriage or as a single person. 

All I am saying is that regardless of its popularity, we can still discuss or question the ethics or implications of _certain aspects_ of game, MMSLP or PUA, or the negative ways in which certain techniques can be used. 
*
Its not an all or nothing, black and white thing, at least not in my mind.*


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ah I see. I agree with not lying, period. Women are especially prone to this liking what you like and agreeing with everything you say play - again, in my experience. OMG! I LOVE MOTORCYCLES! I used to have a Yamaha CBR1000 Hayabusa!!! Meanwhile, Yamaha is a manufacturer, and CBR1000 and Hayabusa are models of Honda and Suzuki motorcycles. Still, its flattering... so I don't know that this is really an evil thing.
> 
> Funny negging tie to the book thing: if I'm not actually a fan of the book, I'm probably going to exaggerate and play it as a neg. ha. "That book was terrible!! How could you like that?" -tone of voice and expression important here. They defend, you resist, over time move a little closer to accepting it - "Okay, I'll give you that... so it just half-sucks."
> 
> Btw, brilliant post. You had me at Kant and really locked it down with clarity. I completely agree with your stance. However, I don't think that when most people say "women do x", that they're really meaning "all women do x". The qualifiers - some, many, most - I think are implied. So I tend to be lax on generalizations. I view such statements as expressing a prevalence of some characteristic per our own experience (the only thing most of us have to speak from at all), not an authoritative declaration that all have that characteristic (entirely unrealistic, which renders the qualifier sort of superfluous). Consider it lazy speech.


If you were to add all the qualifiers necessary to account for idiosyncratic behavior, no one would ever make it past the first chapter.

Over the years (as you can see early in this thread), I believe some of the defensiveness associated with this topic has to do with the fact that we - as a culture - are all too willing to talk about male vice.

No one speaks out loud of female vice.


----------



## Deejo

So like I said at the outset, I think once we get by the balls and bluster of what some people, or women in particular think 'Manning Up' is ... and we get beyond the chubby screetchtard gaffe ... I'm pretty comfortable at this point believing that most women want their husband's or SO's to be the best, balanced, and most attractive version of themselves they can be.

The problem we encounter here, is that nobody argues with the results. But as we talk in detail about how the sausage gets made, it turns some people off, regardless of the outcome.


----------



## jld

Guys, I am not a Mormon. I just like the thoroughness of _Seven Habits._

And I think there is great marital advice in there, like Seek to understand, and then to be understood, and Be pro-active. It stresses transparency and active listening, and Win/Win or No Deal relationships. And it talks about how to deal with childhood trauma.

All these ideas are great marriage builders, imo.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'll never read it(ETA NMMNG and any PUA literature) bc I'm sure it would be too infuriating somehow.But if it makes a man respect himself and learn a more balanced approach to handling people then it's ok by this gal 

Too much of anything is never good. I think taking bits and pieces of various methods is probably the safest bet. 

I could stand to be a bit more beta.Is there a book for that?


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'll never read it bc I'm sure it would be too infuriating somehow.But if it makes a man respect himself and learn a more balanced approach to handling people then it's ok by this gal
> 
> Too much of anything is never good. I think taking bits and pieces of various methods is probably the safest bet.
> 
> I could stand to be a bit more beta.Is there a book for that?


Are you talking about Seven Habits?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> Are you talking about Seven Habits?


no,the NMMNG and PUA stuff.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Conrad said:


> No one speaks out loud of female vice.


Can you explain what this means?


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'll never read it(ETA NMMNG and any PUA literature) bc I'm sure it would be too infuriating somehow.But if it makes a man respect himself and learn a more balanced approach to handling people then it's ok by this gal
> 
> Too much of anything is never good. I think taking bits and pieces of various methods is probably the safest bet.
> 
> I could stand to be a bit more beta.Is there a book for that?


Yes it is called The Surrendered Wife.


----------



## Deejo

SolidSnake said:


> I am not attacking anyone on TAM personally for liking MMSLP. I'm not claiming that game never works, or even that it can't be applied in an ethical or healthy way in a marriage or as a single person.
> 
> All I am saying is that regardless of its popularity, we can still discuss or question the ethics or implications of _certain aspects_ of game, MMSLP or PUA, or the negative ways in which certain techniques can be used.
> *
> Its not an all or nothing, black and white thing, at least not in my mind.*


I think we're all cool, SolidSnake. And yes, we can absolutely discuss the dark side of this stuff. Some of us get a bee in our manly bonnet as we use our awesome powers of seduction for good, and not evil.

That didn't come out quite the way I wanted ...


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it is called The Surrendered Wife.


I don't think I'm mature enough for that one yet. I tried to get through some of it at the bookstore once,it didn't work out


----------



## WyshIknew

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'll never read it bc I'm sure it would be too infuriating somehow.But if it makes a man respect himself and learn a more balanced approach to handling people then it's ok by this gal
> 
> Too much of anything is never good. I think taking bits and pieces of various methods is probably the safest bet.
> 
> *I could stand to be a bit more beta.Is there a book for that?*


I read both MMSLP and NMMNG. Well I started NMMNG and stopped as it in no way applied to me. I've never had problems saying exactly what I think and asking for what I want.

After reading MMSLP I took stock, did like the part about laundry and your wife having to wash your undies like your mum did.

So decided to do a little bit more laundry etc. to help out my wife. And it didn't result in less sex!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> So like I said at the outset, I think once we get by the balls and bluster of what some people, or women in particular think 'Manning Up' is ... and we get beyond the chubby screetchtard gaffe ... I'm pretty comfortable at this point believing that most women want their husband's or SO's to be the best, balanced, and most attractive version of themselves they can be.
> 
> The problem we encounter here, is that nobody argues with the results. But as we talk in detail about how the sausage gets made, it turns some people off, regardless of the outcome.


I do argue the results, Deejo...because as I pointed out...there is such a thing as a submissive man, a gay man, a dominant woman, and gender benders.

There is also such a thing as a woman who wants a beta wuss (I could cite many examples of people I know IRL).

For SOME men, what these books describe will NOT help them be the most balanced they can be.

So again...the books are good for some but NOT FOR ALL.


----------



## Deejo

ScarletBegonias said:


> I don't think I'm mature enough for that one yet. I tried to get through some of it at the bookstore once,it didn't work out


I picture you being in the bookstore, making this face ...










... and then throwing the book.

I have an active imagination.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> So like I said at the outset, I think once we get by the balls and bluster of what some people, or women in particular think 'Manning Up' is ... and we get beyond the chubby screetchtard gaffe ... I'm pretty comfortable at this point believing that most women want their husband's or SO's to be the best, balanced, and most attractive version of themselves they can be.
> 
> The problem we encounter here, is that nobody argues with the results. But as we talk in detail about how the sausage gets made, it turns some people off, regardless of the outcome.


Damn, you said it better than I ever could.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Deejo said:


> I picture you being in the bookstore, making this face ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and then throwing the book.


I had no idea you were there...


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScarletBegonias said:


> I don't think I'm mature enough for that one yet. I tried to get through some of it at the bookstore once,it didn't work out


Meh...it isn't very good, really. And by that I mean the writing.

I think if a much stronger (type) woman wrote something similar it could be much better.

But if you can suffer through some of it, it is kind of worthwhile.


----------



## Deejo

I get it. And I agree. But there is a distinctly a 'type' of guy that most certainly will benefit. I've gotten pretty good at recognizing them.

Others ... could read a hundred books. It isn't going to matter. As I'm fond of saying. Nothing changes if nothing changes.




Faithful Wife said:


> I do argue the results, Deejo...because as I pointed out...there is such a thing as a submissive man, a gay man, a dominant woman, and gender benders.
> 
> There is also such a thing as a woman who wants a beta wuss (I could cite many examples of people I know IRL).
> 
> For SOME men, what these books describe will NOT help them be the most balanced they can be.
> 
> So again...the books are good for some but NOT FOR ALL.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Guys, I am not a Mormon. I just like the thoroughness of _Seven Habits._


I didn't mean to imply that. My observation was only in regard to the fact that a sexless marriage in Mormonism is a breach of faith at a more serious level than almost any other Christian denomination. 

Stephen and Sandra Covey had 9 children and 52 grandchildren. The idea of an elaborate journey of self discovery to try to become a man his wife would have sex with again would likely have been an alien concept.


----------



## Conrad

ocotillo said:


> I didn't mean to imply that. My observation was only in regard to the fact that a sexless marriage in Mormonism is a breach of faith at a more serious level than almost any other Christian denomination.
> 
> Stephen and Sandra Covey had 9 children and 52 grandchildren. The idea of an elaborate journey of self discovery to try to become a man his wife would have sex with again would likely have been an alien concept.


Once you get past the underwear...

Ok, lame joke.


----------



## Ikaika

Sorry every time I read these titles I can't help but have the image of Barney Fife and "nip it in the bud". :rofl:

http://youtu.be/ZLsg0EvZozI


----------



## heartsbeating

GettingIt said:


> You'd see this woman on the chin up bar--I'm on it several times a week--and in the free weights section even more often! Getting strong is very empowering; the appeal is how it makes me feel far more than how it makes me look (okay, I'd be lying if I didn't admit I like that my husband finds it hot.)
> 
> Take a deep breath and jump in--and you won't be by yourself. ASK those buff guys for help. I've learned so much by talking to and watching others, and I've shared my knowledge with plenty of people in return. And when you do become and old hand in the free weights area, look for other women who seem like they might be interested, but are feeling intimidated, and see if you can shepherd them along.
> 
> Another thing that might help you feel less intimidated--spend time learning about body building online. There are a lot of good resources out there (including trainers, if you can afford one) that won't make it seem like you're starting "cold." Before I add in a new lift or exercise, I'll often watch some youtube videos of it being done.
> 
> I'm the only woman at my gym who does olympic lifts--but adding them in has seriously upped my game. I recommend them!
> 
> Sorry for the hijack--glad to know other gals out there like strength training!


Thanks for the response, suggestions and encouragement!

I'm learning correct technique and the foundations at a training studio and that has been awesome. Raised squats with dumbbells, prowler, who knew these things even existed? I've observed women training for competitions and even though that's not the journey I'm on, I highly respect the mental discipline required to keep pushing on. Seeing the women on the chip-up bar, lifting and pushing weights, being strong and fit while still looking feminine, motivates the hell out of me. But I need to head out to the gym and go it alone. I checked out a gym nearby the other weekend. Walked through the weights area, looked to which machines they had, noted there were no women there, and then caved and took the Body Pump class instead. It was packed full of women. Might I add, they get a little aggressive about securing their equipment and floor space, early on a weekend morning too! 

Next week though, I will get to it. I'd be looking to someone like you, a woman on the chin-up bar, and that would inspire and motivate me. I'm at the very beginner stages but when I grow up, I want to be just like you.


----------



## Lyris

Nope, still sounds stupid to me.

I met my husband when we were 18. The way he smells, and the way he kisses me still makes me melt, 23 years later. If that wasn't there, he could neg the sh*t out of me and wear the game face of champions and it would do sweet f*ck all for my nether regions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

A lot of guys find that out, Lyris. They read these books, thinking that if they change this and that, their wife will be into them.

But if she never was, and if she is anti-sexual, and if she will NEVER be into him for any number of reasons...none of the books will work.

Some guys don't want to face the idea that they simply married the wrong woman.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> The problem we encounter here, is that nobody argues with the results.* But as we talk in detail about how the sausage gets made, it turns some people off, regardless of the outcome.*



And making sausage is and has always been a smelly , unpleasant business.
But everyone loves the end product.

I say leave it up to the " boucher " to do the dirty work and just enjoy the sausages.

In any event, it's up to a man to work on himself _as he sees fit_ ,and not up to anyone else to dictate what steps he should and should not take.
Implicitly or explicitly.


----------



## Middle of Everything

Faithful Wife said:


> A lot of guys find that out, Lyris. They read these books, thinking that if they change this and that, their wife will be into them.
> 
> But if she never was, and if she is anti-sexual, and if she will NEVER be into him for any number of reasons...none of the books will work.
> 
> Some guys don't want to face the idea that they simply married the wrong woman.


Well cause that thought REALLY [email protected] sucks.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes it does...but it is sometimes true.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I didn't mean to imply that. My observation was only in regard to the fact that a sexless marriage in Mormonism is a breach of faith at a more serious level than almost any other Christian denomination.
> 
> Stephen and Sandra Covey had 9 children and 52 grandchildren. The idea of an elaborate journey of self discovery to try to become a man his wife would have sex with again would likely have been an alien concept.


It was a pretty foreign concept to me, too, before stumbling onto marriage forums.

I don't think it was in my worldview that you could say "No," for more than about 24 hours in marriage. Sheltered here, I guess.

Again, I just like the Seven Habits book. For me it was instructive and inspiring.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it does...but it is sometimes true.


FW, don't you think that that is one of the problems in CWI, that people cannot just accept divorce as the healthiest option?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes. And I also understand that some people have personal reasons for being so totally against divorce that they won't even contemplate it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> Nope, still sounds stupid to me.
> 
> I met my husband when we were 18. The way he smells, and the way he kisses me still makes me melt, 23 years later. If that wasn't there, he could neg the sh*t out of me and wear the game face of champions and it would do sweet f*ck all for my nether regions.




Well given the fact that you think game or negging has something to do with trying to impress a person who just isn't into you to have sex with you,
Then it's quite understandable _why_ it doesn't make sense, 
_to you._








But hey,
Quite a lot of people use it and it , including my wife and I and it works _for them and us.
_
Met her when she was 18 yrs , been together for 20 yrs , married 19, _still_ negging each other , _still_ having fun like teenaged lovers, _still_ teasing and building attraction, and _still_ having the best sex of our lives...


----------



## jld

How about just, "Different strokes for different folks?"


----------



## Lyris

Well, the reason I think that CM, is that it is exactly how it is described on Athol Kay's blog and in countless my wife won't f*ck me threads here on TAM. 

Wife not into you? Be aloof! Do the 180! Go rock climbing (sorry MEM, but that was a rare misstep)! Pretend you're not that into her! Give her just a little less than she wants! Analyse every interaction like gypsies studying rat entrails!

It all sounds pathetic to me. In that it elicits pathos. I feel genuinely sorry for these men. Just find someone who loves you at a chemical level. Or give it up and learn a trade.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> How about just, "Different strokes for different folks?"


:iagree:

I like the concept of maximizing returns.

See in marriage, what you put in is what you get out of it.

You put in hard work , lots of fun , keep dating each other , keep discovering new things about each other,keeping an open mind , in other words put your heart in it, you get love in return.

Put politics in your marriage ,you get politics out of it.



Our motto in our marriage is simple.

Have fun , _always._ 

And that applies whether you have kids or not.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> Well, the reason I think that CM, is that it is exactly how it is described on Athol Kay's blog and in countless my wife won't f*ck me threads here on TAM.
> 
> Wife not into you? Be aloof! Do the 180! Go rock climbing (sorry MEM, but that was a rare misstep)! Pretend you're not that into her! Give her just a little less than she wants! Analyse every interaction like gypsies studying rat entrails!
> 
> It all sounds pathetic to me. In that it elicits pathos. I feel genuinely sorry for these men. Just find someone who loves you at a chemical level. Or give it up and learn a trade.



And what if _your_ husband wasn't into you, despite all you home cooking , dressing up sexily for him, and taking excellent care of your girls, for some reason 
Then what would _you_ do?


----------



## Lyris

I would leave and find someone who was


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> I would leave and find someone who was



Is it _that_ easy to leave, after 20 years?

However, lets say that you would, the fact is that many men who are in that position have way too much invested to simply walk away, and in lots of cases I see here on TAM, these men actually love their wives very deeply..

They won't give themselves the luxury of simply saying ,
_" I will leave ",_ because they have way too much invested.

Do you think it is fair to fault them, or mock their efforts, for trying whatever other options available to them , to fix themselves and get their marriages back , simply because leaving isn't an option _for them? _

And if in fact they do decide to leave, what would prevent them from getting into the same relationship dynamic with another woman if they choose to remain their "authentic self " which turned off their ex wife in the first place?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> And what if _your_ husband wasn't into you, despite all you home cooking , dressing up sexily for him, and taking excellent care of your girls, for some reason
> Then what would _you_ do?


If I was to answer this... if all the communication...which from my end would be vulnerable and heartfelt.. if we couldn't reach a place where I felt loved, wanted , respected and desired by MY best efforts after some time frame...

With his showing some sincere effort to care.... I too believe I would have to get out, I don't feel I would handle a 180 well at all.. I'd get very impatient and angry with that dynamic... or trying to lower some thermostat just to get his attention of me.. it would almost force me to throw myself into other things in trying to play another character to rouse his attention.. this would get very old after a while ...if all I wanted to do was RUN into his arms and give ...feeling I was getting crumbs in return...

I'd grow weak under that and start dreaming of greener pastures.. I'd want to be accepted for the Good I want to bestow in a partner ...not ignored and taken for granted...

Just thought I would answer that.. the men who have the patience to pull this off and do so much Work... I think it's great though....:smthumbup:

Some men are too passive, mine was one of them..and it did hurt us in ways that could have been avoided..


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> Just thought I would answer that.. the men who have the patience to pull this off and do so much Work... I think it's great though....:smthumbup:
> 
> *Some men are too passive, mine was one of them..and it did hurt us in ways that could have been avoided..*


And this^^^right there is what most of the men on the thread are trying to point out.

If his wife won't change , then he has to fix himself , or the relationship would be damaged .

If his wife is anything like you , she would take responsibility for her part of the problem and work on her issues along with him.

But a lot of times that is simply not the case.

And he still needs to work on his passivity , _anyway._


----------



## Ikaika

How much of who we really are is genetics and how much is environment? And, how much neural plasticity can we affect through our conscious actions? 

Not saying, one cannot change, but how much is the real issue at hand. I know I cannot compete as a body builder, genetics would fail me no matter my environment. But, I know I can compete in the water, based on my genetics, environment and internal drive. How much can truly be taught and how much is what it is based on genetics and neural networks set down decades ago?


----------



## ocotillo

Lyris said:


> Or give it up and learn a trade.


I learned Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Coptic and I would probably still do it over again.

It is just a tiny bit ironic though, how common the refrain that men only value women for sex is in light of how very often that is simply not the case.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I learned Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Coptic and I would probably still do it over again.
> 
> It is just a tiny bit ironic though, how common the refrain that men only value women for sex is in light of how very often that is simply not the case.


I am impressed that you know all those languages, ocotillo.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> I learned Ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Coptic and I would probably still do it over again.
> 
> *It is just a tiny bit ironic though, how common the refrain that men only value women for sex is in light of how very often that is simply not the case.*


One of the most valuable lessons I've learned in life is never judge down a man ,
Unless you've walked a mile in his shoes.

Therein lies the irony.


----------



## over20

That is very well said CB.


----------



## always_alone

One thing that I find highly questionable in the whole man-up strategy is the emphasis on alpha and dominance, and the dismissal of "nice".

Why on earth would we counsel people to stop being nice, to stop thinking of others, or show compassion and caring? A man who jumps out of his car to help the little old lady cross the street, the one who rescues the abandoned litter of kittens, the one who gives back to the community, who supports and cares for others -- is wonderful! Totally swoonworthy! 

What possible advantage is there in putting down such men in favour of trying to impose some bs herd/pack animal sexual behaviour patterns on him?

Disclaimer:. I haven't read all of the man-up books and am only familiar with the offensive PUA pseudoscience.

I can totally see that for the most part, women probably don't want a lapdog or another child; they want someone who is autonomous, and has their own self. 

But to then twist that into needing more dominance because "women don't know what they want" or being alpha because we think that humans are more like lions than we are like gibbons is just half-baked stereotyping.

Not even the chimps behave in this fashion. Why do we think that men ought to?


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I
> It is just a tiny bit ironic though, how common the refrain that men only value women for sex is in light of how very often that is simply not the case.


If men don't want women to believe this, they should stop reinforcing it at every turn. I mean, sure, if you visit a sexless marriage thread, you can learn that there are lots of issues beyond sex, but almost everywhere else, men are just as vocal at putting out this message as women are.

Take just about any GNO thread for example. Or porn thread.


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> Is it _that_ easy to leave, after 20 years?
> 
> However, lets say that you would, the fact is that many men who are in that position have way too much invested to simply walk away, and in lots of cases I see here on TAM, these men actually love their wives very deeply..
> 
> They won't give themselves the luxury of simply saying ,
> _" I will leave ",_ because they have way too much invested.
> 
> Do you think it is fair to fault them, or mock their efforts, for trying whatever other options available to them , to fix themselves and get their marriages back , simply because leaving isn't an option _for them? _
> 
> And if in fact they do decide to leave, what would prevent them from getting into the same relationship dynamic with another woman if they choose to remain their "authentic self " which turned off their ex wife in the first place?


I have very little opinion on what men in that situation should do. The thread asked what do women think of books like the MMSLP and I said what I thought. Which is that it's silly and I would bet a lot of money on it being ultimately not much use for the majority of men who pay money for it. 

If I was married to a man who didn't want me sexually, in spite of me being my best, real self, the same self that he chose to marry, then yes I would leave. I would try to fix things for a year and if it didn't work, I would leave. I wouldn't wait 20 years. 

I also would be very very careful not to marry someone who didn't want me and/or who wasn't interested in sex generally or pleasing me specifically. Lots of men come on here claiming bait and switch. But as soon as you start digging a bit it is clear that there were many red flags they chose to ignore. They married virgins, or women who they hadn't lived with, or didn't know well. They hadn't spent years getting to know their character. Sometimes it works out okay, but I'd say that's mostly luck. 

My husband had known and loved me for 12 years before we got married. He knew my character. He knew my strengths and weaknesses. We have had some difficult times after we got married, but the base we had of really knowing each other has carried us through. 

So that's what I think and what I'd do. I think it probably is a better way to go than banging your d*ck against a brick wall for five or ten years, then looking back and realising, hey, that was my life. Marry who you marry with your eyes properly open and accept and love them for who they really are.


----------



## Lyris

Oh and if you have to game your wife to the extent that you're repressing your genuine feelings and second guessing your every move to analyse whether it's Athol-approved, then you're married to the wrong person. 

I don't count being your best self and lighthearted teasing as game. At least not the kind that's discussed on the MMSLP website.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> If men don't want women to believe this, they...


If the actions of all men could accurately be described it the third person plural, stereotyping would be fair.


----------



## always_alone

​


ocotillo said:


> If the actions of all men could accurately be described it the third person plural, stereotyping would be fair.


Sorry, my bad. Let me clarify: Any man who thinks it's a problem that a woman believes that men only want sex should be careful about propagating that same attitude.

I've certainly seen quite a few here on TAM who both resent women for accusing them of only wanting sex on one thread, while chastising them for being so naive as to think a man might just be friendly without wanting in her pants, on the other

Point is, you can't have it both ways, and most women that I know who believe such things do so because it's what men tell them (in actions or words) all through their lives.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Caribbean Man said:


> Is it _that_ easy to leave, after 20 years?
> 
> However, lets say that you would, the fact is that many men who are in that position have way too much invested to simply walk away, and in lots of cases I see here on TAM, these men actually love their wives very deeply..
> 
> They won't give themselves the luxury of simply saying ,
> _" I will leave ",_ because they have way too much invested.
> 
> Do you think it is fair to fault them, or mock their efforts, for trying whatever other options available to them , to fix themselves and get their marriages back , simply because leaving isn't an option _for them? _
> 
> And if in fact they do decide to leave, what would prevent them from getting into the same relationship dynamic with another woman if they choose to remain their "authentic self " which turned off their ex wife in the first place?


So it sounds like what you are saying is, I will stick around no matter what happens, no matter what the other person does simply because I have a lot invested.

So your wife suddenly wants you to be a fat, lazy couch potato. And she wants you to be passive and let her dominate you at every turn, even though she knows you aren't any of these things. You would stick around no matter what? 

If someone doesn't love and desire you for who you are, what is the point of being with them? If I have to change who I am so that my SO loves me, then I will be leaving my SO- even if we have been together for 20+ years. My character is who I am. End of story.


----------



## Lyris

always_alone said:


> ​
> Sorry, my bad. Let me clarify: Any man who thinks it's a problem that a woman believes that men only want sex should be careful about propagating that same attitude.
> 
> I've certainly seen quite a few here on TAM who both resent women for accusing them of only wanting sex on one thread, while chastising them for being so naive as to think a man might just be friendly without wanting in her pants, on the other
> 
> Point is, you can't have it both ways, and most women that I know who believe such things do so because it's what men tell them (in actions or words) all through their lives.


It's like that men only ever feel horny or hungry thing. So if he doesn't have a hard on make him a sandwich. Who says this stuff? Men do. Overwhelmingly. I don't think I've ever heard a woman post that, but men do all the time about themselves. 

It's certainly nowhere near true about my husband so I always just ignore it. But if men don't want women to think they're only interested in sex, stop saying stupid f*cking sh*t like the sandwich thing.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> One thing that I find highly questionable in the whole man-up strategy is the emphasis on alpha and dominance, and the dismissal of "nice".
> 
> Why on earth would we counsel people to stop being nice, to stop thinking of others, or show compassion and caring? A man who jumps out of his car to help the little old lady cross the street, the one who rescues the abandoned litter of kittens, the one who gives back to the community, who supports and cares for others -- is wonderful! Totally swoonworthy!
> 
> What possible advantage is there in putting down such men in favour of trying to impose some bs herd/pack animal sexual behaviour patterns on him?
> 
> Disclaimer:. I haven't read all of the man-up books and am only familiar with the offensive PUA pseudoscience.
> 
> I can totally see that for the most part, women probably don't want a lapdog or another child; they want someone who is autonomous, and has their own self.
> 
> But to then twist that into needing more dominance because "women don't know what they want" or being alpha because we think that humans are more like lions than we are like gibbons is just half-baked stereotyping.
> 
> Not even the chimps behave in this fashion. Why do we think that men ought to?



Errrr, NO.

That's _your_ interpretation.

That's not what the entire concept is about. And I think you're purposely trying to obfuscate it.

A man who jumps out of a car to help an old lady cross the street is not the same as a codependent man in an abusive relationship , and I also suspect you know this too.

The typical doormat / nice guy is basically a codependent in an abusive relationship, being controlled or manipulated by a woman with a pathological condition.
Being loved and accepted are paramount for codependents. To ensure this, they hide who they really are and become who they are not. 
A partner cannot love them for their "_ authentic self_ " because the persona they display is a false one. People _think_that being a doormat is their true self and they take full advantage of it.
Women don't want a lapdog or another child , it's true, but some women like having a doormat , whose willing to serve and please them ,without they having to reciprocate. Especially women who are not emotionally mature or healthy.
That's why it's advised that they put themselves first, it is the first step in addressing their dependency. Doormats ," nice guys" tend to accommodate others rather than affirm their true self.

Hence the " authentic self " argument is in the context of this thread is invalid.

How many people really know their true authentic self and are able to freely validate it? If the average person knew how to love and accept themselves then there wouldn't even be a need for self help forums like this, relationships would be a breeze, infidelity and sexless marriages wouldn't exist.

Codependent / doormats/ " nice guys " never show their 
" _authentic self_ " because they anticipate anger, criticism, rejection, or abuse for setting limits.

*It i is what they experienced in childhood. *

Is that impossible for you to grasp?
Are you saying that there aren't lots and lots of people walking around with low self esteem problems, who end up in relationships where they get taken advantage of by a partner who has personality disorders?

Are you ignorant to the fact that as adults , due to low self-esteem we often choose partners and friends who repeat that same abusive patterns we're accustomed in our childhood?
Are you are unaware that many men even accept abuse rather than risk rejection or end toxic relationships, because they fear being being alone ?
Is that too difficult for you and others to grasp?

Have you ever seen a docile, submissive woman in an emotionally abusive relationship , who always tries to please her husband and even other people, always putting herself last but he takes advantage of her passivity?
Wouldn't you advise her to leave the marriage?

Right.

And after she leaves the marriage, she still put herself last often to her disadvantage , people using and walking all over her.
Wouldn't your advice to her be to put herself first?

I thought so.

That's why I think you are purposely distorting what is being said by the book.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TopsyTurvy5 said:


> So it sounds like what you are saying is, I will stick around no matter what happens, no matter what the other person does simply because I have a lot invested.
> 
> So your wife suddenly wants you to be a fat, lazy couch potato. And she wants you to be passive and let her dominate you at every turn, even though she knows you aren't any of these things. You would stick around no matter what?
> 
> If someone doesn't love and desire you for who you are, what is the point of being with them? If I have to change who I am so that my SO loves me, then I will be leaving my SO- even if we have been together for 20+ years. My character is who I am. End of story.


NO.

_Normal_ human beings are not that simplistic and relationships are way more complex and multi faceted that you and a couple others are portraying them to be.

People constantly change so the idea of someone loving you for who you are is a fluid one.
They can love you for who you are today, and not tomorrow because either you or they or circumstances changed.

That's why relationships take work.
Lot and lots of work.


And to be honest, I don't want any woman around who can't constantly challenge me to be a better man, and I challenge her to be the best that she could be,
Everyday.

But if it works for you...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> I also would be very very careful not to marry someone who didn't want me and/or who wasn't interested in sex generally or pleasing me specifically. Lots of men come on here claiming bait and switch. But as soon as you start digging a bit it is clear that there were many red flags they chose to ignore. They married virgins, or women who they hadn't lived with, or didn't know well. They hadn't spent years getting to know their character. Sometimes it works out okay, but I'd say that's mostly luck.


Lyris,

There are quite a few women here on TAM who are also in sexless marriages.
Successful in their careers , home, kids and so on. 

They were quite sexually active with other partners before marriage, and their husbands too. I know at least one here on TAM who lived with her husband before marriage...

Think about that for a minute.














Now answer this.
Where did these women go wrong?


----------



## Lyris

Probably the same places the men went wrong. Ignored red flags, married someone they were basically sexually incompatible with, assumed things would get better, let things go too far before demanding change, undervalued themselves and let fear of being alone stop them from being willing to put their marriage on the line over this issue. 

I'm not sure why you keep thinking these questions will somehow trip me up and expose my OMGHYPOCRISY. 

Everything I believe about sex and relationships pretty much applies to men and women to the same degree. So what?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> Probably the same places the men went wrong. Ignored red flags, married someone they were basically sexually incompatible with, assumed things would get better, let things go too far before demanding change, undervalued themselves and let fear of being alone stop them from being willing to put their marriage on the line over this issue.
> 
> I'm not sure why you keep thinking these questions will somehow trip me up and expose my OMGHYPOCRISY.
> 
> Everything I believe about sex and relationships pretty much applies to men and women to the same degree. So what?


Well I never mentioned anything about hypocrisy, you did.
I'm not sure either why you'd bring that up and try to project it.
We're supposed to be just conversing here.
But since you mentioned it, how do you explain the following in context with what you've posted ;

Do you remember once you posted here ,that it was scientifically proven that women are biologically programmed to loose sexual interest in a current monogamous partner and want a new sexual partner after about 5 or 7 years ?

You are the only poster I've seen referring to that scientific study.

Do you still hold that view ?
And if you do , do you think it too,could be a contributing factor in sexless marriages?


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Caribbean Man said:


> NO.
> 
> _Normal_ human beings are not that simplistic and relationships are way more complex and multi faceted that you and a couple others are portraying them to be.
> 
> People constantly change so the idea of someone loving you for who you are is a fluid one.
> They can love you for who you are today, and not tomorrow because either you or they or circumstances changed.
> 
> That's why relationships take work.
> Lot and lots of work.
> 
> 
> And to be honest, I don't want any woman around who can't constantly challenge me to be a better man, and I challenge her to be the best that she could be,
> Everyday.
> 
> But if it works for you...


So relationships are complex, but they can never be as I described? Interesting take. I completely disagree, but interesting nonetheless.

I think people are very complex, which is why I would NEVER say I will stay with someone under any circumstance. People change, and that's fine and absolutely normal. Expecting someone to change into something you want to be is a recipe for disaster, yet this happens all the time. 

If a woman doesn't love a man or isn't attracted to him because he isn't her vision of alpha (or whatever) then BOTH of them should leave. Having the guy try to change to meet her ideal is ridiculous and sad. (I would say the same if the genders were reversed.)

Want to know what is sexy and what is attractive? Being your authentic self.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TopsyTurvy5 said:


> So relationships are complex, but they can never be as I described? Interesting take. I completely disagree, but interesting nonetheless.
> 
> I think people are very complex, which is why I would NEVER say I will stay with someone under any circumstance. People change, and that's fine and absolutely normal. Expecting someone to change into something you want to be is a recipe for disaster, yet this happens all the time.
> 
> If a woman doesn't love a man or isn't attracted to him because he isn't her vision of alpha (or whatever) then BOTH of them should leave. Having the guy try to change to meet her ideal is ridiculous and sad. (I would say the same if the genders were reversed.)
> 
> Want to know what is sexy and what is attractive? Being your authentic self.


Lol,

The " authentic self " that was you at age 14 when you were in high school, are you still that person?

If no , than who are you?
What happened to the authentic self that was you when you were 20 yrs and just out of college , and just living for the " _joie de vivre_", without a care in the world?

Are you still the exact , same person you were when you first got married many moons ago?

Have you ever been through any traumatic experiences in life , did it make your authentic self stronger , weaker or did you remain the same old person you were before the trauma?

And where did you get the idea that a dichotomy exist between personal growth / adaptation and one's authentic self?

Are you saying that it is impossible for your authentic self to experience growth?

I think constant , personal growth and adaptation is much more sexy and attractive than emotional stagnation.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> *And this^^^right there is what most of the men on the thread are trying to point out.
> 
> If his wife won't change , then he has to fix himself , or the relationship would be damaged *.
> 
> *If his wife is anything like you , she would take responsibility for her part of the problem and work on her issues along with him.*


 I'm all for these books... I bought *No More Mr Nice Guy*, *Hold on to your Nuts* and *Married Man's sex life* for pure curiosity....I wanted to see if they mentioned temperaments ...(as some are more naturally passive like my husbands)... not trying to make excuses but...being in tune to how our partners are geared working with them -helps tremendously....

Very happy with MMSL in how it honored the *GOOD Beta* characteristics for what they are..bringing some balance to the subject...:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Also I wanted to explore where HE missed it....I didn't think any less of him for that.. I've never had any resentment towards my husband as long as I've known him...(the closest I came is when I realized HE put himself down for me.. he should have never never done this... I had a right to KNOW how he was feeling... I'd never manage as calm as he ...then I got a little  -feeling he cheated us both.) ....



> *But a lot of times that is simply not the case.
> And he still needs to work on his passivity , anyway*


I would think many of these situations are compounded by a build up of festering* resentment* over the years....the woman can be passive aggressive herself sometimes adding equal fuel to the situation -shutting him out or not expressing what IS troubling her also...then some "APATHY" sets in...then they both find themselves in a dark hole not sure how to climb out... so besides







... resentment needs waded through too.

Every situation is different...many men *act NICE* to get SEX....then the wife catches on...while she may be desiring more affection without it leading to sex....I never experienced this .....mine was genuinely NICE & affectionate *all the time*....he just lacked the assertiveness to push the bar when he WANTED MORE....

He told me why oneday....he DIDN'T want me to *think* he "just wanted SEX"...coming off like other men.......it was always more than that for him....he wanted the bonding intimacy, so even without it leading to







, it was still good...but he was left hanging... (He has the patience of JOB it seems -I can't relate to this at all).... it was honorable I suppose.....but he still shot himself in the foot like that, I would have ENJOYED him coming on to me hot & heavy...showing me his need, a little LUST is good! 

Our foundation was solid, I just needed to pay more attention, he is the more subtle partner between us....really it was my hormones that woke me up & knocked me upside the head.



Caribbean Man said:


> *How many people really know their true authentic self and are able to freely validate it? If the average person knew how to love and accept themselves then there wouldn't even be a need for self help forums like this, relationships would be a breeze, infidelity and sexless marriages wouldn't exist.*


It's sure a step in the right direction ! Self awareness and interdependent communication would solve many marriage ills...



> *Lyris said*: *Probably the same places the men went wrong. Ignored red flags, married someone they were basically sexually incompatible*


Ignoring







...







...







... assuming things will get better or we can change someone is HUGE... I asked these questions on my thread *>>*

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...ng-vows-now-who-what-why-could-weathered.html In the poll of the 6 options.....this had the highest votes...



> *4.* Lacking Self awareness to own's own needs & desires in Marriage...maybe low self esteem..."Settled"... Naive....went in blindly...not asking enough questions .... realized later ...very little compatibility


with this coming in 2nd: 



> *2.* Partner misrepresented himself/ herself...(Ex...Man treats his girl like a Queen....ends up an abuser after the Vows..or Girlfriend very sexual / then suddenly the sex dies once the ring is on the finger)...and it feels like a "Bait & Switch"....


----------



## ReformedHubby

When I first stumbled upon TAM and saw the Man Up Sticky I was a little taken aback by it. Admittedly I haven't read any of the books. My general thoughts were that it would be really hard for a man who actually needs the book to change those things about himself. He might be able to temporarily but I've always believed we pretty much are who we are. He'd probably be better off with someone who prefers a nice guy. I did recommend the links to a friend who was going through a divorce. I thought it was helping him, but in retrospect he is really still hurting and at this point I'm not sure he'll ever be the same.


----------



## TopsyTurvy5

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> 
> The " authentic self " that was you at age 14 when you were in high school, are you still that person?
> 
> If no , than who are you?
> What happened to the authentic self that was you when you were 20 yrs and just out of college , and just living for the " _joie de vivre_", without a care in the world?
> 
> Are you still the exact , same person you were when you first got married many moons ago?
> 
> Have you ever been through any traumatic experiences in life , did it make your authentic self stronger , weaker or did you remain the same old person you were before the trauma?
> 
> And where did you get the idea that a dichotomy exist between personal growth / adaptation and one's authentic self?
> 
> Are you saying that it is impossible for your authentic self to experience growth?
> 
> I think constant , personal growth and adaptation is much more sexy and attractive than emotional stagnation.


Authentic is when YOU determine how you want to change and what YOU want to become. NOT changing for someone else in the way they want you to change. Big difference. If someone is happy being a beta and their partner says, "I am not attracted to you because you are a beta. I want you to become an alpha!" then I think that is not going to be an authentic change. (I'm giving an overly simplified example, but the point remains.)

No one stays the same their entire life, and we both know it, so this is a moot point. The issue revolves around a SO not being attracted to their partner because they do not behave the way they want them to. "But, but, but if you just become more alpha then everything will be great!" No it won't. 

Any scenario where you change for someone else is going to lead to problems down the road and in no way is it authentic.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TopsyTurvy5 said:


> Authentic is when YOU determine how you want to change and what YOU want to become. NOT changing for someone else in the way they want you to change. Big difference. If someone is happy being a beta and their partner says, "I am not attracted to you because you are a beta. I want you to become an alpha!" then I think that is not going to be an authentic change. (I'm giving an overly simplified example, but the point remains.)
> 
> No one stays the same their entire life, and we both know it, so this is a moot point. The issue revolves around a SO not being attracted to their partner because they do not behave the way they want them to. "But, but, but if you just become more alpha then everything will be great!" No it won't.
> 
> Any scenario where you change for someone else is going to lead to problems down the road and in no way is it authentic.


Lets remove the Alpha / Beta from the debate.

Secondly, a person convinced against their mind is of the same opinion still. Hence nobody can change anybody. 
So that, is a moot point.

A spouse asking their partner to change X, Y or Z about them is a normal part of any marriage or relationship.
Marriage is about give and take, a series of exchanges at any given time.
Two people realize that things in the relationship aren't how they are supposed to be, either one or ideally both of them decide this or that needs changing about them or the other person.

Nothing inauthentic about that.

Your authentic self is what you are born with , your temperament .

How you react to external stimuli and the character / personality traits you develop as you grow up , are dependent upon a number of things, your home environment , school environment. and sometimes even the prevalent cultural norms .


Whereas we cannot change our temperament , we can and often do change how we react to certain circumstances based on a need for survival basis.

So, people change all of the time, but those changes cannot change their core, authentic self / temperament . These changes only add or subtract from what is built around the authentic self,

The sum of those changes make up your character.

Nothing is wrong if a spouse points out a flaw in your character/ personality ,you see it , and they are willing to help you work on it.

Nothing is wrong if you realize a flaw in your character and decide to work on it, all y yourself.

Your authentic self still remains.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> ​I've certainly seen quite a few here on TAM who both resent women for accusing them of only wanting sex on one thread, while chastising them for being so naive as to think a man might just be friendly without wanting in her pants, on the other
> 
> Point is, you can't have it both ways, and most women that I know who believe such things do so because it's what men tell them (in actions or words) all through their lives.


I'd completely agree with this, AA. The only qualification I'd be inclined to add to your example of friendly behavior is that of mutuality. A real friendship is a union between two people with fairly equal levels of concern for each other. 

If someone of the opposite gender is repeatedly exerting themselves on your behalf with little or no reciprocity from you other than simply allowing them to bask in the light of your presence, then shame on you too. They can't be denounced after the fact for failing to value a friendship that never existed.

And that goes equally for men and women. Nobody should be that naive.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Have you ever seen a docile, submissive woman in an emotionally abusive relationship , who always tries to please her husband and even other people, always putting herself last but he takes advantage of her passivity?
> Wouldn't you advise her to leave the marriage?
> 
> Right.
> 
> And after she leaves the marriage, she still put herself last often to her disadvantage , people using and walking all over her.
> Wouldn't your advice to her be to put herself first?
> 
> I thought so.
> 
> That's why I think you are purposely distorting what is being said by the book.


Yes, I would advise her to leave the marriage, and yes, I would tell her not to let others walk all over her.

I would say exactly the same things to a man in the same situation (--indeed have done recently to a friend married to an abusive, cheating witch).

As you have pointed out "doormat" isn't really anyone's authentic self; it's a coping strategy for people who haven't yet learned who their authentic selves are.

But instead of empowering men in this direction (again maybe some of he books do, but not the ones I've seen), the message given over and over to men is that women don't and never will like nice guys, and that basically any relationship problems a man might have are that he isn't dominating her enough, keeping her insecure, and laying down the law of how she ought to behave. 

I'm all for encouraging people to value themselves, and not to put up with any abuse from anyone. I'm also all for the inner journey that builds self-awareness and helps one to become a better person.

What I find obnoxious is the rhetoric around alpha and pseudo-biology. And how all it does is reinforce stereotypical gender roles that may or may not be of use to anyone.


----------



## Conrad

Feeling "safe" in a relationship is an emotional response.

And, it originates in the subconscious.


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> the message given over and over to men is that women don't and never will like nice guys


I don't like the phraseology of these books, They couch it in phrases that fourteen year olds might enjoy, but that's because that's where 65% of the _target audience _is stuck mentally. 

The actual point made a thousand times in those books, is not to stop being a good person, but to stop acting nice to try to be liked... also known as 'being creepy'.

It's not about re-programming, becoming a different letter of the alphabet, but stopping pretending. Surely that's a good thing.

Second thing is 

to realise that many guys are falling into the trap of thinking that attraction is love. So they are 'falling in love' every time they walk down the street. Therefore they are 'being nice' to people who may or may not deserve it. It follows that women are then dressing like tarts, because looking like a prostitute gets you attention. It's surely a good thing to change the attitude of men, which is causing this competitive slatternisation, turning women into sex objects - much of which they are adding to by becoming attention-seekers, and men into superficial fools.

You can do your bit too. Because If Mom hadn't brainwashed her boys into 'nicing' everyone into loving them, avoiding conflict and violence under any circumstances, there wouldn't be any need to undo the damage.

I blame the single mother culture. No good male role models.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yes, I would advise her to leave the marriage, and yes, I would tell her not to let others walk all over her.
> 
> I would say exactly the same things to a man in the same situation (--indeed have done recently to a friend married to an abusive, cheating witch).
> 
> As you have pointed out "doormat" isn't really anyone's authentic self; it's a coping strategy for people who haven't yet learned who their authentic selves are.
> 
> But instead of empowering men in this direction (again maybe some of he books do, but not the ones I've seen), the message given over and over to men is that women don't and never will like nice guys, and that basically any relationship problems a man might have are that he isn't dominating her enough, keeping her insecure, and laying down the law of how she ought to behave.
> 
> I'm all for encouraging people to value themselves, and not to put up with any abuse from anyone. I'm also all for the inner journey that builds self-awareness and helps one to become a better person.
> 
> What I find obnoxious is the rhetoric around alpha and pseudo-biology. And how all it does is reinforce stereotypical gender roles that may or may not be of use to anyone.



Lets separate the sheep from the goats so that there is less confusion and some clarity on terms and issues..

1] Can we agree that the term " nice guy " being used here isn't the same as a guy who's nice?
That a "nice guy" => doormat?
That a " guy who's nice " => A good man with a healthy self respect / self esteem ?

2] Can we agree to remove all the Alpha / Beta terms from the discussion?

3] Can we agree that a man or a woman has the right to work on themselves as they see fit, in order to address whatever inadequacies they might identify within their personality?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> *I blame the single mother culture. No good male role models.*


:iagree:

EXACTLY!

[ lol, didn't see your post before I posted mine!]


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> If someone of the opposite gender is repeatedly exerting themselves on your behalf with little or no reciprocity from you other than simply allowing them to bask in the light of your presence, then shame on you too.


Agreed! No one is that special.


----------



## always_alone

Sandfly said:


> I blame the single mother culture. No good male role models.


. Oh, right. It's *women's* fault that men don't step up to the plate and teach their boys not to be superficial, objectifying arses.

And it's *women's* fault that men want to objectify them. Damn them for being attractive.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> ....the message given over and over to men is that women don't and never will like nice guys, and that basically any relationship problems a man might have are that he isn't dominating her enough, keeping her insecure, and laying down the law of how she ought to behave.


..And the corollary to that idea is that women as a group are (Or at the very least have no ethical problem being) the entitled takers in a relationship with zero compunctions about keeping their husbands jumping though an endless series of hoops in pursuit of a carrot that never gets any closer.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> . Oh, right. It's *women's* fault that men don't step up to the plate and teach their boys not to be superficial, objectifying arses.
> 
> And it's *women's* fault that men want to objectify them. Damn them for being attractive.



Errr, NO.

He said he blames the single mother CULTURE, because the FATHERS are absent.

He's blaming the men for not being positive role models.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> 2] Can we agree to remove all the Alpha / Beta terms from the discussion?


I wish we could agree to this, but the man-up literature is chock full of alpha vs beta, and the dismissal of "nice" in all senses of the term.

Yes, I realize that NMMNG and it's ilk is defining "nice guy" in a particular, peculiar way. But go to their forums, and you will see they are chock full of misogyny and arguments about how nice men are just pvssies who will never get laid again. This may not be the authors' intent, but they sure are feeding it.

And sure, if you want to work on yourself by becoming more and more of an a$$hole, you can. But *I* will be less and less inclined to talk to you. 

Probably you don't care. That's fine too.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Errr, NO.
> 
> He said he blames the single mother CULTURE, because the FATHERS are absent.
> 
> He's blaming the men for not being positive role models.


Then why call it a "single mother" culture instead of an "absent father" culture?

And why tell mothers that they should stop teaching their boys to be nice?


----------



## jld

Sandfly said:


> I blame the single mother culture. No good male role models.


Sandfly, I don't think you mean it that way, but more like what CM and aa said, the absence of fathers, right?

And it is surely more complex than one or the other.


----------



## Caribbean Man

AA, 

Why do you keep dragging what is being said on other forums by other people neither you nor I even know into this discussion?

To what extent does it help?

Why do you want to keep the " nice guy " distinction nebulous?
What purpose does it serve after I asked you to separate it?


----------



## jld

Conrad said:


> Feeling "safe" in a relationship is an emotional response.
> 
> And, it originates in the subconscious.


That sounds interesting. I definitely feel safe with dh.

Could you elaborate on this idea, please?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's a lovely passage from MMSL in which he explains to us that all men need to constantly top off the sperm they leave in their cheating wh*re wives, so it can kill the sperm of the dudes she is cheating with:


*(1.13) Sperm Warfare* Having discussed concealed ovulation and how *women are designed to be able to deceive their man and poach another man’s genes on the sly*, we come to the way the male body attempts to counter that female strategy. Men have ways of fighting back and trying to stop another man getting his partner pregnant. One defense against another man’s sperm is the way the penis is shaped. A penis being thrust into a vagina actually creates a mild suction and will slowly draw out any other semen present. Long and vigorous sex will create greater suction.

*A larger penis probably creates greater suction than a smaller one*. It seems counter-intuitive, but if a wife’s infidelity is discovered or suspected, a husband can become both extremely angry and wildly sexually aroused as well. *It’s a natural biological reaction to seek to immediately enter her and thrust very aggressively, unconsciously seeking to displace the other man’s semen by pumping it out. This is what makes women find rough sex enjoyable, it’s a signal of the male being sexually powerful.* Having just terrorized every man with less than a monstrous sized penis that he is inadequate as a lover, it’s best to consider that it’s in a sense like getting excited over the length of the barrel of a gun. Ooooh so big.

Yet the penis is simply a delivery system for the more important thing – semen. A primary purpose of men is to be walking semen factories. Each day a healthy male will make millions of sperm. This is why teenage boys lean on everything and can hardly stand up straight. *Making 100 million sperm before breakfast is work. Women coast on juggling a single – maybe two – eggs a month which just seems lazy by comparison.* The goal for a man is to ejaculate as much as possible into a fertile female and make a baby. Interestingly you cannot fool your own body. Your Body Agenda knows the difference between masturbation and sexual intercourse. Wikipedia… “Sperm samples obtained via sexual intercourse contain 70-120% more sperm, with sperm having a slightly higher motility and slightly more normal morphology, compared with sperm samples obtained via masturbation. Sexual intercourse also generates a 25-45% increase in ejaculate volume, mainly by increased prostate secretion.” This is all done unconsciously; a man’s own body can adjust the volume of semen and the sperm content of the semen depending on whether or not he is masturbating or ejaculating inside his woman. Also a male will unconsciously adjust the amount of sperm in his semen depending on how long it was since he last had sex with her. The longer it was since the last sex, the more sperm he gives her. The male typically has no idea when the female will be ovulating and able to become pregnant, *so the biological point of sex as far as the male is concerned is to constantly try and “top off” a female’s reproductive tract with sperm*.

Sperm can survive for up to five days inside a female, so the plan is that as long as he can keep her topped off with his sperm swimming around inside her, he’ll eventually get lucky and get her pregnant. The other reason a male wants to keep a female topped off with sperm is that not all sperm are actually designed to make a run at the egg. Sperm come in three basic types: runners, blockers and killers. Only 1-2% of all the sperm are “runners” designed to make a break for the egg and fertilize it. The rest of the sperm split into two basic groups of “blockers” and “killers”. The blockers act like a defensive line in football, they form chains of themselves and attempt to block up the females reproductive tract and deny access to any other male’s competing sperm. The killers live up to their name too and patrol around looking to attack sperm play a game of football against other sperm, you have it completely right.

*On a biological level, the Male Body Agenda assumes that the female he is having sex with will be unfaithful*. By constantly seeking to top off a female’s reproductive tract with sperm, he assures himself a standing army inside her ready to repel another male’s sperm if she cheats on him. A wife can avoid having a standing army of her husband’s sperm inside her by simply denying him sex. *A couple can have fairly frequent sex, but if she avoids sex with him, or just gives him handjobs or blowjobs in the three or four days before she ovulates, the husband is rendered defenseless from a sperm warfare perspective if she meets a lover for sex. There’s no standing army of the husband’s sperm to fight off the lover’s sperm.*

Importantly because the lover is not likely to have many attempts at sex with the wife, his ejaculation will be extremely large and flood her vagina. The husband is at a decided disadvantage. It’s important to wave the flag again that this sort of planned deceit on the wife’s part can happen completely unconsciously; *the Rationalization Hamster can likely supply several excellent reasons as to why she avoided her husband’s semen in her vagina for a few days before she ovulated.* Plus obviously the hook-up with the lover was just an appalling lapse of character. She’s not that kind of girl. In fact she’s just realized from that hook-up how very empty sex without love can be and she now knows that deep down she really loves her husband and wants to make it work with him. So perhaps some good came of the whole thing. The Rationalization Hamster is holding off on telling her she’s pregnant for a bit…missed periods sometimes just happen you know. (See how the Rationalization Hamster works?)


----------



## Faithful Wife

And this wasn't an example of a specific CHEATING wife...this was said of wives in general...that they all follow their bodies on down the path to cheat cheat cheat and get all those lovely babies made inside of her, all day long...THAT's the only reason any of us have sex, ya know.

Science.


----------



## WyshIknew

One thing I did have a :scratchhead: about was (as far as I can remember, it is a year or two since I read the book) this betaisation thing.

It's not your fault that you got fat, lazy, sloppy in life and dress and neglectful.

No, your nasty wife, your family and the world in general betaised you with some weird betaising ray gun.

I think if you 'dropped the ball' and got lazy etc then that's on you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's another lovely paragraph, the lead in to "marriage dread game":

Understanding Sex Rank as Leverage Once the dynamics of Sex Rank is understood – the essential point being that *the hottest member of a couple is the one that holds the balance of power* and sets the tone of the relationship- *we can actively use that as a tool to gain the things we want from that relationship*. This leads us on to Part Two of the book and *taking practical steps towards trumping you wife’s Sex Rank and pushing towards a point where she must become highly sexual responsive to you, or risk losing you.*


----------



## Faithful Wife

And here he explains that sexless marriages are actually created by the wife on purpose (because of course, the man never had anything to do with the problems):

The wife who denies you sex may have zero interest in solving the problem of a sexless marriage. After all, that might damage the carefully balanced *relationship she has created, where you do exactly what she wants all the time and she doesn’t have to do anything*.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And where he tells us that a 40 y/o man has appeal but a 40 y/o woman does not:

Of course if her Sex Rank trumps yours, you’ve got nothing to use as leverage to change things. You’re giving away your power in the relationship and you can find your entire relationship reframed for her benefit as a result. Of course if your Sex Rank goes up, and hers stays the same but she doesn't turn into Miss Sugarp*ssy on you... well you're going to be getting better interest from other women. Over the long term, a man who basically applies himself to any sort of career and personal development while maintaining physical fitness, becomes sexier than his similarly aged wife does. An average twenty-year-old-man is over shadowed by the raw appeal of a twenty-year-old-woman. At thirty it's more balanced. A forty-year-old-man generally has far more appeal than a forty-year-old woman. *All things being equal a single forty-year-old-man can date and remarry with ease, but a forty-year-old-woman will have a much harder time of it.*


----------



## Faithful Wife

And I'm not even looking for the worst of the worst with these copy and pastes. I'm just randomly taking paragraphs from the book. There are MUCH WORSE and far more offensive paragraphs in it than what I have posted.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here is his dating advice for escalating physical touch:

*(8.11) Escalate – Touch Her* Someone you want to have sex with is going to be someone you touch a good deal. Obviously you aren’t going to grab her boobs in public on a first date, but you are going to *escalate the level of physical touch as quickly as you can without pissing her off*. Start with touches on her hands and arms, just incidental as you are talking to her. Hands on her shoulders and back are usually fine after that too. Going for things like arms around her waist, handholding and kissing usually require some sort of isolation before she is agreeable to it.

The dance floor is a twilight zone where such rules are suspended and nearly anything goes. Once isolated from people she knows, you can go for the more intimate moves like the hand holding and so on. *Once in private you can start going for boobs and trying to get clothes off her. Framing it all as your assumption that everything is coming off eventually anyway works best.*

Kiss and grope and break and do a little something else and back to kiss and grope and a little gentle tug on the clothing to be removed. “Your blouse is in the way.” Generally, you are better off trying to go a little too fast than a little too slow with physical escalation.

She may get a little pissed off at you, but that is better than her being bored with you. *Being pissed off just means she is emotionally engaged with you, which is generally a direct line to her vagina. If she does say stop though, you do back it up a bit.*


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Here is his dating advice for escalating physical touch:
> 
> *(8.11) Escalate – Touch Her* Someone you want to have sex with is going to be someone you touch a good deal. Obviously you aren’t going to grab her boobs in public on a first date, but you are going to escalate the level of physical touch as quickly as you can without pissing her off. Start with touches on her hands and arms, just incidental as you are talking to her. Hands on her shoulders and back are usually fine after that too. Going for things like arms around her waist, handholding and kissing usually require some sort of isolation before she is agreeable to it.
> 
> The dance floor is a twilight zone where such rules are suspended and nearly anything goes. Once isolated from people she knows, you can go for the more intimate moves like the hand holding and so on. Once in private you can start going for boobs and trying to get clothes off her. Framing it all as your assumption that everything is coming off eventually anyway works best.
> 
> Kiss and grope and break and do a little something else and back to kiss and grope and a little gentle tug on the clothing to be removed. “Your blouse is in the way.” Generally, you are better off trying to go a little too fast than a little too slow with physical escalation.
> 
> She may get a little pissed off at you, but that is better than her being bored with you. Being pissed off just means she is emotionally engaged with you, which is generally a direct line to her vagina. If she does say stop though, you do back it up a bit.


I don't necessarily see this as bad.

If you don't buy a ticket you won't win a prize.

This is stuff that a sexually confident guy might know instinctively but a shy guy may have a problem with.

Does he do a section prior to this on how to ascertain if she is in to you to stop an unsure guy from frightening some poor unsuspecting woman?


----------



## Faithful Wife

"If she does say stop though, you do back up a bit".

Really?

How about just stop.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> "If she does say stop though, you do back up a bit".
> 
> Really?
> 
> How about just stop.


Yes, true.

Perhaps a little understatement!

Back in the day if a girl had asked me to stop whatever I was doing I would be freaking out worried that I had hurt or upset her.

I've even been dumped for not making the moves.:scratchhead:


----------



## Lon

FW thanks for posting those interesting and relevant articles, I'm not sure why exactly you have complained about his books before, perhaps his pro-male approach just doesn't work for you, but his conclusions about the science and repercussions about sex is not all that inaccurate.

For some of us less aware guys his blunt words actually make a light the light go on in understanding that what we see happening all around us isn't just in fact our own disbelief, that in fact maybe the way we understand the biology really is that obvious.

For high drive couples that can get adequate sex maybe it is not so nice to have to think about all of that, just kinda happens the way it does. For those that don't get adequate sex and whose drive has suffers it may give us a fingerhold in order to make a change to improve something that we decide needs improving.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon, how about this tidbit he wrote:

*The entire purpose of sex for women is to get semen into their vaginas.*

:rofl:

The ENTIRE purpose.

That explains why her sexual pleasure really isn't important anyway. I'm sorry for you and any man who agrees with this.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lol, 
My wife is spending the weekend with my mom and her friends on the eastern side of the island in a beach house. They left yesterday morning.
Very early this morning she's texting me telling me how she missed me but she missed my member most. [ Friday , Saturday & Sunday are must-have-sex-nights for us.] In the text she stated explicitly what she wants me to do with it when we she returns and where she wants me to put my " warm love juices."

Gentlemen, know your sex life is over when your wife begins to have problems with simple biological stuff like shape , size and role of your penis, and it's basic ,natural function with respect to her v-jay-jay.

In fact , one of the main reasons women say they like it when their husband gets snipped , is because they no longer can get pregnant , but still have the benefits of his orgasm AND SEMEN inside of her vagina.


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I never mentioned anything about hypocrisy, you did.
> I'm not sure either why you'd bring that up and try to project it.
> We're supposed to be just conversing here.
> But since you mentioned it, how do you explain the following in context with what you've posted ;
> 
> Do you remember once you posted here ,that it was scientifically proven that women are biologically programmed to loose sexual interest in a current monogamous partner and want a new sexual partner after about 5 or 7 years ?
> 
> You are the only poster I've seen referring to that scientific study.
> 
> Do you still hold that view ?
> And if you do , do you think it too,could be a contributing factor in sexless marriages?


I would never claim that any study 'scientifically proved' anything. Because I understand how research studies work. 

I referenced this book Sex at Dawn. The authors theorise that the reason so many women lose desire for their familiar partners after 4-7 years could be based in evolutionary biology. 

It's an interesting theory. Maybe it has some validity, maybe not. It does seem to explain some things that are hard to explain any other way. 

Of course you were trying to expose some kind of bias and hypocrisy in my thinking. Why else would you raise that portentous question about what did these women do to deserve their sexless relationships, unless you were expecting me to say oh, it's all the men's fault, they have nothing to do with it. 

I'm not interested in people who hide behind dis ingenuity, and try to weasel out of the implications they were very clearly making.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Athol Kay actually says that men should NOT get snipped, because semen without live sperm is NOT the same thing as semen with live sperm.

IOW, his scientific (ha) opinion is that it is the sperm not the semen that make women happy.

And it is only an army of sperm that will keep her from being pregnant with the many other men she's f*cking.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's another juicy tidbit showing just how warm and fuzzy he feels about women:

She just might like the husbandly version of a pump and dump once in a while. Remember when I said she came from a long line of sl*ts? Well based on their actions it seems clear that sl*ts love being pumped and dumped, so a couple times a week of just using your wife’s body with her consent is going to meet her sl*t needs.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> Of course you were trying to expose some kind of bias and hypocrisy in my thinking. Why else would you raise that portentous question about what did these women do to deserve their sexless relationships, unless you were expecting me to say oh, it's all the men's fault, they have nothing to do with it.
> 
> I'm not interested in people who hide behind dis ingenuity, and try to weasel out of the implications they were very clearly making.


Lol,

Portentous could mean important, significant and a few other things.It depends on the context , and of course personal interpretation. Since you and I were just having a cordial conversation , I'll assume you used it in the context of important, for this conversation.
That is unless of course , you assumed _differently._

Anyway I asked the question because you were saying that men who are in sexless marriages didn't observe the red flags. A red flag you mentioned was the woman being a virgin , and another was sexual incompatibility, before marriage.

Many of the women here on TAM who are in sexless marriages were neither virgins and they all said that sex was great before marriage.
So therefore, a person being a virgin or a couple being sexually compatible before marriage is no indicator of permanent sexual compatibility during marriage, neither is it an iron clad guarantee that the marriage won't be sexless.

That's why I referred to that study you mentioned.

It's called a different vantage point , where you look at a subject matter from a different perspective to see if your theory holds true.


----------



## Lyris

It wasn't a study. It was a book. One that I linked. 

I don't need you to define words for me thanks. I have an above average vocabulary. 

What was the point of that huge gap, if not to draw attention to the last line, to give it more importance and significance? Did something fall on the return key? 

I didn't cite sexual incompatibility before marriage. I cited basic sexual incompatibility. I have zero doubts that any person, male or female, who ends up in a sexless marriage is basically sexually incompatible with their spouse by definition. 

And those were not the only reasons I gave for being in a sexless marriage, so what's the point of throwing women in sexless marriages who have apparently not fulfilled every criteria I mentioned? Maybe they have a couple of the others instead. 

And again, to repeat, I have *never, anywhere on this board,* stated that a scientific study *proves* anything. Basic undergrad social science courses will tell you that in lecture 1.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris,

I can pull the exact quote, and I remember the exact thread, and the exact , two male posters you were responding to.
And I remember the exact words you used to describe men on TAM who rejected the concept.

But I'll let it pass, don't want to turn the thread into anything personal.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's another snippet from his dating advice, with a bonus note to the women reading!:

Don't Offer To Pay For Lunch – That kicks in the ASD (Anti Sl*t Defense) where she feels leverage being used against her to buy sexual favors. Even if she agrees to let you pay she'll be scanning the menu for something that says "handjob" rather than something she actually wants to eat. You won't get that handjob either. *(Incidentally for the women reading, chicken Caesar salad is the default handjob menu choice, lobster means you have to go all the way. Everyone knows by now that sushi = oral sex and baby back ribs means you are a nasty, nasty girl and I'm embarrassed to be so aroused by you.)*


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's another juicy tidbit showing just how warm and fuzzy he feels about women:
> 
> She just might like the husbandly version of a pump and dump once in a while. Remember when I said she came from a long line of sl*ts? Well based on their actions it seems clear that sl*ts love being pumped and dumped, so a couple times a week of just using your wife’s body with her consent is going to meet her sl*t needs.


To be honest I do something like this sometimes, not 'use' her of course.

I know she rather likes the fact that I can be so randy that I can't resist pulling her knickers off and giving her a damn good seeing to.

Sometimes I do it, pretending to lose control because she does seem to have a swagger afterwards, a spring in her step.

Other times she deliberately gets me worked up until I'm almost exploding with lust.

But I definitely wouldn't call it pump and dump. Eeeew.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wysh...it is his tactless disdain for women that shines clear in his writing plus the fact that he cites "science" for EVERY thing he writes that I am opposed to.

I like getting my brains rocked on the regular, and you know that. I mean, c'mon...is that really what you think I'm getting twisted up about?

But if I went around saying "yeah, I love my men young, dumb, and full of cum...oh yeah...plus a FAT frikken wallet....sign me up, brotha! They aren't good for anything but bein' cum machines and ATM's, whooooo hooooo!!!!! SCIENCE!! I don't have to do nuthin', I can get some idiot to f*ck me and pay me in diamonds!"....I'm pretty sure every decent man everywhere would be offended.


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> Lyris,
> 
> I can pull the exact quote, and I remember the exact thread, and the exact , two male posters you were responding to.
> And I remember the exact words you used to describe men on TAM who rejected the concept.
> 
> But I'll let it pass, don't want to turn the thread into anything personal.


Feel free. If I did say a scientific study proves anything then that was a mistake and I'd like to correct it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> To be honest I do something like this sometimes, not 'use' her of course.
> 
> I know she rather likes the fact that I can be so randy that I can't resist pulling her knickers off and giving her a damn good seeing to.
> 
> Sometimes I do it, pretending to lose control because she does seem to have a swagger afterwards, a spring in her step.
> 
> Other times she deliberately gets me worked up until I'm almost exploding with lust.
> 
> But I definitely wouldn't call it pump and dump. Eeeew.


Well Wysh,

I'm glad that you responded to that.

My wife and I also do it many times, and I'm sure many other couples do it too.

Just have raw, wild uninhibited sex , without any long foreplay or explicit consent from each other.
It sometimes happens around 2 AM in the morning, either she's blowing me while I'm sleeping and by the time I'm fully awake , she's straddling me, riding away.
Or me just taking her in the kitchen or in the shower when she least expects. No long foreplay or anything like that.

Just raw sex.

Didn't know that was a criminal offence.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> Feel free. If I did say a scientific study proves anything then that was a mistake and I'd like to correct it.


Well, we all do make mistakes sometime or the other.
It's only human.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Wysh...it is his tactless disdain for women that shines clear in his writing plus the fact that he cites "science" for EVERY thing he writes that I am opposed to.
> 
> I like getting my brains rocked on the regular, and you know that. I mean, c'mon...is that really what you think I'm getting twisted up about?
> 
> But if I went around saying "yeah, I love my men young, dumb, and full of cum...oh yeah...plus a FAT frikken wallet....sign me up, brotha! They aren't good for anything but bein' cum machines and ATM's, whooooo hooooo!!!!! SCIENCE!! I don't have to do nuthin', I can get some idiot to f*ck me and pay me in diamonds!"....I'm pretty sure every decent man everywhere would be offended.



No wasn't really thinking that about you but just wondered if I was inadvertently doing exactly this myself.

When we do it, it doesn't seem like the way he describes it. It's just another bit of sexual fun.


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> Well, we all do make mistakes sometime or the other.
> It's only human.


Well I'm not admitting to it unless you can produce the quote.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Look, I'm a self-proclaimed sl*t. But I don't go around calling all women sl*ts, because not all of them are. The fact that Athol does (we all come from a long line of sl*ts and sl*ts love being pumped and dumped) is just really mean. It is mean and meant to create a sense of superiority to the man reading it.

If I dared to call ALL men walking cum machines, and loudly proclaim that biologically, they OWE me diamonds for the use of my p*ssy (and there are women out there who say these things) again, I am pretty sure this would offend not only men but other women, too.

So why is this ok for Athol? And why would so many wives be on board with this type of message? And why would those who have not even READ the book be so "for it"?

There is much worse... I plan to shave out a few more tidbits to share here, for those who may think that all Man Up messages are the same and that they are just about men, not misogyny. 

I can guarantee you, they are not all the same. Some are hateful and mean spirited....like MMSL. (And he's not even the worst of them!)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here is a formula from MMSL to determine the worth of your wife:

Hooker Math: Okay, let’s do the hooker math now. Figure out how much money you spent on your wife in the last year and divide that by the number of times you’ve had sex in the same time period. That’s your cost per lay. Is that more or less than the price of a nice hooker?


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Look, I'm a self-proclaimed sl*t. But I don't go around calling all women sl*ts, because not all of them are. The fact that Athol does (we all come from a long line of sl*ts and sl*ts love being pumped and dumped) is just really mean. It is mean and meant to create a sense of superiority to the man reading it.
> 
> If I dared to call ALL men walking cum machines, and loudly proclaim that biologically, they OWE me diamonds for the use of my p*ssy (and there are women out there who say these things) again, I am pretty sure this would offend not only men but other women, too.
> 
> So why is this ok for Athol? And why would so many wives be on board with this type of message? And why would those who have not even READ the book be so "for it"?
> 
> There is much worse... I plan to shave out a few more tidbits to share here, for those who may think that all Man Up messages are the same and that they are just about men, not misogyny.
> 
> I can guarantee you, they are not all the same. Some are hateful and mean spirited....like MMSL. (And he's not even the worst of them!)


Because rather than blame themselves, own their own shet, Athol tells them that they have been betaised.

Hence not their fault.


----------



## Deejo

Before anyone gets their dander up, it's likely that all of those copied and pasted pages of copyrighted material are going to come down.

So for the time being, please refrain from continuing to do so. People can buy the book and then decide if they want to burn it.

I'm sure that will also look like some kind of misogynistic bias.

I can live with that.

And as I have already wisely and brilliantly noted some of the ladies don't like how the sausage gets made.
I can live with that too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No worries Deejo...bring them on down. We wouldn't want to actually SEE the hateful mean stuff behind the curtain as you said. And that's what is really important here...to be able to defend hateful and mean non-science.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I did laugh...many times. Hooker math itself is hysterical.

If he wanted a career in comedy, I bet he could get one.

Sadly, he is writing marriage books instead.


----------



## heartsbeating

FW, I deleted my comment that quoted your post with an excerpt from the book. I had to laugh at how damn bad it was. 

I'm just glad my husband journaled and figured his path for himself. It had a beneficial roll-on effect to our marriage but he needed to go on that journey for his own growth... just as I've had my own to follow and in turn has been beneficial to our marriage.

I don't eat lobster or ribs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know! Ribs? What woman orders ribs on a date???


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> I know! Ribs? What woman orders ribs on a date???


Well you can tell a lot about a woman who's into sticky fingers on a first date


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think more women should read this book, and use their biology for what it is really meant for....getting rich through the efforts of some dumb man. (Note: in case you don't catch on quickly, I'm joking, because the below is extremely offensive to most men and women...but this is the equivalent to MMSL):

http://www.amazon.com/How-Marry-Mil...8&qid=1393713534&sr=1-1&keywords=get+rich+men

How to Marry a Millionaire: the ultimate guide on how to marry rich (Get the man you want! Marry money!)

This book contains proven steps and strategies on how to marry money. 

Has marrying someone rich crossed your mind already? Has it been the one thing you've dreamed of since childhood? How nice it would be to live the easy life, take the plane trip to the Bahamas, and buy that summer home in the Hamptons and that winter home somewhere in Colorado. 

Have you thought already of getting a Happily Ever After with a wealthy spouse for that life of luxury? Well then, grab your favorite drink, take a seat, and read as I tell you of the many ways you can get Mister or Miss Bucks-a-plenty and live the life of splendor you wish for. 

This is the Ultimate Guide on How to Marry Rich.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> Lon, how about this tidbit he wrote:
> 
> *The entire purpose of sex for women is to get semen into their vaginas.*
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> The ENTIRE purpose.
> 
> That explains why her sexual pleasure really isn't important anyway. I'm sorry for you and any man who agrees with this.


He is embellishing to emphasize a point. And that is the primary function of sexual reproduction (as in the critical step needed for conception)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon, he is not embellishing. He actually believes it is the only reason. 

Do you think sexual reproduction is the same thing as sex? I don't.

But he does.


----------



## Caribbean Man

LOL.:rofl:


----------



## Sandfly

always_alone said:


> Then why call it a "single mother" culture instead of an "absent father" culture?
> 
> And why tell mothers that they should stop teaching their boys to be nice?


Sorry, yes I did mean 'absent father', you're right. But that connotes absence by choice, which is not the case in England. In England it is more often "excluded father" or "father could be one of five men".

In some countries such as Russia, the mothers are bringing up the children because dad is a violent drunk/is working in the city/ or whatever xyz reason is not there, mentally or physically.
Dad is absent by choice.

But in the case of England where I am now, there are fathers who would love to be involved, but the mother prefers state money, government housing, and she can't get the free money if dad is in the picture. She is automatically preferred as the guardian if the child is 6 or under at the time of split-up. Single motherhood is promoted by the system we live in, as opposed to an outcome of male drunken culture, like in Russia/Ukraine.

If we carry on with this system of getting paid by the state to look after your own kids, there should be a cut off, so that they make an effort to get back into two-parent family structures, instead of shagging around town for 5 years and then popping out another one when the benefits are about to dry up and it's time to look for work.

No one wants to stay with a woman they can't trust, no woman wants to marry a drunk. So why have a system - In England or in Russia as opposing examples, which favours one or other of the genders to act arrogantly and irresponsibly?

If we must have one parent families, because we're all so selfish, so 'high on life' that we can't think about the true welfare of our offspring and community, how about _at least_ that fathers raise their sons, and mothers daughters?

This is equitable, logical and there's really no excuse why not. 

The choice for young boys is not 'is mum or dad a better role model?' mum will never be a role model for her boys. Boys don't work that way.


----------



## Conrad

jld said:


> That sounds interesting. I definitely feel safe with dh.
> 
> Could you elaborate on this idea, please?


This is the key to the "niceguy" thing and why a man who is "overly attentive" loses attractiveness.

If his existence is defined by putting a smile on your face, then it's basically impossible to respect that man over the long term.

Feeling "safe" in a relationship is the idea that the couple is growing and that there is mutual interest between partners and that - for men - in particular, he is "going somewhere" in life.


----------



## always_alone

Thanks Faithful Wife for taking the time to post those quotes --even if they do end up getting taken down. Nothing like words straight from the horses mouth to see what a jacka$$ he really is.

As for copying and pasting, doesn't fair use legislation allow excerpts for the purposes of review and edification? And isn't that exactly what FW was doing, with due credit to the source and everything?

I rather agree with her that taking it down is more a sign of sweeping the truth under the carpet, rather than any legit concern over the copyright holder's rights.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But what's really important is protecting Atholl's right to call all women sl*ts in the name of science.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Conrad said:


> This is the key to the "niceguy" thing and why a man who is "overly attentive" loses attractiveness.
> 
> If his existence is defined by putting a smile on your face, then it's basically impossible to respect that man over the long term.
> 
> Feeling "safe" in a relationship is the idea that the couple is growing and that there is mutual interest between partners and that -* for men - in particular, he is "going somewhere" in life.*


:iagree:

Like the way you put it.
Especially the last part.
Reminds me of a line from one of my favorite songs from the 80's by Gwen Guthrie :

_" Cause nothin from nothin leaves nothin
You got to have somethin if you wanna be with me
Oh, life is too serious, loves too mysterious
A fly girl like me needs security.."_

" Nothin Going on but the rent" ~ Gwen Guthrie.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I would like to pre-order 5,000 copies, please.


----------



## always_alone

Sandfly said:


> Sorry, yes I did mean 'absent father', you're right. But that connotes absence by choice, which is not the case in England. In England it is more often "excluded father" or "father could be one of five men".


I find it hard to believe that women forced these men to have sex with them, and any offspring would be equally his responsibility. If he doubts the paternity, he can easily determine this with the miracle of science. One test is all it takes.

As for excluded: unless he has some sort of restraining order, he can insist on visitation or part-time custody, can't he?

I do agree that fathers shouldn't be excluded unless for very legit reasons, eg abusivr


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Thanks Faithful Wife for taking the time to post those quotes --even if they do end up getting taken down. Nothing like words straight from the horses mouth to see what a jacka$$ he really is.
> 
> As for copying and pasting, doesn't fair use legislation allow excerpts for the purposes of review and edification? And isn't that exactly what FW was doing, with due credit to the source and everything?
> 
> I rather agree with her that taking it down is more a sign of sweeping the truth under the carpet, rather than any legit concern over the copyright holder's rights.



I think what Dejoo's talking about is legal risk to the owners of TAM.

I have an idea.

Why don't you and Faithful wife start a website dealing with Athol's books?

That way any legal liability doesn't rest on owners of TAM but on both of you , should any arise.
If you are sure that fair legislation allows it, then I'm sure that you would not have any problem doing it.

Both of you could probably put a link to that website on your TAM profile.


BTW, There are already lots of reviews and blogs on his work online, so why not ive it a try?


----------



## Faithful Wife

How to Avoid Mansplaining | Rascality: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I think what Dejoo's talking about is legal risk to the owners of TAM.
> 
> I have an idea.


That's a really great idea! But a better one I think would be for both FW and I to invest in FrenchFry's idea, and start a website for women recovering from MMSL.

Surely demand will skyrocket if that's he only advice available to men seeking support on a marriage forum!


----------



## Sandfly

Faithful Wife said:


> Has marrying someone rich crossed your mind already? How nice it would be to live the easy life, take the plane trip to the Bahamas, and buy that summer home in the Hamptons and that winter home somewhere in Colorado.


A: Yes, yes it has !

B: It would be nice!

Always Alone: Fundamentally, we agree. A father who is not abusive should have a full role in the kids life. Currently this is not the norm in England. No, he can't just insist on visitation. It doesn't work this way here. One man has been winning court cases against his wife for 12 years over here, at great expense to get access to his kids. Mum doesn't co-operate and there's nothing he can do about it. Many similar cases (BBC parliament).

What about these girls who are just shagging around to stay on benefits?

After all: "I find it hard to believe that men forced these women to have sex with them, and any offspring would be equally her responsibility (...financially). 

They do it to get out of working, and for a free house.

I believe they have a similar system in the "projects".

What about fathers getting automatic custody of sons? Let's be frank - that's what they really want. Daughters are fine with their mums, with just visits from dad.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I don't believe a man can completely change how he relates to women by reading a book. But I also think that the primary audience for these books/blogs are misunderstood. The PUAs that most women should be concerned about certainly don't get their game from books and they don't post on internet forums. 

The books are really there for a subset of men that have limited confidence and absolutely no clue how to relate to the opposite sex. I referenced my divorced friend earlier. I don't want to put him out there but he really was the poster boy "nice guy". I was one of his groomsmen and his bride to be had actually bedded two of the other groomsmen previously and tried to bed me when I was engaged. I tried so hard to talk him out of marrying her. He had limited sexual experience before he met her. Basically it was a disaster waiting to happen.

I think the audience for those books is guys like him. He didn't become an overnight super stud. He didn't expect to. What he got was a temporary boost of much needed self confidence (too bad it was temporary). When I read what FW posted from the books I admit it sounds pretty dang offensive. But when I think back to my childhood its all stuff that my pops, grandad, and uncles told me minus the science. 

Honestly it is confusing. Because every time in my life I've tried to be the man that women say they want I encountered rejection or ended up in a dysfunctional relationship. When I stick to what my elders told me and followed my instincts, things seemed to work out better.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> Who says it's not already happening?
> 
> Like I share everything with you, geeze.


Oh well good!

Would it be like a free website or do we have to pay?


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> Like I'd give out details here, come on son. Just what I'd need, a bunch of yeahbut-ers around.


...and " _band wagoners?_"


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's a cute picture of some sl*t shaming crows for you FF...I bet you can use this someday:


----------



## TiggyBlue

Sandfly said:


> What about fathers getting automatic custody of sons? Let's be frank - that's what they really want. Daughters are fine with their mums, with just visits from dad.


WOW....... that really left me speechless (and my husband ranting lol).


----------



## always_alone

Lately, my SO has been frequently telling me how lucky he is to have me, how he wants to be with me, and make me happy.

It's working, despite being completely counter to man-up rules.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Lately, my SO has been frequently telling me how lucky he is to have me, how he wants to be with me, and make me happy.
> 
> It's working, despite being completely counter to man-up rules.


I can only surmise this means you had some adult conversation with your SO and things are changing for the positive??

YAY! 

I don't even need to know the details to say YAY!


----------



## Lyris

Okay so I'm still waiting to see where I said that a scientific study proved that women lose interest in sex with their husbands after four - seven years. If I don't see it soon I'm going to assume you were lying or mistaken and too male to admit it, CarribeanMan.


----------



## Sandfly

TiggyBlue said:


> WOW....... that really left me speechless (and my husband ranting lol).


Ha ha!

It's not completely true what I posted, I for one would prefer daughters to sons. My point was simply that there are other ways we could divide the family, if people are too self-involved, ambitious in their careers and vindictive toward the opposite sex to make the two-parent unit work.

My real opinion is that extended families are the best thing for a child, lots of aunties, uncles and cousins living nearby, because the nuclear family is a failure, second only to single-mother households.


----------



## jld

I do not think the nuclear family is a failure. I understand that there are challenges, and I would like to see those challenges addressed.

Just speaking for myself, I really appreciate the freedom dh and I have to raise our kids the way we see fit. I really am glad I did not grow up in a culture where arranged marriage is the norm. 

Sometimes my marriage feels like an arranged marriage, because there are responsibilities that must be assumed regardless of one's feelings, just like in an arranged marriage. But that is not necessarily bad. It is probably pretty much reality.

I am from a huge family (10 older siblings, all from the same two parents), and while there is "support," it is support of a very specific type. I am expected, within that group, to think only certain "acceptable" thoughts and to do things in certain "acceptable" ways. No one is interested in hearing any ideas I might have (unschooling, vegan diet, simple living) because they already know everything. I am simply expected to conform, in every way. Totally unappealing.

Remember that saying of Churchill? "Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the others." I totally agree!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Sandfly said:


> My real opinion is that extended families are the best thing for a child, lots of aunties, uncles and cousins living nearby, because the nuclear family is a failure, second only to single-mother households.


:iagree:
This is how I grew up.
Even though my mother and father divorced when I was just 6 yrs old, our extended family was huge.
I had eleven uncles, my grandparents and other family around in close proximity.


----------



## jld

Conrad said:


> This is the key to the "niceguy" thing and why a man who is "overly attentive" loses attractiveness.
> 
> If his existence is defined by putting a smile on your face, then it's basically impossible to respect that man over the long term.
> 
> Feeling "safe" in a relationship is the idea that the couple is growing and that there is mutual interest between partners and that - for men - in particular, he is "going somewhere" in life.


This last line is not as clear to me as it apparently should be. How is he going somewhere in life? What does that mean to you, Conrad?

CM, I did not understand your response to this at all. Could you explain?

To me, feeling safe in a relationship means knowing, deep in my heart, that no matter what happens, whatever little stupid irritations, or huge calamities, that dh and I are going, absolutely, to weather this together. Nothing can break the marriage. It is there for the long term.

This obviously takes two strong, committed people. It is not based on anything superficial, though that might be pleasant, because nothing superficial is going to hold us together during hard times, the times that try men's souls, according to Thomas Paine (had to look that up, could not remember who said it).

It is based on the idea that we are together no matter what, until death do us part, and that we might as well work together as authentically as possible to make this the best experience we can for each other. It is being all in, in every way.

Is this what you meant, Conrad, or was it something different?


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> This last line is not as clear to me as it apparently should be. How is he going somewhere in life? What does that mean to you, Conrad?
> 
> *CM, I did not understand your response to this at all. Could you explain?
> 
> To me, feeling safe in a relationship means knowing, deep in my heart, that no matter what happens, whatever little stupid irritations, or huge calamities, that dh and I are going, absolutely, to weather this together. Nothing can break the marriage. It is there for the long term.
> 
> This obviously takes two strong, committed people. It is not based on anything superficial, though that might be pleasant, because nothing superficial is going to hold us together during hard times, the times that try men's souls, according to Thomas Paine (had to look that up, could not remember who said it).
> 
> It is based on the idea that we are together no matter what, until death do us part, and that we might as well work together as authentically as possible to make this the best experience we can for each other. It is being all in, in every way.
> *
> Is this what you meant, Conrad, or was it something different?



Basically what you said above is condensed in the lines of the song I quoted.

Security in a relationship is emotional , physical, spiritual, financial.
It involves every aspect of the human being.
Each facet inextricably linked to each other.


----------



## jld

Lyris said:


> Okay so I'm still waiting to see where I said that a scientific study proved that women lose interest in sex with their husbands after four - seven years. If I don't see it soon I'm going to assume you were lying or mistaken and too male to admit it, CarribeanMan.


How about it, CM? Do you have the evidence?

Lyris, do you want to explain that "too male" comment? I have four sons, and I would like them to be happy, responsible men. I am assuming you are referring to male pride. But of course there is female pride, too. There is probably human pride in general.

Anyway, I would like my boys to avoid pitfalls, if possible, so if you would be willing to explain, I would appreciate it. Thank you.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Basically what you said above is condensed in the lines of the song I quoted.
> 
> Security in a relationship is emotional , physical, spiritual, financial.
> It involves every aspect of the human being.
> Each facet inextricably linked to each other.


Thank you for explaining, CM. I am terrible at understanding anything other than completely direct prose, an unfortunate shortcoming.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> How about it, CM? Do you have the evidence?
> 
> Lyris, do you want to explain that "too male" comment? I have four sons, and I would like them to be happy, responsible men. I am assuming you are referring to male pride. But of course there is female pride, too. There is probably human pride in general.
> 
> Anyway, I would like my boys to avoid pitfalls, if possible, so if you would be willing to explain, I would appreciate it. Thank you.


Of course I have it.
I never bluff.

But like I said yesterday, I'd rather not turn the thread into attacking persons.
The discussion is what I'm interested in.

That's why I didn't respond earlier.
It is better left alone,if she wants she can PM me.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Of course I have it.
> I never bluff.
> 
> But like I said yesterday, I'd rather not turn the thread into attacking persons.
> The discussion is what I'm interested in.
> 
> That's why I didn't respond earlier.
> It is better left alone,if she wants she can PM me.


It sounds like you would prefer keeping this between you and her. And no one wants a ban. I think she might feel her own integrity is on the line, though. 

And I have to say, I think it is to her credit that she is asking for the evidence in public. If you provide it, I am sure she will admit her error. 

You are a gentleman, CM. That is certainly evident in all of your posts.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> This is how I grew up.
> Even though my mother and father divorced when I was just 6 yrs old, our extended family was huge.
> I had eleven uncles, my grandparents and other family around in close proximity.


I agree that an extended family can be a safety net. But a healthy nuclear family is probably still a stronger resource for the children.

Ideally kids would have both. And sadly, some kids have neither.


----------



## WyshIknew

I do know what one woman thinks.

Mrs Wysh.

I showed her some of the stuff in MMSLP when I was reading it. She said that if I went too far down that road I could forget about nookie.

She had enough of 'alpha' jerks as a young woman.

She is quite happy with whatever 'alpha' I have and very happy with my 'beta' side.

But one persons 'alpha' guy is another's rather 'beta' guy. It is whatever works in your marriage.

It's easy to say for a guy in my fortunate position I suppose but I'd hate to be with a woman where I had to jump through hoops to get her to respect me.

We are also told that 'nice guys' do stuff, follow actions to get women to have sex with them rather than just be genuine men.

What is the difference between that and somebody who follows a book expecting the result to be more sex?


----------



## jld

WyshIknew said:


> But one persons 'alpha' guy is another's rather 'beta' guy.* It is whatever works in your marriage.*
> 
> It's easy to say for a guy in my fortunate position I suppose but I'd hate to be with a woman where I had to jump through hoops to get her to respect me.


:iagree:

If you have to work too hard, you are probably with the wrong person. Or one of you is too idealistic and needs a reality check.


----------



## jld

FW, forgive me if I missed this earlier, but how do you respond to someone like Lon, who seems very sincere in his concerns about how to be the kind of man he feels would be more successful in relationships than he has been?

You are a highly confident person, but not everyone is. What would you recommend to Lon and others like him? That book by Schnarch, Passionate Marriage?

I am sympathetic to what you have exposed as the shortcomings of MMSLP. But I think guys like Lon need an alternative. 

Again, sorry if you already mentioned some, and I just missed them. 

Lon, if you are still reading, the only thing I can suggest is to just be yourself. Just try to accept yourself just the way you are, and love yourself. A woman really cannot love you if you do not love yourself. She cannot trust you if you do not trust yourself. She cannot believe in you if you do not believe in yourself.

I guess that is why I like books like Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. They get you thinking deeply about your own character.

Lon, I have a real problem with wanting approval from other people. It really is a stumbling block for me. And when I do manage to just stand on my own, the loneliness is almost unbearable.

So, for me, I think I need to not just recommend Seven Habits, a book I read 20 years ago. I need to go back and reread it myself, and do all the exercises. I am not the person I was 20 years ago. I need to update and get in touch with who I am now. 

I would encourage you to do the same.


----------



## Sandfly

WyshIknew said:


> She had enough of 'alpha' jerks as a young woman.


Did you hear what I hear? You have to read between the compliments, Mr. Wysh.

Apparently she was _attracted _to them (plural). 

What was it that made her self-destructively pursue relationships time and again with 'alpha jerks'... well it wasn't logic, it wasn't security or friendship... attraction? Ask her if she felt 'in control' of her attraction to them.

Whether she wanted to stay with them for life is another story, but marriage is not what mysogynists are selling in their books.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Lately, my SO has been frequently telling me how lucky he is to have me, how he wants to be with me, and make me happy.
> 
> It's working, despite being completely counter to man-up rules.


Oh ... so he's gaming you. See? It does work. 

My simple point is, if your man is doing something now, that he hadn't been doing, and consequently you both feel better about it, do you really care about the source of the change? Is it worth getting bent out of shape about positive changes in your partner due to words someone else wrote, yet your partner isn't NEARLY expressing anything close to those words?

All sincerity, if he's happy and you're happy. I'm happy.

This thread took a bit of a nosedive over the last few pages.

I like hearing good news.

And I accept that you aren't quite ready to accept 'man up'; even if that is exactly what your husband did in order to strengthen his marriage rather than weaken it.

Man up doesn't always mean pull away from, put down, and ignore your wife. Sometimes it means doing what needs to be done to make your partner feel valued and loved.

Maybe it's just me that sees that. If so, I suppose I should write a book too.

I fear we always get caught in the weeds.

It's like despite having your lump of coal turn into a diamond, people are hell bent on finding and calling out the flaws.

Of all of the BAD stuff that gets consistently pointed out, I know of no man that participates regularly in these conversations that thinks poorly of women.


----------



## jld

I think you should write a book, too, Deejo. You certainly have heard it all having been here a long time.

"Making your partner feel valued and loved." Now there's an idea.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Lon said:


> FW thanks for posting those interesting and relevant articles, I'm not sure why exactly you have complained about his books before, perhaps his pro-male approach just doesn't work for you, but his conclusions about the science and repercussions about sex is not all that inaccurate.
> 
> *For some of us less aware guys his blunt words actually make a light the light go on in understanding that what we see happening all around us isn't just in fact our own disbelief, that in fact maybe the way we understand the biology really is that obvious.*
> 
> For high drive couples that can get adequate sex maybe it is not so nice to have to think about all of that, just kinda happens the way it does. *For those that don't get adequate sex and whose drive has suffers it may give us a fingerhold in order to make a change to improve something that we decide needs improving*.


Women will get upset with me by my stance...but I know that I know that I know... this book would not at all have hurt a man like my H.... it was written for men like him in mind.... ... Seriously mine would have been screwed up the creek without a paddle had I been a rejecting low drive wife.....he would have stayed.. and just been miserable..... I believe that...

He would need a BOOK that could SHAKE him, open his eyes ,hold the interest for his weary state (for men in those awful sitiuations where the balance has been lost, and they feel they are drowning).....Athol's audience was never meant to be those who are getting wild mad sex every day.... 

Husband told me he looked online ONCE -how to get more sex from a wife... ticks me off, you know why....he read some stupid CHICK article... that said to do more things around the house.. run the vacuum , do my dishes...Trust me -this was NOT what I needed...dagone him.. he would have been FAR better off picking up a book like this... a Gentleman is not going to turn into an overbearing monster by reading Athol Kay.. Can't see it.. 

And it's not like every author is perfect...can't we pick and choose what works for us... it's like me I'm not a christian anymore but I can still pick up the Bible and appreciate Proverbs and other passages for the Goodness there in.....without damning the whole book. 



always_alone said:


> I wish we could agree to this, but the man-up literature is chock full of alpha vs beta, and the dismissal of "nice" in all senses of the term.
> 
> Yes, I realize that NMMNG and it's ilk is defining "nice guy" in a particular, peculiar way. *But go to their forums, and you will see they are chock full of misogyny and arguments about how nice men are just pvssies who will never get laid again. This may not be the authors' intent, but they sure are feeding it.*


 If this is true, I find that very very  .. haven't looked around at their website, but any forum that is talking about Pick up Artists tactics....seen too many of those articles...I , too...get riled up to how far they go in the other direction.....Beta is just slaughtered everywhere ...used in the wrong context...so many seem to be clueless that a man needs GOOD BETA too... or he would be virtually worthless to any woman...

Frankly there is probably just as many ...iF NOT MORE SO men who need some BETA to bring them to a worthy balance, cause many have too much BAD ALPHA = real Di**s.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> * jld said*: *I am sympathetic to what you have exposed as the shortcomings of MMSLP. But I think guys like Lon need an alternative*.


You know what is funny jld...I composed MY POST before I read your last post... that was cool, I was thinking along the same lines as you !


----------



## jld

Sandfly said:


> Did you hear what I hear? You have to read between the compliments, Mr. Wysh.
> 
> Apparently she was _attracted _to them (plural).
> 
> What was it that made her self-destructively pursue relationships time and again with 'alpha jerks'... well it wasn't logic, it wasn't security or friendship... attraction? Ask her if she felt 'in control' of her attraction to them.
> 
> Whether she wanted to stay with them for life is another story, but marriage is not what mysogynists are selling in their books.


Okay, what attracts women is not good for them. And no, they can't control it. But yes, they will eventually leave when they come to their senses. I have to believe, want to believe, that they will come to their senses. And maybe fight that attraction their whole lives.

And really, that is what men are doing, too, just fighting the urge, too. It must just be all humans.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> You know what is funny jld...I composed MY POST before I read your last post... that was cool, I was thinking along the same lines as you !


You know, I have great respect for FW. She is such a smart, confident woman. I am really in awe of that kind of self-confidence. I do not have it at all. I always assume I must be wrong if someone I respect sees things differently than I do.

But I really feel for Lon and people like him. They find something they think works, and then it is just destroyed. What are they supposed to do, just have nothing?

And my long term approach is seen as boring and hard and just too much work. Well, I do not think it is boring, but it is a lot of work.

I wish the strong would help the weak instead of putting them down. 

And really, is it so weak to just be open and honest and admit where you are, and seek to be better? Isn't that a kind of strength, too?


----------



## Deejo

This isn't new jld. Actually, this is pretty much par for the course.

Its the beauty of bringing 10,000 strangers together.

The beauty is that we do get to express our opinion, share it, or change it.

I recognize that some of the terms or concepets may be objectionabe, but for me, there is no going back. I will always defend the concept. Although not always the content.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> This isn't new jld. Actually, this is pretty much par for the course.
> 
> Its the beauty of bringing 10,000 strangers together.
> 
> The beauty is that we do get to express our opinion, share it, or change it.
> 
> I recognize that some of the terms or concepets may be objectionabe, but for me, there is no going back. I will always defend the concept. Although not always the content.


Just stick with your truth, Deejo, with what works for you. Honestly, life is so hard, you probably feel lucky to just have found something that works for you. More power to you.

Dh and I are reading this together, and we both think you seem like a nice guy, and we mean that in all the right ways.


----------



## Deejo

My goal is to be a good man. A better man than I was certainly five years ago.

It's not a destination. It's a journey. With plenty of bumps, as well as peaks and beautiful vistas.


----------



## jld

Agreed. And let's face it, we would not appreciate the beauty without having seen the ugly parts, too.

Okay, mentally replacing 'nice guy' with 'good man'.


----------



## Sandfly

jld said:


> Okay, what attracts women is not good for them. And no, they can't control it. But yes, they will eventually leave when they come to their senses. I have to believe, want to believe, that they will come to their senses. And maybe fight that attraction their whole lives.
> 
> And really, that is what men are doing, too, just fighting the urge, too. It must just be all humans.


:iagree:


----------



## WyshIknew

Sandfly said:


> Did you hear what I hear? You have to read between the compliments, Mr. Wysh.
> 
> Apparently she was _attracted _to them (plural).
> 
> What was it that made her self-destructively pursue relationships time and again with 'alpha jerks'... well it wasn't logic, it wasn't security or friendship... attraction? Ask her if she felt 'in control' of her attraction to them.
> 
> Whether she wanted to stay with them for life is another story, but marriage is not what mysogynists are selling in their books.


Well yes, I guess she was attracted to them, or perhaps more accurately she was attracted to a 'good time' and they supplied it, at a price.

She had some self esteem issues I think and had been a bit pudgy as a child and never quite got over that feeling. Perhaps she could validate her looks by getting guys to sleep with her?

I asked her earlier, and she never really thought about being in control or not. It was just her and her best mate going out and raising female hell. She did start to relate some of her stories from back then but stopped when she saw what she thought was a look of horror on my face. It was in fact a look of jealousy that she had so much fun.

It wasn't all classic alphas but a fair few were. She makes sure to let me know if we meet an ex, and believe you me they may have been alpha studs back then but nearly all the ones I've seen are now fat, old before their time, beer swilling layabouts.

So in short I think it was nothing more than a young girl going out and having one hell of a time pre HIV.


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> FW, forgive me if I missed this earlier, but how do you respond to someone like Lon, who seems very sincere in his concerns about how to be the kind of man he feels would be more successful in relationships than he has been?
> 
> You are a highly confident person, but not everyone is. What would you recommend to Lon and others like him? That book by Schnarch, Passionate Marriage?
> 
> I am sympathetic to what you have exposed as the shortcomings of MMSLP. But I think guys like Lon need an alternative.
> 
> Again, sorry if you already mentioned some, and I just missed them.
> 
> Lon, if you are still reading, the only thing I can suggest is to just be yourself. Just try to accept yourself just the way you are, and love yourself. A woman really cannot love you if you do not love yourself. She cannot trust you if you do not trust yourself. She cannot believe in you if you do not believe in yourself.
> 
> I guess that is why I like books like Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. They get you thinking deeply about your own character.
> 
> Lon, I have a real problem with wanting approval from other people. It really is a stumbling block for me. And when I do manage to just stand on my own, the loneliness is almost unbearable.
> 
> So, for me, I think I need to not just recommend Seven Habits, a book I read 20 years ago. I need to go back and reread it myself, and do all the exercises. I am not the person I was 20 years ago. I need to update and get in touch with who I am now.
> 
> I would encourage you to do the same.


I think what ticks some people off about books and websites like the ones that have been mentioned is not so much the message to guys to improve themselves, I can't see how anyone would argue about that.

I think people have problems when women seem to be vilified in these books.

You shouldn't make yourself feel better by bringing down others.


----------



## Sandfly

My sister was the same. She was really into this one fellow who was a complete turd, and it was him breaking up with her, getting back with her over many years. 

But he had a flash car, worked out a lot. It didn't help that my sister was surrounded by mates who thought he was special, based on his bank balance.

The man she married wasn't rich... BUT he was her manager at the time 

They got married and he switched jobs for a similar paying, but less ambitious title, closer to home. 

They then went through a few rough years....

Eventually he retrained as a tradesman - unexpected for someone in their 30's, and magically, my sister is now settled and happy with her husband.

But we all know that should his trade go through a rough patch, "suddenly" my brother in law will appear to have more faults than virtues... 

This is the sort of observed pattern which makes me cynical.

In real life, away from the mind-bending effects of chemicals on my sister's perception of the situation, he's a pretty cool fellow, very trustworthy and hardworking. He's also got a jealous streak and he's short. 

At the moment she doesn't seem to notice his height or his moodswings


----------



## jld

WyshIknew said:


> I think what ticks some people off about books and websites like the ones that have been mentioned is not so much the message to guys to improve themselves, I can't see how anyone would argue about that.
> 
> I think people have problems when women seem to be vilified in these books.
> 
> You shouldn't make yourself feel better by bringing down others.


I haven't read MMSLP. I skimmed through it, but it seemed gimmicky to me. I don't think you can keep a long term relationship going through gimmicks.

I did not know all this literature was out there either, before I stumbled onto marriage forums last fall.

And men who vilify women are not men women should be involved with, anyway.


----------



## jld

LTRs do have their ups and downs. Life is kind of like that.

I guess we all have to figure out how to pick ourselves up, to believe again and have confidence and just love life. It takes time, but it can be done. And we all have to do it. Life just is not easy for anyone.


----------



## Conrad

SimplyAmorous said:


> Women will get upset with me by my stance...but I know that I know that I know... this book would not at all have hurt a man like my H.... it was written for men like him in mind.... ... Seriously mine would have been screwed up the creek without a paddle had I been a rejecting low drive wife.....he would have stayed.. and just been miserable..... I believe that...


Thanks SA,

I actually mentioned you earlier in this thread.

Your honesty is always refreshing.


----------



## Lon

I am not going to read covey or athol Kay with the expectation of changing, If I had that expectation of myself it would just be another way I'd feel like I haven't succeeded at accomplishing a goal because I'm not really gonna change who I am.

But I would read various material in hopes of finding affirmations for myself that I can use to go about learning to love, trust and believe in myself more.

As a gentleman, if you find me reading man-up books or PUA material it's not because I want to learn how to womanize it's because I want to learn how to flirt, and I suspect a majority of Athol's audience wants just the same thing.


----------



## jld

That is interesting, Lon, just wanting to learn how to flirt. I am sure you will pick that up quickly and do fine. Best of luck.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Oh ... so he's gaming you. See? It does work.


I believe he's sincere. If he's not, and he's gaming me, I'm gone. I don't want to hear it just for the sake of hearing it. That's not gonna work for me. 



Deejo said:


> My simple point is, if your man is doing something now, that he hadn't been doing, and consequently you both feel better about it, do you really care about the source of the change?


Yes. If he is reading hateful crap about women and imagining me into a pigeon-hole that I don't want to occupy, I don't want any part of it.

I don't like all kinds of sausage, and I care how it's made because that affects the quality.

It makes me so very sad when men think absolutely nothing of the hateful crap that is so often spewed about women. And so easily participate in it without batting an eye. Defending it, even.

Tell me how would you feel about a woman who thought it just fine to talk about how doggish and stupid men were, and how that they're all going to cheat, so you have be sure to strip them of all of their wealth quickly, so the OW won't get any, and will lose interest?

Are you good with women "improving" themselves by just any means?

I will never, ever want to date or sleep with someone who could read more than a chapter of MMSL without saying "WTF is this sh!t"!


----------



## PreRaphaelite

FrenchFry said:


> I'm an extremely feminine feminist, fyvm.  The reliance on BS evopsych and constant trotting out of "biotruths" is irritating and often erroneous as well as insulting to men and women.
> Some of the articles reek of the creeper moves used by Pick Up Artists (PUAs) that treat women as an emotionally unstable monolith, that if you use the right (manipulative, objectifying) manuevers you ican TAME THE BEAST into the perfect docile sex doll without regard for an individual womans agency. There is nothing wrong with attaing personal balance in order to create marital harmony, but i'm not convinced that some of the articles are actually advocating for that. Well intentioned, maybe, but for me a total turn off.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You have a way with words FF :smthumbup:

The problem with so many of these male advice articles is they take one half truth and wrap it up in a bunch of evolutionary, neuroscientific me Tarzan you Jane bio-babble.

Men look good when they stand up and take responsibility for themselves. OK, yep that's probably right. So I guess that whenever a man feels depressed, indecisive, unmasculine, and burdened by life's circumstances, women are suddenly going to drop him like a sad sack of stale chips? 

The one thing I have learned with this relatively limited male brain of mine is that one of the things women want the most is to feel loved, to feel cared for, without having to deal with either a doormat or Genghis Khan.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> I think what ticks some people off about books and websites like the ones that have been mentioned is not so much the message to guys to improve themselves, I can't see how anyone would argue about that.
> 
> I think people have problems when women seem to be vilified in these books.
> 
> You shouldn't make yourself feel better by bringing down others.


Exactly! And there's lots to learn about flirting without propagating bs gender stereotypes.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> I think what ticks some people off about books and websites like the ones that have been mentioned is not so much the message to guys to improve themselves, I can't see how anyone would argue about that.
> 
> I think people have problems when women seem to be vilified in these books.
> 
> You shouldn't make yourself feel better by bringing down others.


I agree with this, but I see it as authors catering to an audience that, let's face it, feels victimized by women. The man going sexless in spite of being everything his wife seemingly wants (at least as he understands it) is going to be very confused and even a bit angry about it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ReformedHubby said:


> Honestly it is confusing. Because every time in my life I've tried to be the man that women say they want I encountered rejection or ended up in a dysfunctional relationship.


This times 1,000. Begs the question of why women say they want something when we have ample evidence to the contrary. Still don't get this... I just stopped caring about it.

I even agree with your position on the limited usefulness of books. Most books even admit this. I learned the most, and gained the most confidence, from going out and talking to a lot of women, being bold and trying new things.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> *Are you good with women "improving" themselves by just any means?*


One MILLION TIMES , YES!

I don't care what it takes for her to move from being a submissive doormat, in a codependent , dysfunctional, self destructive relationship, into strong , self confident woman who commands the respect of other women _and men_.
In the end , only she knows what she's been through and what it would take to fix it.
If it means that she should look at all men through a filter of constant scepticism and doubt to safeguard herself from harm , because she's been harmed and abused by men way too many times in her life, then I have absolutely no right condemning her attitude towards men.
Even if it means that she decides that she doesn't want to have any intimate relationships with men that would put her in a vulnerable position, I cannot fault her, and would support her once it keeps her in an emotionally healthy balance.
I have never walked a mile in her shoes.

The unicorn and rainbow approach has never worked and would never work on a certain subset of people because we are all different based on our past experiences. Deprogramming demands a different approach.

You of all persons should be able to identify with this.

You are the way you are towards men, and fight the battles you fight for equality , because of your past experience of abuse from men. 
You don't trust men , and that is fine because of what you went through. Another woman who has not had your experience would think that you are anti male. Some men wouldn't be able to fathom your passion and the way you think about men because they have not , and could NEVER walk in your shoes.

But both that woman and and man could empathize with you, and understand your aggressive pro feminist perspectives even though they might not agree with the way you do it.

And that's the problem here.

You too could empathize and recognize that you have not and cannot know what it means to be a man who's mind is wired in such a way that makes him constant afraid of self affirmation , rejection and lives to please others. His low self esteem makes him prone to abusive ,self destructive , codependent relationships. He always does the " _politically correct_ " thing because he thinks that is what everyone expects of him, even when the " _politically correct"_ thing is inimical and detrimental to his own interests.

His problem is not that he doesn't love people or that he doesn't know how to be " _politically correct_." His problem is that he HATES HIMSELF.
So telling him to do the " _politically correct_ ' thing is like giving him a life sentence.
That is what is hateful in my opinion.
Telling him that he doesn't need to change , and that he should continue doing what he's doing because it is what women, and society expects from him.

Can you identify with that?

That is comparable to a man who takes an emotionally damaged girl who was sexually abused in the past, telling her that she's pretty and sexy , makes her feel " loved" , gets her hooked on drugs , then introduces her to the concept of using her sexuality to make money. 
He makes her into a prostitute and becomes her pimp, so that he would continually benefit from her lack of self esteem and a codependent relationship dynamic.

I'm sure you can identify with this.

Do you think that there is any real difference between the two?

To get that girl out of prostitution, you AA, would tell her a ton load of hateful things about the men around her who affect her life.
You would tell her that men only want women for sex and how much the male society ,the patriarchy , objectifies women. To get her to understand , you would roll out the complete feminist manifesto to shock her into reality.
You would have absolutely nothing good to say about men _to her_.
But in the end, if it gets her out of prostitution and self destructive behaviors , and sets her on a more positive existence , then your method , no matter how hateful it painted men, no matter how " politically incorrect " it was , worked.

But I know that you as a wise, conscious woman would never recommend such a method to a woman in a normal relationship who's having minor misunderstandings with her husband. Because it would come across as excessive and hateful of men, _to her.
_
Therein lies the difference in how the sausage is made.

The skill of knowing, and being able to differentiate what your clientele needs and preferences are, or what will work _for them._


That is why you select your sausages carefully.

Everyone has the right to select their own sausages in spite of how it's made.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> One MILLION TIMES , YES!
> 
> I don't care what it takes for her to move from being a submissive doormat, in a codependent , dysfunctional, self destructive relationship, into strong , self confident woman who commands the respect of other women _and men_.


Oh goody. We can spread the hatred on both sides. That should work out well.

For the record, I have never spread insults like all men are stupid, men don't know what they want, men aren't capable of rational thought, men always cheat. And when I say things like "men *don't* think wih their ****", or *don't* have to objectify women, it's not women that jump all over my head to correct me.

Yes, I hold to feminist principles, and this is all the more reason why I would *not* condone the utter trash written for women on how awful and despicable men are, but boy are they sure fun to take advantage of. These books exist, BTW, and there are multiple variations. Women read them, take the advice to heart and improve" themselves into narcissistic, entitled hitches. You can ask FW for titles, if you'd like to take a look.

What these books do is breed hatred of men and encourage exactly the same behaviour that men are getting hurt by. Yet you want to encourage women to read this crap, so they can go out and hurt more men? 

And then encourage men to spew crap about women, so they can mistrust and resent women even more?

Can you not understand that all of thus just keeps feeding the beast?


----------



## always_alone

I just wanted to add that I am utterly bafflegabbed at comparison between exploiting emotional vulnerability for the sex trade and suggesting that men try to find empowerment within themselves rather than through hating women.

No one, absolutely no one here is saying that men should not improve themselves. They are suggesting that judging women as stupid emotional cheaters who are only worth the sex you have to pay them for one way or another is not actually am improvement.


----------



## Blonde

I read the clips FW from the MMSL book a few pages back and they are offensive.

To be fair, though, I think Kay has "grown" and moderated his position since his early days. I recall reading somewhere over there of how he regretted the advice he had given to some man/men who turned out to be the perpetrators of cheating abusive prick-dom and wifey was upset with CAUSE with MMSL tactics being used by a jerk H as a very unfair sledge-hammer.

Personally, I resonate with CM's posts @ codependency. But the process of changing should not be referred to as "MAN-up". Been on the journey myself with books such as "Codependent No More" and the "Boundaries" books. IMO, they are safer than MMSL and NMMNG which can be used by PERPETRATORS to self justify abuse in the name of "MAN up".


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Oh goody. We can spread the hatred on both sides. That should work out well.
> 
> For the record, I have never spread insults like all men are stupid, men don't know what they want, men aren't capable of rational thought, men always cheat. And when I say things like "men *don't* think wih their ****", or *don't* have to objectify women, it's not women that jump all over my head to correct me.
> 
> Yes, I hold to feminist principles, and this is all the more reason why I would *not* condone the utter trash written for women on how awful and despicable men are, but boy are they sure fun to take advantage of. These books exist, BTW, and there are multiple variations. Women read them, take the advice to heart and improve" themselves into narcissistic, entitled hitches. You can ask FW for titles, if you'd like to take a look.
> 
> What these books do is breed hatred of men and encourage exactly the same behaviour that men are getting hurt by. Yet you want to encourage women to read this crap, so they can go out and hurt more men?
> 
> And then encourage men to spew crap about women, so they can mistrust and resent women even more?
> 
> Can you not understand that all of thus just keeps feeding the beast?


Right there is where you completely missed the point.

You have said numerous times that many men here see you as a " ball busting feminazi. "
They view you that way because you aren't saying nice things about men, and many men would view you as anti male.

But do they know your story?
Have they walked a mile in your shoes?

That^^^right there is the point.

You aren't _supposed _to be politically correct , you are the sum of your experiences. That is what makes you ,YOU.
Somewhere along the continuum of life you might choose to alter your views about men , based on the interchanges you have with different types of men. But that is YOUR choice and not that of anyone else.

No one here has any right to fault you for that.

You were in an emotionally abusive relationship with your SO , for a very long time . But you decided to stay , put up with some of the abuse and try to work it out YOUR WAY.
Many here disagreed with you, including me.
Why didn't you leave?
Because you alone understood your situation, you alone understood what it would take to male the sausage just the way you like it.

The exact , same thing applies to other people.


----------



## Blonde

Here, found a quote:



> It’s the Elephant in the Room.
> I’ve also several times now given *appallingly bad advice *because readers have withheld information from me. Some classic examples being not telling me about the abortion the husband asked the wife to get, erectile dysfunction spread over several years, endless job losses for poorly explained reasons, obvious mate guarding failure, swinging, bankruptcy, the husband’s own affair, medical issues and addictions. When someone tells me about their wife’s Bat**** Crazy behavior for months on end, neglecting to tell me the whole time that just prior to the start of her Bat**** Crazy behavior he had been caught with his pants down… *I’m just going to give the dead wrong advice.* Likewise if your wife leaves you for another man and then after six months of contact with me, you finally reveal that the other man was someone you’d done several threesomes with… ugh. Just ugh.
> ...
> 
> So here’s the deal. That thing that you really don’t want to come clean about. That thing that you don’t want anyone to know about. That’s the thing that’s fvcking up your whole marriage. That’s the thing you need to face up to and get out into the open. MMSL isn’t going to be able to save your marriage, while you try and keep three tons of elephant droppings from seeing the light of day.
> 
> There have been a number of times where I have straight up told a husband to divorce his wife because of her [Totally Unacceptable Behavior], as in behavior so bad I’ve personally gotten angry and lost my temper simply reading about what she did. Then I’ve had to listen to the husband rather calmly tell me she was getting another chance because of [The Elephant in the Room].
> 
> Well maybe if you told me about [The Elephant in the Room] five months ago, maybe your wife’s [Totally Unacceptable Behavior] wouldn’t have happened. It’s almost like you planned it to happen… which is cool if you’re into that sort of thing, but please don’t drag me into email exchanges about it. And stop lying your ass off about how “I didn’t realize it was important.” You damn well know it’s important… you sure guard it’s knowledge from leaking out into conversation like it’s got fish hooks in your balls.
> The Elephant In The Room (Help Me, Help You) | Married Man Sex Life


^^I see this as an ADMISSION by Kay that his material has been known to be grossly MIS-used by abusive/addicted/cheating/etc H's.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> No one, absolutely no one here is saying that men should not improve themselves. They are suggesting that judging women as stupid emotional cheaters who are only worth the sex you have to pay them for one way or another is not actually am improvement.


And you are free to think that.
But whether or not it is an improvement lies solely in the judgment of that person who's being directly affected.

Because you aren't the one whose wife refuse to have sex with him in spite of the fact that he supplies her every need and the needs of his family.

You aren't the one begging his wife for some affection and she is either unable or unwilling to respect him as her emotional equal in the relationship.

You aren't the one whose wife has a negative attitude towards sex and thinks using sex to control her husband is the " sanctified " duty of a married woman.

Ultimately,
You aren't the one who's in the hurt locker.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There are literally hundreds of marriage books that are awesome for ANY type of marriage issue you might have...and which do not make blatantly rude and mean statements about anyone of any gender.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I just wanted to add that I am utterly bafflegabbed at comparison between exploiting emotional vulnerability for the sex trade and suggesting that men try to find empowerment within themselves rather than through hating women.
> 
> No one, absolutely no one here is saying that men should not improve themselves. They are suggesting that judging women as stupid emotional cheaters who are only worth the sex you have to pay them for one way or another is not actually am improvement.



Well then for cripes sake, stop bafflegabbing yourself, you'll go blind. Great word by the way.

I truly don't understand how you come to make some of the connections you do. Objectifying women and the sex trade had not been mentioned one time or remotely hinted at in this thread ... but you made that association. Why?

I don't recall any man here declaring that the author of MMSLP is the sole reference or singular voice for men bettering themselves.

Or for that matter, that because anyone read his book, that we agree wholesale with what the author thinks or how he operates.

It's using reductive thinking, in the wrong way. 

You think Kay is bad? Then I strongly advise you to avoid reading any Tucker Max.

And people do indeed imply that there is a problem with men bettering themselves ... because they presume that a man who needs to find his self esteem, or develop boundaries, or NOT rely on a woman to define his happiness or sense of self is smart enough to not agree with everything he hears, sees or reads.

And as the OP notes, "the captioned material would make virtually all the women I know as mad as "wet hens" as the saying goes."

And before we use any more reductive thinking, please note, i didn't say that ... the person I quoted did.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> Here, found a quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^I see this as an ADMISSION by Kay that his material has been known to be grossly MIS-used by abusive/addicted/cheating/etc H's.


I see that differently.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree with this, but I see it as authors catering to an audience that, let's face it, feels victimized by women. The man going sexless in spite of being everything his wife seemingly wants (at least as he understands it) is going to be very confused and even a bit angry about it.


Perfect summary.

The rub is - as he stands up and shows his masculine mettle - he'll realize anything that was done to him was ALLOWED by him.

A true message of empowerment.


----------



## Blonde

IME people with addiction issues have a "victim mentality" and a lot of MMSL and NMMNG as well as CM's posts above cast (many many) men in marriage as the "victim". ISTM that men lurch "victim" if they consider themselves in a "sexless" M.

Not sure if wallowing in "poor me the victim, let me get angry and punish the BatSh!t crazy W by ____________" is very constructive? Could it be that MMSL and NMMNG disproportionately attract men who feel this way? :scratchhead:

I consider myself a feminist who believes that men and women are different. I'm a Christian who believes that a wife is subject to her husband in everything (per Eph 5:24-Bible). It is rather like being subject to gravity. An H has a lot of power to be an uplifting force or a huge drag. So, I hear what Kay is saying here Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Married Man Sex Life though I would frame it differently, using scripture such as Gen 3:16b and Eph 5:24


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> And as the OP notes, "the captioned material would make virtually all the women I know as mad as "wet hens" as the saying goes."
> 
> And before we use any more reductive thinking, please note, i didn't say that ... the person I quoted did.


I honestly wasn't trying to pour aviation fuel on a prairie fire. 
All of this stuff was new to me a couple of years ago....

I do keep coming back to the same snag though. No matter how we spin it, paternalism is still paternalism.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> IME people with addiction issues have a "victim mentality" and a lot of MMSL and NMMNG as well as CM's posts above cast (many many) men in marriage as the "victim". ISTM that men lurch "victim" if they consider themselves in a "sexless" M.
> 
> Not sure if wallowing in "poor me the victim, let me get angry and punish the BatSh!t crazy W by ____________" is very constructive? Could it be that MMSL and NMMNG disproportionately attract men who feel this way? :scratchhead:
> 
> I consider myself a feminist who believes that men and women are different. I'm a Christian who believes that a wife is subject to her husband in everything (per Eph 5:24-Bible). It is rather like being subject to gravity. An H has a lot of power to be an uplifting force or a huge drag. So, I hear what Kay is saying here Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Married Man Sex Life though I would frame it differently, using scripture such as Gen 3:16b and Eph 5:24


Our culture is filled with messages about male vice. It's easy to identify. They are sex and violence.

MMSL is helpful because it acknowledges that females have tendency towards vice as well.

Anthony DeMello put it best.... "I'm ok, you're ok" is not true. It's much closer to "I'm an ass, you're an ass"

In working with men with failing marriages, I encourage them - strongly - to own their own crap... or, as we put it their pos tendencies.

It's not helpful to pretend women don't have them - or to get pissed when someone has the stones to name them.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> There are literally hundreds of marriage books that are awesome for ANY type of marriage issue you might have...and which do not make blatantly rude and mean statements about anyone of any gender.


You claimed that you have read all of the books ... but you have only referenced one. The one you despise.

Do you believe any of the others such as NMMNG are beneficial to men and their relationships to and with, women?


----------



## naiveonedave

Blonde - the problem is that, from a man's perspective, we have been taught for our whole lives how to treat women and this created the 'beta' attitude and in general, it doesn't work. And it is really the man's fault, though there are a lot of women who are Bats**t crazy. 

Men, especially since 1950 or so, have never learned the truth about women or about being a man....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Absolutely Conrad, I think that's even why its written in an abrasive tone. The style might be a wake up call to break the suck-up mentality. ergo - "stop being a p*ssy".

Sure, it could be written in a nice civil tone and all PC so as to be less offensive to women... but then, the whole point of this angle is that the audience consists of men who are nice, submissive pushovers; maybe being carefully inoffensive isn't what they need to hear.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> And people do indeed imply that there is a problem with men bettering themselves ... because they presume that a man who needs to find his self esteem, or develop boundaries, or NOT rely on a woman to define his happiness or sense of self is smart enough to not agree with everything he hears, sees or reads.


And that's^^^ the catch 22 in this thread.
Therein lies the irony.

The average woman on TAM would puke at the thought of a man writing a book on women being more submissive in relationships.

But yet these same women get angry with any man who tries to better himself without their approval on how he sets out to do it.

They somehow think that it's supposed to be approved by them first.

Right there^^^is where a lot of guys in society are brainwashed .
They are afraid to think outside of the mainframe of feminism.

Feminism is about bettering the existence of women. They have every right to fight their battles to achieve their goals , just like men have every right to decide for themselves , what works for them.

I don't need permission from ANYBODY to do what I feel is best for me, as long as it is within the legal framework of the society I live. Morality is highly subjective , and as we have seen a few times on this thread often extremely biased.


----------



## naiveonedave

Agree Dvls, they need the 2x4 up side the head and they need to hear about how women are not exactly what they had been led to believe.


----------



## Conrad

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's the catch 22 in this thread.
> Therein lies the irony.
> 
> The average woman on TAM would puke at the thought of a man writing a book on women being more submissive in relationships.
> 
> But yet these same women get angry with any man who tries to better himself without their approval on how he sets out to do it.
> 
> They somehow think that it's supposed to be approved by them first.


One of those pos tendencies I reference is loosely called "control". We rarely see anything like that


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> I honestly wasn't trying to pour aviation fuel on a prairie fire.
> All of this stuff was new to me a couple of years ago....
> 
> I do keep coming back to the same snag though. No matter how we spin it, paternalism is still paternalism.


But honestly, Ocotillo, do you think that paternalism is the outcome that men want, whether it's explicit or inferred in some of the material?

I may be making an enormous presumption, but surely most people have seen or are familiar with a marriage with one of the spouses is a doormat, or is simply treated horribly. 

In the cases where a man is on the receiving end, do we just presume he's getting what he deserves? Surely we think that something in his character has enabled the behavior, or his acceptance of it. But that doesn't mean the offending spouse gets a free pass. Or ... should he want to change the dynamic do we need to assure that he proceeds in a loving and respectful manner, when he isn't getting love and respect in return?

The only reason that I have ever been able to fathom that men would choose to be sons of b!tches to women is because that either is fundamentally who they are ... books or no, or ... because they have discovered a dynamic to which a segment of women respond to.

I just don't see that paternalism has much of a role in modern culture any more. I think there is a difference between paternalism and choosing to hold yourself, and your spouse to a standard of love and respect.

And I'm going to support just about ANY means in accomplishing that task.


----------



## Blonde

Conrad said:


> In working with men with failing marriages, I encourage them - strongly - to own their own crap... or, as we put it their pos tendencies.
> 
> It's not helpful to pretend women don't have them - or to get pissed when someone has the stones to name them.


I am a recovering doormat. So my failing was in being too submissive. A failing common to very serious christian women I'm afraid,,, 

My journey of recovery has restored my voice, grown me a backbone, made me assertive with the willingness to take care of MYSELF (much like NMMNG advocates).


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> *I am a recovering doormat. So my failing was in being too submissive. A failing common to very serious christian women I'm afraid,,, *


You just hit the nail squarely on it's head!!!

The problem though is not in Christian doctrine as taught by the Bible , but how that doctrine was interpreted by a society that was controlled mostly by men.

Within the next decade, much of that interpretation would change as society changes it's views on gender hegemony and women in positions of power.

" _Right an wrong at any given time is a function of power and not truth.._."
~Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> You claimed that you have read all of the books ... but you have only referenced one. The one you despise.
> 
> Do you believe any of the others such as NMMNG are beneficial to men and their relationships to and with, women?


I never claimed that I have read all the books. Where did I say that? I am saying there ARE hundreds of books that are great. I have read at least a dozen or so of marriage books, and many more of dating books. And in that dozen I'm not including the ones I read just to review like MMSL.

Yes, I believe many other books would be good for Nice Guys.

Or they can do just fine with whatever they want, Deejo. Obviously my opinion is just my opinion.

But really...if it is YOU that has the problem and you go to find help, and you find this really great book that tells you that all women come from a long line of sl*ts who like to be humped and dumped and that every woman is wired to screw around on you, and you honestly believe this line of thinking is going to make you a better guy and husband....sorry, I doubt it will.

Yes there are many like you Deej who can separate the crap from the rest...but why is the crap in there? Oh I get it, we have to appeal to these guys so they will read books and improve.

Again, if I write a marriage or dating book that tells women:

"Hey ladies...here's the real secret. Most guys are NG's and they want to pour all of their love, energy, time, money and semen on you, really, they do! All you have to do is work with their natural desires to do so and voila! You have a chump ATM machine that you can dole out sex to and get your nookie on the side with the pool boy (or not if you insist on being faithful, but you're a sl*t coming from a long line of sl*ts anyway so why be faithful?)...buy my book I will give you step by step instructions! Men come from a long line of chump ass losers anyway, they will like this treatment!"

...and even if this book helped thousands of women who were in abusive relationships to suddenly find their voice and get in charge of their lives...I would still expect to see an angry mob at my doorstep about it. Because it is wrong and hateful to frame it this way. And those who would read it, IMO, are also hateful if they can't see that. 

If you think "just a little bit of hateful crap" is ok...then I just have to 100% disagree, that's all. It isn't that complicated to see where the problem is with all this stuff, the same way that it wouldn't be that complicated for you to see it if I wrote the parody book I mentioned above.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blonde said:


> I am a recovering doormat. So my failing was in being too submissive. A failing common to very serious christian women I'm afraid,,,
> 
> My journey of recovery has restored my voice, grown me a backbone, made me assertive with the willingness to take care of MYSELF (much like NMMNG advocates).


And I am guessing that to do this, you took charge of your own life without resorting to childish name calling and blaming everything on men?


----------



## Conrad

Faithful Wife said:


> And I am guessing that to do this, you took charge of your own life without resorting to childish name calling and blaming everything on men?


FW,

I've read some of the terrific posts between you and Racer.

It dawns on me that he could have used a bit more edge... and a lot less pedestal for his wife long long ago.

She continues to behave in many of the ways described in the book.

Should women who behave that way not be mentioned, just because the author might offend someone?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Anyone seen the "hover hands" pics? Loosely in the same vein as this topic.










These are guys who I think one day would really benefit from books like MMSL. They've been so deeply indoctrinated to avoid anything a woman may be offended by that they can't even put their hands on a woman when taking a picture with them. Careful and unassertive.

In reality, there is a balance - you don't want to come out the other end seriously thinking women are sl*ts or objects, but in order to get a guy out of this funk of being so extremely careful to avoid offending women, he probably needs to be shocked. Otherwise his tendency is going to be to continue thinking he's plenty assertive - rarely does one being a p*ss realize it. The guy pictured probably thinks he's plenty assertive. Thus, 2x4 => head.

I read the book because I thought it would be interesting to see game in a marriage context - given my own situation and familiarity with a number of the old school PUA books. Maybe I'd lost my edge. Maybe I had become too domestic. Its the only such book I've seen. It turned out almost none of what was said applied to my situation, but I could easily see that it could be very relevant to some.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Blonde said:


> IME people with addiction issues have a "victim mentality" and a lot of MMSL and NMMNG as well as CM's posts above cast (many many) men in marriage as the "victim". ISTM that men lurch "victim" if they consider themselves in a "sexless" M.
> 
> Not sure if wallowing in "poor me the victim, let me get angry and punish the BatSh!t crazy W by ____________" is very constructive? Could it be that MMSL and NMMNG disproportionately attract men who feel this way? :scratchhead:
> [/URL]


I agree that a lot of folks play the victim the card too often in life. But in my opinion when a man is legitimately the victim in a relationship he really doesn't get a whole lot of support. In many cases not even from his closest friends. I'm ashamed to say it now but when one of my best friends got divorced we all chipped in and bought him kegerator and took him out to celebrate. 

That's not what he needed. We had no idea how bad he was really hurting. When he finally told me about how often he cries after dropping off his kids I realized that none of us "got it". 

I'd agree that looking to punish your wife would be very counter productive. But gaining some confidence and striving to become the man you used to be would be helpful, rather you stay or decide to move on.

Regarding the men MMSL attracts. It absolutely attracts bitter ones too. We've all seen them. They last about five minutes on TAM before getting banned. But....its also appealing to guys like my friend. Men who are down to nubs and feel pretty much hopeless. I can understand the mixed feelings about it, but I can also see how it does some good for a lot of guys.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*

Second line.

I'm not trying to trip you up. I was honestly presuming that you had read other titles pertaining to the 'better man' stuff.

And to give credit where its due, you left the impression that you believe its valid and it works. Its just not for everybody. And I wouldn't disagree with that either.

MOST men are never ever going to even be aware of, let alone reach for any of the titles that have been mentioned. 



Faithful Wife said:


> Great thread, oco!
> 
> I have read the books and most of the links on that thread.
> 
> Yes, it is the silly sl*t shaming and patriarchal ideology that is the problem in those relationship models that bother me personally. But I recognize those models work superbly for many people, namely religious hetero-sexual people, of which most people in the USA are.
> 
> When a person's personal beliefs dictate that they should behave this way or that way and they do it...I'm all good with that. That's why I think burkas are beautiful.
> 
> But when a person's personal beliefs come raging out against others who don't believe the same and they try to dictate what others "should" do in the name of their belief OR in the name of their science, then the non-believers are going to be like "chyuh, no, I do not actually have to follow your made up rules, in fact".
> 
> Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to try to narrow down into "one true" way of doing it.
> 
> Which doesn't mean the ways in the Man Up thread don't work or are bad. It just means they won't work for quite a lot of people and they are not the ONE TRUE WAY. They are one of many ways.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Anyone seen the "hover hands" pics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are guys who I think one day would really benefit from books like MMSL. They've been so deeply indoctrinated to avoid anything a woman may be offended by that they can't even put their hands on a woman when taking a picture with them. Careful and unassertive.
> 
> In reality, there is a balance, but in order to get a guy out of this funk of being so extremely careful to avoid offending women, he probably needs to be shocked. Otherwise his tendency is going to be to continue thinking he's plenty assertive - rarely does one being a p*ss realize it. Thus, 2x4 => head.
> 
> I read the book because I thought it would be interesting to see game in a marriage context - given my own situation. Maybe I'd lost my edge. Maybe I had become too domestic. Its the only such book I've seen. It turned out almost none of what was said applied to my situation, but I could easily see that it could be very relevant to some.


Yet, it totally applies to mine.

My wife even warned me she would lose interest - eventually - during our courtship.

Talk about a red flag.

We've had a journey that went from her openly talking and arranging lunches with men who were inviting her to participate in his (and his wife's I suppose) "open marriage". Of course, I objected and got all the excuses. Totally ineffective. She had time for her "friends" but not to have lunch with her husband. I was polite. I reasoned. I did all the things the women here tell me will work.

What worked?

I was mentored by one of Athol's crowd here who got me on PM and schooled me in where I was defeating myself.

This climax of this turnaround resulted in a 6 month period where we didn't speak with each other.

The silence was broken when she showed up and said, "I'm so sorry. I don't want them, I want YOU. I realize you haven't felt like I love you and probably don't believe that I do, but it's not going to be in doubt going forward - if you'll have me."

Could the guy who was reasoning with her have endured this?

Or did he need to give to himself the approval he previously sought from her?

And, what was it that was now so attractive for her that she said those words - and backed them up with action - to a man with whom she "didn't have time" to have lunch, while he was supporting her as a stay-at-home mom, raising her children (not even his).

It was realizing my manipulative controlling weakness was not attractive and putting an end to it.

It was also acknowledging HER pos tendencies and no longer being willing to tolerate the b.s. and excuses.

We've been married seven years now and we truly are best friends and we trust each other. We also sizzle between the sheets and treat each other with respect.

I am fully aware of her controlling pos tendencies. I deflect them with humor most of the time and other times I simply put my foot down and let her deal with her own crap.

She's not to dump it on me - and she knows it.

We're now happy together.

Nothing succeeds like success.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Anyone seen the "hover hands" pics? Loosely in the same vein as this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are guys who I think one day would really benefit from books like MMSL. They've been so deeply indoctrinated to avoid anything a woman may be offended by that they can't even put their hands on a woman when taking a picture with them. Careful and unassertive.


The problem with " hoover hands " is that he doesn't understand that those two girls wouldn't mind if he gave them friendly hug. In fact they probably wanted him to .

There is a fine line between a friendly touch and an invasive, perverted hand.
Women are trained from birth to recognize this and enforce their boundaries. They don't need any help from men with that, it comes as naturally as their monthly period.

But " hoover hands " thinks they aren't and he needs to enforce if for them.

Fast forward a decade when he's married, " hoover hands" would either be addicted to porn while his wife suffers in a sexless marriage or himself be in a sexless marriage unable to assert his masculinity.

That in a nutshell is the problem as identified in NMNG or MMSL.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

That's is a great story Conrad. Major props. A doormat doesn't go 6 mos without crawling back to his pedestal.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's is a great story Conrad. Major props. A doormat doesn't go 6 mos without crawling back to his pedestal.


We simply must learn emotional communication.

It's the key to the lock.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Conrad said:


> FW,
> 
> I've read some of the terrific posts between you and Racer.
> 
> It dawns on me that he could have used a bit more edge... and a lot less pedestal for his wife long long ago.
> 
> She continues to behave in many of the ways described in the book.
> 
> Should women who behave that way not be mentioned, just because the author might offend someone?


(forgive me for this Racer)....Yes his wife's behavior should be discussed, why wouldn't it be? I personally think both Mr. and Mrs. Racer have mental issues and they are not good for each other, and he should have left her the first time she cheated on him. But Racer isn't going to leave her...so due to that, what is the point of discussing his wife's behavior? Yes she has done some horrible things! But he knows it, he isn't unaware. Since he doesn't plan to leave...what else is there to say? I wish he would have left her long ago and found a woman who loves him and let her find her string of bad boys.


----------



## Conrad

Faithful Wife said:


> (forgive me for this Racer)....Yes his wife's behavior should be discussed, why wouldn't it be? I personally think both Mr. and Mrs. Racer have mental issues and they are not good for each other, and he should have left her the first time she cheated on him. But Racer isn't going to leave her...so due to that, what is the point of discussing his wife's behavior? Yes she has done some horrible things! But he knows it, he isn't unaware. Since he doesn't plan to leave...what else is there to say? I wish he would have left her long ago and found a woman who loves him and let her find her string of bad boys.


Shouldn't guys like Racer.. and me to a lesser extent... have access to a resource where a man calls a spade a spade?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Second line.
> 
> I'm not trying to trip you up. I was honestly presuming that you had read other titles pertaining to the 'better man' stuff.
> 
> And to give credit where its due, you left the impression that you believe its valid and it works. Its just not for everybody. And I wouldn't disagree with that either.
> 
> MOST men are never ever going to even be aware of, let alone reach for any of the titles that have been mentioned.


Yes, my mistake. I only meant the books NMMNG and MMSL. I have always read The Superior Man and a few others...but I'm not positive exactly how many books were on that thread.

All of the same issues those books cover can be addressed without stating SCIENCE proves that women come from a long line of sl*ts that like to be humped and dumped, and that it is normal to get edge when you can't leave a standing army of sperm in your wife, because you know she is a cheating wh*re.

Does that help?


----------



## ReformedHubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Anyone seen the "hover hands" pics? Loosely in the same vein as this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are guys who I think one day would really benefit from books like MMSL. They've been so deeply indoctrinated to avoid anything a woman may be offended by that they can't even put their hands on a woman when taking a picture with them. Careful and unassertive.
> 
> In reality, there is a balance - you don't want to come out the other end seriously thinking women are sl*ts or objects, but in order to get a guy out of this funk of being so extremely careful to avoid offending women, he probably needs to be shocked. Otherwise his tendency is going to be to continue thinking he's plenty assertive - rarely does one being a p*ss realize it. The guy pictured probably thinks he's plenty assertive. Thus, 2x4 => head.
> 
> I read the book because I thought it would be interesting to see game in a marriage context - given my own situation and familiarity with a number of the old school PUA books. Maybe I'd lost my edge. Maybe I had become too domestic. Its the only such book I've seen. It turned out almost none of what was said applied to my situation, but I could easily see that it could be very relevant to some.


Wow, I had no idea that people even did this in pictures. How awkward yet interesting.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Conrad said:


> Shouldn't guys like Racer.. and me to a lesser extent... have access to a resource where a man calls a spade a spade?


Instead of calling it a spade, why would you not ask yourself why YOU are choosing a spade? That is the real question. Why do you want to be with someone who treats you that way? Once someone honestly answers this question for themselves, and they know their own answer, then change can happen.

If you or any husband also wants to broadcast what a wh*re your wife is, ok, sure. How does that help anything or anyone?


----------



## Blonde

Faithful Wife said:


> And I am guessing that to do this, you took charge of your own life without resorting to childish name calling and blaming everything on men?


I cannot deny some batsh!t crazy episodes with my H :FIREdevil:

I hear what you are saying @ the disrespect toward women in the things you have quoted and read in MMSL and I was analyzing why they aren't triggering for me like they are for you.

I think it's because I read and respect the Bible despite it's many accounts of outrageously evil crimes against women as well as putting men who are sleazily promiscuous on a pedestal with their writings prominent (eg. King Solomon- 700 wives, 300 concubines; David- adulterer, murderer, polygamist). So I have learned to live with a background level of cognitive dissonance when it comes to assessing the worth of a woman compared to a man....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I wish he would have left her long ago and found a woman who loves him and let her find her string of bad boys.


Which is to say, you wish he'd "man up". What do you think the odds are that without making any changes to his mindset, he'd end up in exactly the same sort of relationship again even if he left her? I'd bet those odds are good.


----------



## Conrad

Faithful Wife said:


> Instead of calling it a spade, why would you not ask yourself why YOU are choosing a spade? That is the real question. Why do you want to be with someone who treats you that way? Once someone honestly answers this question for themselves, and they know their own answer, then change can happen.
> 
> If you or any husband also wants to broadcast what a wh*re your wife is, ok, sure. How does that help anything or anyone?


Removing her from the pedestal requires an honest assessment of what her behavior indicates she is.

There is some shock value in the language.

You think I'm calling my wife a wh*ore?

Because if you are, you're wrong. My wife is an abuse victim in her family of origin and was in foster care until age 7. Likely the only source of positive reinforcement to her growing up was male attention.

Do women like attention?

Do emotionally broken women think about the impact of indulging that attention on their primary relationship?

Are they MORE likely to think about it when their husband recognizes it for what it is, calls them on it, and enforces boundaries.

I have tremendous compassion for my wife. I'd truly give my life for hers. BUT, I am not willing to sacrifice my self-respect so she can indulge herself with other males.

That is a non-starter.

Is that whorish behavior? You bet it is.

Does that behavior exist on a continuum for nearly all heterosexual women?

Yes it does.

And, often the better looking she is (and my wife is gorgeous), the more she is likely to conclude that men are simply replaceable drones for her amusement.

She may continue to think that was until she encounters the one she doesn't wish to lose.

That's who I am.

When our wives behave in the manner Athol illustrates, we owe it to ourselves to find it IF we are the "one she doesn't wish to lose"

So, we maximize our chances of being that one. And, we learn to not be afraid if we're not.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> I may be making an enormous presumption, but surely most people have seen or are familiar with a marriage with one of the spouses is a doormat, or is simply treated horribly.
> 
> In the cases where a man is on the receiving end, do we just presume he's getting what he deserves? Surely we think that something in his character has enabled the behavior, or his acceptance of it. But that doesn't mean the offending spouse gets a free pass. Or ... should he want to change the dynamic do we need to assure that he proceeds in a loving and respectful manner, when he isn't getting love and respect in return?


I've certainly seen that, Deejo. Some of the contempt for the, 'Nice guy' expressed here on TAM frankly bothers me too. 



Deejo said:


> I just don't see that paternalism has much of a role in modern culture any more. I think there is a difference between paternalism and choosing to hold yourself, and your spouse to a standard of love and respect.


We all engage in a healthy form of paternalism when we raise children. Parents do what's best for their children whether the children want it or not because children are simply not mentally or emotionally mature enough to know what they really need.

There is a certain element of paternalism in the idea that our wives (For whatever reason) don't really know what they need out of the relationship. Or that a man who works hard and gives 110% of himself may actually reek of too much domesticity. 

I don't for a second doubt that these people exist and wouldn't be surprised if there is a 'Fatal attraction' of sorts between the two personality types. 

So I would agree that if something actually works for a couple, then who it offends should only be a secondary consideration.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Which is to say, you wish he'd "man up".* What do you think the odds are that without making any changes to his mindset, he'd end up in exactly the same sort of relationship again even if he left her? I'd bet those odds are good.*


And that's the part some women here are conveniently neglecting.
It isn't about them, it isn't about feminism and being " politically correct". It's about the man in the "_ hurt locker_" unit.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, Conrad, I didn't mean you personally. I meant, what is the point in that? Sure, go ahead...to any guy who feels that they need to do this in order to feel better about choosing to be with such a woman (not meaning you personally). But in the end, marriage is a choice. And if any of us are married to a jerk, idiot, wh*re, evil person or asshat....then it is only ourselves who we can ask "why?"


----------



## Caribbean Man

Because in life sh!t happens.
And when it happens , there are many ways to deal with it, but the choice is ultimately ours.

The first rule for anyone sh!t happens to, is to own their sh!t, and then decide what they're going to do about it.

Nobody has the right to decide that for them.


----------



## Blonde

Conrad said:


> Do men like attention?
> 
> Do emotionally broken men think about the impact of indulging that attention on their primary relationship?
> 
> Are they MORE likely to think about it when their wife recognizes it for what it is, calls them on it, and enforces boundaries.
> 
> I am not willing to sacrifice my self-respect so he can indulge himself with other females.
> 
> That is a non-starter.
> 
> Is that whorish behavior? You bet it is.
> 
> Does that behavior exist on a continuum for nearly all heterosexual men?
> 
> Yes it does.


^^Fixed that for you based on my experience.

Biblically, the men are far more often portrayed as the promiscuous parties. Athol Kay links to an IMO very offensive and* marriage killing* site which advocates male promiscuity and unfaithfulness (16 commandments)


----------



## Conrad

Caribbean Man said:


> Because in life sh!t happens.
> And when it happens , there are many ways to deal with it, but the choice is ours.


I believe we need to be careful about who we allow ourselves to fall in love with.

I sit next to a young professional who is younger than my daughter who plans to marry next year.

Just in casual conversation with her, there are 4 red flags that will likely doom the marriage... and I'm not even probing the subject.

I believe that's the norm in relationships - for those that are not awake.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> No, Conrad, I didn't mean you personally. I meant, what is the point in that? Sure, go ahead...to any guy who feels that they need to do this in order to feel better about choosing to be with such a woman (not meaning you personally). But in the end, marriage is a choice. And if any of us are married to a jerk, idiot, wh*re, evil person or asshat....then it is only ourselves who we can ask "why?"


Which is pretty much the final scenario in all of these books. Leaving. But "nice guys" don't leave. For these men to find the balls to leave, they first have to stop being "nice guys".

"The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care. Right? Yeeaaaah." ~Offspring.


----------



## Omego

I meant to agree with the analysis of the photo with the guy who could not touch the co-workers. I posted too slowly! 

I have not read the book, but I understand that it is controversial. 

What would be interesting to know is why this type of book needed to be written in the first place? There was/is clearly a demand. Target market? North American phenomenon? 

I can see both sides of the debate. The quoted passages were offensive and reductive. But there is obviously more than that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Omego said:


> I meant to agree with the analysis of the photo with the guy who could not touch the co-workers. I posted too slowly!
> 
> I have not read the book, but I understand that it is controversial.
> 
> What would be interesting to know is why this type of book needed to be written in the first place? There was/is clearly a demand. Target market? North American phenomenon?
> 
> I can see both sides of the debate. The quoted passages were offensive and reductive. But there is obviously more than that.


Of course there is much more to the book than that.I have seen it's blogs, forums and reviews.
The parts posted were cherry picked for a purpose.

Just like one could use the passage in the Bible that states 
" Slaves obey your masters" to either mean that the bile justifies slavery so that slavery is morally right or, that the bible justifies slavery so god and the bible must be evil.

Neither is correct , but it's interpretation in a case like that, would be heavily subjective to your agenda.


----------



## Conrad

Omego said:


> I meant to agree with the analysis of the photo with the guy who could not touch the co-workers. I posted too slowly!
> 
> I have not read the book, but I understand that it is controversial.
> 
> What would be interesting to know is why this type of book needed to be written in the first place? There was/is clearly a demand. Target market? North American phenomenon?
> 
> I can see both sides of the debate. The quoted passages were offensive and reductive. But there is obviously more than that.


North American and western phenomenon.

In the rest of the world, boys largely work with their fathers during and after puberty.

In North America, millions of male children were raised primarily by women with their father "at work"

These boys learned that putting a smile on a woman's face was how to interact with women (in other words, pleasing her as you would your mother).

If that is your end goal, you are headed for big big trouble.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> ^^Fixed that for you based on my experience.
> 
> Biblically, the men are far more often portrayed as the promiscuous parties. Athol Kay links to an IMO very offensive and* marriage killing* site which advocates male promiscuity and unfaithfulness (16 commandments)


I've seen that website.

Nowhere does it state it's for married men.


----------



## naiveonedave

You anti MMSLP crack me up, you read way too much into what he thinks about women. He generalizes and states that some women will cheat, so here is how you try to be affair proof. he doesn't say all women. And his affair proofing behavior is to man up and not be a wuss or too domesticated or too bets (all 3 are the same thing).


----------



## Blonde

Conrad said:


> I've seen that website.
> 
> Nowhere does it state it's for married men.


So why would Kay link to it on a blog for *married* men?

My perception is that there is a segment of people into this "man up" paradigm who promote a 180 for struggling marriages which includes detaching from wife and going out drinking and flirting. Oddly enough, this is only ever suggested to males, not females that I recollect.

I think it is despicable marriage killing advice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You missed "might not" in that last sentence, FF.


----------



## jld

FrenchFry said:


> :d Muchas Gracias.


FF, would you mind elaborating on your experience? I think it could help us all understand the concerns about the book. Thanks.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Two pages aback on this thread Devil's posted the " Hoover Hands " pic.

Almost every single man on the thread was able to identify with what was going on in that simple pic.

I don't recall any woman being able to identify with it.

To me ,that is a good example of the stark reality of male vs female on this NMNG and MMSL issue.

There are some things women _think_ they understand about men, but it will do them well to first listen to what men have to say about themselves before they judge.

Just like it is universally understood by women everywhere that there are some or most things about women that men would never get ,
No matter how a woman tries to explain it.
Men should just accept it , as it is part of what makes them ,
Woman.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde said:


> Oddly enough, this is only ever suggested to males, not females that I recollect.
> 
> I think it is despicable marriage killing advice.


I don't know, I think I'd give the same advice to a married woman who has a complacent husband who doesn't seem to otherwise get her message. I'd tell her to do things for HER and the things that would drive other men to be interested in her. Little things that spark a little jealousy (for lack of a better word) and might wake the man up into realizing he needs to ante up if he's going to keep her.

I don't think it applies to all cases, nor is it the first tool to pull out of the bag.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know, I think I'd give the same advice to a married woman who has a complacent husband who doesn't seem to otherwise get her message. I'd tell her to do things for HER and the things that would drive other men to be interested in her. Little things that spark a little jealousy (for lack of a better word) and might wake the man up into realizing he needs to ante up if he's going to keep her.
> 
> I don't think it applies to all cases, nor is it the first tool to pull out of the bag.


And we go back to my original stance on these books.

Use only what applies and discard the rest.

If none of it applies , like in my case , then what sense does it make using it or discouraging someone else whose situation differs radically from yours and who_ might_ benefit from it?

You are getting sex on demand ten times a day in your marriage , and your partner thinks you're a sex goddess or god.

Others aren't so lucky neither can they just leave their marriage.

No thanks you ,

I can think for myself.


----------



## Blonde

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't know, I think I'd give the same advice to a married woman who has a complacent husband who doesn't seem to otherwise get her message. I'd tell her to do things for HER and the things that would drive other men to be interested in her. Little things that spark a little jealousy (for lack of a better word) and might wake the man up into realizing he needs to ante up if he's going to keep her.
> 
> I don't think it applies to all cases, nor is it the first tool to pull out of the bag.


I'm all for self improvement. Did the 180 myself. New interests, school, new friends, new hot wardrobe, exercise and into good shape, eat right... And it all helped ME feel better, independent instead of codependent, like OK you want to be out screwin around on me, well good luck with that, my life is full and fun and I don't need you to make it so. I'll be having a full, fun, satisfying with OR without you.

But telling men to FLIRT and DRINK on GNO (guys night out) with OW? TBH I don't understand how a person who values GOOD character could get an ego boost from that. To me that idea provokes recoil, ICK, corrosive, sleazy feel... I could not hold my head up high and feel good about myself as a married person who made vows out carrying on that way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde said:


> But telling men to FLIRT and DRINK on GNO (guys night out) with OW? TBH I don't understand how a person who values GOOD character could get an ego boost from that. To me that idea provokes recoil, ICK, corrosive, sleazy feel... I could not hold my head up high and feel good about myself as a married person who made vows out carrying on that way.


Flirting can be done in a harmless fashion. Flirting doesn't mean cheating. It all depends on what you consider to be a flirt. Almost any interaction can have a flirtatious character.

But the point of saying it is to convey this message: be the person you were before you became her puppy. Go back to finding your own value. Flirting and drinking might not even be the guy's schtick... its just a stereotypical example.


----------



## Blonde

I have a strong association between "flirting and drinking" and cheating/unfaithfulness.

Alcoholic dad was a serial adulterer and H has also been a serial adulterer always while under the influence.

But I have also watched in horror on TAM as married men have gone that route right before my eyes with other TAMers cheering them on... (distressed marriage, not divorced-->sleeping around)

Oddly again, only seen MEN going that way. Can't think of a thread with TAMers high fiving the sexual conquests of a still married cheating WIFE.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> Instead of calling it a spade, why would you not ask yourself why YOU are choosing a spade? That is the real question. Why do you want to be with someone who treats you that way? Once someone honestly answers this question for themselves, and they know their own answer, then change can happen.
> 
> If you or any husband also wants to broadcast what a wh*re your wife is, ok, sure. How does that help anything or anyone?


FW, I find that you have repeatedly suggested that these books equate women to be called "slvts" or "wh0res" and have many times applied the term "slvt-shaming". But it is YOU that has chosen to apply that term. The point of the author is not that liking sex , or having wives that crave sex is shameful in the least. The opposite in fact, these books are pointing out that wild lustful sex between partners is desirable, and that biology is to be celebrated.


----------



## jld

FrenchFry said:


> EDITED to not be dismissive.
> 
> I honestly don't want to do it on this thread.


That is fine. I'm sorry if it seemed insensitive to ask.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

So Lon...you only read my posts about MMSL then, and you think I don't know anything about what great sex is? You think I'm some women's advocate who is only focused on the men who hate women?

Which is not a big deal...you don't need to know my message. I'm just saying, that if you really think you understand what I'm saying (based on your post # 484) then you clearly do not.

Again, not a problem...just saying, you have no idea where I'm coming from.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> So Lon...you only read my posts about MMSL then, and you think I don't know anything about what great sex is? You think I'm some women's advocate who is only focused on the men who hate women?
> 
> Which is not a big deal...you don't need to know my message. I'm just saying, that if you really think you understand what I'm saying (based on your post # 484) then you clearly do not.
> 
> Again, not a problem...just saying, you have no idea where I'm coming from.


I am merely pointing out that you have used the terms "slvt" "wh0re" and "slvt-shaming" repeatedly on this thread, and always as a negative connotation. I never said anything at all about your view of great sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm going to do a quick count of the number of times Athol uses the word sl*t in MMSL and get back to you with that number later tonight, how's that? (easy to do this with kindle)

If you honestly don't think he is meaning to use the word to try to make it clear that all women are sl*ts (even though he does say exactly that, over and over and over) then I'm going to just say, sorry but, I believe you are wrong. But I'll get back to you with that number of times he uses the word. 

And if it is ok for him to throw that word around and not really mean it, then I'm sure it will be ok for me and other women writers to call men idiots, chumps and a penis with a wallet. All in good fun and in the name of marriage, though.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> .
> 
> I think it's because I read and respect the Bible despite it's many accounts of outrageously evil crimes against women as well as putting men who are sleazily promiscuous on a pedestal with their writings prominent (eg. King Solomon- 700 wives, 300 concubines; David- adulterer, murderer, polygamist). So I have learned to live with a background level of cognitive dissonance when it comes to assessing the worth of a woman compared to a man....


Blonde,

I wanted to respond to this.
The Bible is a collection of historical facts representing the formation of the Jewish nation and later on ,Christianity in chronological order.

There are many different interpretations of what the bible teaches, that's why there are so many different sects in Christianity , basing their teachings on the bible.

To me, having read the bible several times , the accounts of David , Solomon and other questionable men being in leadership is really a demonstration of that thing philosophers call
" the human condition." These men professed to love their God , yet they did those things, part of what they did, such as polygamy was also culturally acceptable back then , so the question of rightness or wrongness never arose.

Take for instance that the promised messiah ,Jesus Christ who was supposed to be " the Son Of God " actually came from the lineage of Rahab a woman who was a notorious prostitute , who committed treason against her own people.

Another example is that of the Kenite woman, Jael who murdered Sisera ,the captain of a confederate army . One of the most gruesome murders in the history of the bible. Jael was fleeing the Jewish armies after his army was defeated. When he crossed the border into his territory he was tired and thirsty when he met a woman, Jael and asked her for water. She recognized him and invited him into her tent. She gave him goat's milk and lots of food to eat and allowed him to drop asleep on her lap.

She then sneaked out of the tent, got an iron peg and a mallet, came back in and drove that iron peg through his temple [ head] and fastened his head to the ground in her tent.
She then crossed the border into Israel and invited their leader, another woman called Deborah and the captain of her army Barak to see what she had done to their enemy.
Even though she wasn't a Jew, she was hailed as a heroine in the cannonical [ bible] books of Judges and Judith. 

To me, these stories demonstrate that humans aren't any super moral beings as we like to think of ourselves.
We are all just human beings or rationalizing animals who will do seemingly horrible things given sometimes, extreme circumstances.

Whether they were right or wrong would always be debatable.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> If you honestly don't think he is meaning to use the word to try to make it clear that all women are sl*ts (even though he does say exactly that, over and over and over) then I'm going to just say, sorry but, I believe you are wrong.


The negative charge you place on it isn't how I perceived it at all. I see his use of sl*t as simply jargon for a woman who really wants to have sex. 

Your yourself have repeatedly posted to this effect as well - the belief some men have that women are sex averse. Athol is speaking to an audience that has basically come to believe their wives don't like sex. Athol is countering this notion, albeit crudely (one aim is to kill the nice oversensitive guy remember?), by saying women want all kinds of sex - ergo - sl*ts. He doesn't shame in the slightest. He's in fact glorifying this sexual nature. But the idea that woman wants all kinds of crazy sex is probably going to be thought a sl*t by a sweet passive nice guy. This is all an attempt to restructure how the guy thinks about a woman's sexuality - "hey buddy, she wants to let her inner sl*t out."

It think it very helpful to realize who he is trying to reach. He's not trying to reach you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

How to Avoid Mansplaining | Rascality: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers


----------



## Faithful Wife

Just to make this perfectly clear, I have no response to any person who thinks I need to be educated about "what it really means" in any of these books. By trying to educate me this way, you are doing nothing more than mansplaining. Please educate yourself on what this means and stop doing it, or I have no response to you (anyone who wants to mansplain to me gets put on ignore and will not be responded to).

I'm making this clear exactly once, and will not visit the topic again.


----------



## Blonde

CM you hinted around at a difference. Women are suppose to be virtuous. Men are supposed to be slvts

While David is censured for the adultery and murder, neither he nor Solomon are censured for the promiscuity.

Rahab-prostitute-slVt-shame. WOW, how did SHE get into Jesus lineage???

Solomon-wildly promiscuous-respected King and author of large tracts of scripture.

Just like on TAM. Rah rah backslapping high five the married man who is having revenge sexcapades with women young enough to be his daughter... Take THAT you batsh!t crazy W! 

IF a married woman did the same, she'd be censured.

I think people who make a vow to be faithful should keep their vow no matter what their gender. If they want to move on, they should at least have the decency to wait until the divorce is final.


----------



## naiveonedave

my point in reading MMSLP was to be a better monogomous partner. If you read it closely the author explicitly states his is monogomous and advises the reader not to use what he learns to become a cheater. No matter what FW or Blonde are reading into what he says, Athol is actually pro-monogamy.


----------



## Blonde

Faithful Wife said:


> How to Avoid Mansplaining | Rascality: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers


Still have it up in another window and was thinking about some of his points r/t MMSL

Here is a clip from your link:


> If you haven’t already, brush up a bit on gender and privilege (and especially if you have, resist the temptation to think you know all about it already). ...
> Keep in mind the difference between taking effective responsibility for bias and shouldering blame. Blame is often an invitation to feel worse about something and can be deflating. Responsibility, on the other hand, may include remorse but empowers individuals to make bad situations better. Put another way, it’s one thing to make you or someone else feel bad about having bias, it’s quite another to say and do things that encourage people to roll up their sleeves and get to work on it.
> When your bias or privilege is exposed without your knowledge or consent, treat it the same way you’d treat falling trousers. That is to say, don’t pretend it didn’t happen, just smile, realize everyone has a derriere, pull up your pants, try to extract the appropriate lesson, and move on.


To me, Kay is saying something quite similar to the above here: Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Married Man Sex Life

He is telling men that they are RESPONSIBLE! That they have unique power, privilege, and RESPONSIBLITY as males. I think that message is healthy and needed in cases where a man has a "victim mentality". 

At times, I am amused because Kay gets away with being so confrontational like this... Another area is his anti-porn preaching. ITA with him and am so glad a MAN is speaking out about it and being heard. A woman's voice just does not carry as much (if any?) authority with men. That is an unfortunate reality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blonde...I was happy to see Athol change his stance on porn, too.

But that is not what is in his book. He changed his mind on that much later.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> He is telling men that they are RESPONSIBLE! That they have unique power, privilege, and RESPONSIBLITY as males. I think that message is healthy and needed in cases where a man has a "victim mentality".
> 
> At times, I am amused because Kay gets away with being so confrontational like this... *Another area is his anti-porn preaching. ITA with him and am so glad a MAN is speaking out about it and being heard. A woman's voice just does not carry as much (if any?) authority with men. That is an unfortunate reality. *


The thing with this man's style is that he meant to be controversial. He does not care for political correctness , on either side of the gender divide.

I remember reading his anti porn stance in marriage on one of his blogs and I agreed fully with him in the context of how he mentioned it.
IMO , porn is the default setting of the " nice guy" in a marriage , and a blockage to fully experiencing true sexual dominance and intimacy. 
Because he is afraid of putting his needs first, he never gets them met or he is unable to properly communicate his feelings . He self medicates with porn. The porn becomes a psychological prop instead of real sexual intimacy.
Women tend to respect a man who could easily bring out the inner
" freak" which they all possess. It takes time , lots of confidence and communication to do that.

He can't do that if he's constantly beating off to porn , and the wife then sees him as weak and he becomes even less attractive.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I will bow out of this thread now, which is sad because I resurrected it myself because I wanted to bow out of another thread for the exact same reasons.

Ocotillo....thank you for asking the question and for your honest acceptance of what I and other women have had to say.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Just to make this perfectly clear, I have no response to any person who thinks I need to be educated about "what it really means" in any of these books. By trying to educate me this way, you are doing nothing more than mansplaining. Please educate yourself on what this means and stop doing it, or I have no response to you (anyone who wants to mansplain to me gets put on ignore and will not be responded to).
> 
> I'm making this clear exactly once, and will not visit the topic again.


So you really think his use of sl*t is to demean to women, even though the intended audience is overly sweet MEN, and Athol is hyping up female sexuality and trying to convince sexless men that WOMEN LIKE AND WANT SEX? When a man tells you how he interprets this thing intended for MEN, its "mansplaining"?

The very concept of "mansplaining" is inane. As if its somehow irrelevant for a black person to explain to me (being white) how he perceives racism. I know what racism strictly is, so I know all about how he experiences it right? Or that a man should not explain how he perceives something differently than a woman may. This is one of the most counter-productive pseudo-intellectual props I've ever seen - the equivalent of saying "how you perceive something doesn't matter to me". It doesn't matter if you accept it the way men receive it, but this is in fact how men are likely to receive it.

What's more likely FW, that Athol's strategy for getting a husband the sex he wants is to have husbands think negatively of their wives, or that Athol is trying to convince these husbands that their wives are highly sexual beings who really really do want sex too? Is it unfathomable that men could reasonably receive a different message than you do - or that women readers are likely to? If pointing that out is mansplaining, then so be it. I hope everyone here mansplains - because that's the only way we get any other perspective.


----------



## ReformedHubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your yourself have repeatedly posted to this effect as well - the belief some men have that women are sex averse. Athol is speaking to an audience that has basically come to believe their wives don't like sex. Athol is countering this notion, albeit crudely (one aim is to kill the nice oversensitive guy remember?), by saying women want all kinds of sex - ergo - sl*ts. He doesn't shame in the slightest. He's in fact glorifying this sexual nature. But the idea that woman wants all kinds of crazy sex is probably going to be thought a sl*t by a sweet passive nice guy. This is all an attempt to restructure how the guy thinks about a woman's sexuality - "hey buddy, she wants to let her inner sl*t out."
> 
> It think it very helpful to realize who he is trying to reach. He's not trying to reach you.


Good point. There are quite a few men that go through life never really knowing how sexual women can be. Its mind blowing to me that some of the men in sexless marriages acknowledge that their mate was never interested in sex. If MMSL can help them good for them.

Regarding the book its crudely written but I get why he uses that tone. This is honestly how men talk. My wife would shudder if she heard half the things that came out my mouth when I'm with my pops let alone my friends. Even the most sophisticated/academic/religious men loosen up when the ladies aren't around. Its part of who we are. We are anything but prim and proper when its just the fellas.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The very concept of "mansplaining" is inane. As if its somehow irrelevant for a black person to explain to me (being white) how he perceives racism. I know what racism strictly is, so I know all about how he experiences it right? Or that a man should not explain how he perceives something differently than a woman may. This is one of the most counter-productive pseudo-intellectual props I've ever seen - the equivalent of saying "how you perceive something doesn't matter to me". It doesn't matter if you accept it the way men receive it, but this is in fact how men are likely to receive it.


:iagree:

The whole concept of " mansplaining " is a dishonest debate tactic used to scare men into thinking within a certain parameter, during a discussion.
Sound logic and reasoning become subjective to what effect that logic has on the feelings of the female opponent.

So if she doesn't " like " the logic , even if it is sound ,and she can't find a suitable rebuttal , it becomes " mansplaning. "

The irony is that the concept itself is sexist because when a woman supposedly does it to another woman, it is called " condescending" [ which is subjective IMO], when a man does it to a woman , it is " mansplaning ." 
It assumes that all men speak and think alike, and all women are supposed to speak and think alike.

I was thinking of starting a thread on it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Just to make this perfectly clear, I have no response to any person who thinks I need to be educated about "what it really means" in any of these books. By trying to educate me this way, you are doing nothing more than mansplaining. Please educate yourself on what this means and stop doing it, or I have no response to you (anyone who wants to mansplain to me gets put on ignore and will not be responded to).
> 
> I'm making this clear exactly once, and will not visit the topic again.


Honestly, this does not make a lot of sense to me. Men are his target audience. Why would the author try to speak in a way other than to appeal to his target audience? I know that DH would use the word sl*t in exactly the way another poster mentioned.


----------



## Dollystanford

The word 'sl*t' has connotations that do not simply mean 'highly sexual being'

Come on, you know this

Yeah it's demeaning when it's a man writing it for a male audience, whatever his intention. Well that's how I (as a woman!) perceive it anyway


----------



## Blonde

Faithful Wife said:


> I will bow out of this thread now, which is sad because I resurrected it myself because I wanted to bow out of another thread for the exact same reasons.
> 
> Ocotillo....thank you for asking the question and for your honest acceptance of what I and other women have had to say.


from How to Avoid Mansplaining | Rascality: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers seems apropos 

If you find frustration mounting (yours or your listener’s), take a step back and beware of taking it out on your listener. One often key mental step is to avoid thinking (and saying!) that your interlocutor lacks certain virtues or values. While entirely possible, more conversational (and hence more persuasive) opportunities are opened up by assuming the other person simply has values other than yours, however well they’re articulated or even known to either of you. Put another way, assume everyone acts according to principles and that, for the curious, it’s just a matter of patiently discovering what they may turn out to be.
If things get heated, consider the possibility that maintaining the relationship may now be a greater priority than communicating the explanation. Be especially aware of threats to the respect of all parties to the conversation, such as the temptation to engage in name-calling and insults.
When you’re done explaining, listen. Keep an ear open to the possibility you may not have explained well, that you used the wrong words, or that others’ equally valid experience produced complementary or even contradictory information.


----------



## naiveonedave

Dolly - the term is sl*t is crude, but effectvie from a man's POV. The book was not written to be politically correct or for women to get wigged out over terminology. I get that it has those negative connotations in general language, but amongst the guys, it doesn't. It means likes sex a lot.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> Dolly - the term is sl*t is crude, but effectvie from a man's POV. The book was not written to be politically correct or for women to get wigged out over terminology. I get that it has those negative connotations in general language, but amongst the guys, it doesn't. It means likes sex a lot.


Maybe I really deserve an honorary man card. But that is what it means when he calls me that to my face. Glad to know I am not missing something!


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Dollystanford said:


> The word 'sl*t' has connotations that do not simply mean 'highly sexual being'
> 
> Come on, you know this
> 
> Yeah it's demeaning when it's a man writing it for a male audience, whatever his intention. Well that's how I (as a woman!) perceive it anyway


It can have all sorts of connotations, either very sexist and misogynistic as a way of demeaning or verbally attacking, or as spoken by one man trying to educate a bunch of meek guys how to loosen up and when not actually directed towards a particular individual as an educational tool. Any word, no matter how offensive has completely different connotations when delivered with a grin and a wink vs with a scowl.


----------



## WyshIknew

I'm a guy and the word slvt to me means a woman of extremely low morals and character a slovenly woman of such low standing and sexual control that she is beneath my contempt.


**** - definition of **** by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I'm a man and my wife is a woman of very high morals.
She's a Christian and goes to church regularly , without me.
she's very soft spoken and ladylike , in public.

When we're having wild sex in bed , you'd be shocked to hear some of the words that comes out of her mouth, describing some of the things she wants me do to her in the height of passion...






Does that mean that she has " loose morals ?"


----------



## naiveonedave

It is all in context. MMSL is married mans sex life. He is trying to help men get their wives to have more sex, to be more of a sl*t. it is all the context. He could have chosen a different word, but he wanted it to have shock value and it worked, all the ladies are shocked.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm a man and my wife is a woman of very high morals.
> She's a Christian and goes to church regularly , without me.
> she's very soft spoken and ladylike , in public.
> 
> When we're having wild sex in bed , you'd be shocked to hear some of the words that comes out of her mouth, describing some of the things she wants me do to her in the height of passion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean that she has " loose morals ?"


Don't know. But I think there is a world of difference between a bit of sex play and what amounts to public insults.


Would *you* describe her as such time and again in a book for all the world to see?

The woman you love?

Because I certainly wouldn't.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dollystanford said:


> The word 'sl*t' has connotations that do not simply mean 'highly sexual being'
> 
> Come on, you know this
> 
> Yeah it's demeaning when it's a man writing it for a male audience, whatever his intention. Well that's how I (as a woman!) perceive it anyway


I understand how you see it. I really do. Now honestly, do you believe that men come away from these books thinking "my wife is a sl*t" in the way you perceive the word? In other threads, we have seen women claim that men don't want a "sl*t" - they claim we want chaste virginal princesses. So Athol is telling men how to get women they don't want? -that their wives are women they don't want? Context is everything.

I totally agree sl*t usually has a negative connotation... it does not always have that connotation for men. This isn't mansplaining, its perspective. Its "Look dude, women are sl*tty freaks for the man who does IT for them." This is exactly what men want. A "bad" girl in bed, and "good" girl in public... and yes, even those adjectives play on traditional, false notions that a really sexual woman is a "bad" girl... but every man knows exactly what it means.

sl*tty, bad, dirty... all these terms have latent negative connotation, and yet, to men they describe exactly what men want: Sexually confident women who really want sex. Many men think these women are unicorns. Athol's use of the terms is to point out that all women are unicorns for the man who does IT for them. And the guy doing IT, probably isn't walking on eggshells around her. The blunt language drives it home.

I wouldn't recommend women read MMSL. The message you get is probably going to be VERY different from the message men get.


----------



## Dollystanford

Oh I don't think there's much danger of me reading MMSL


----------



## Dad&Hubby

I'm not going to take a stand on whether NMMNG or MMSLP are positive or negative. I think that if either of those books helps a man become a better man and better husband....than great. 

(Disclosure, I haven't read them and have no desire to)

From what I see, there's both a lot of positive, build inner strength and self respect within them as well as a good amount of game playing. (I call anything where a person does something generally negative to simply to get a reaction out of their partner. as game playing).

The part that I can't stand is the game playing. I have always been an attentive and loving husband (we can call me a nice guy) and in my first marriage, that nice guy attitude slowly became me becoming a doormat because my exW was never satisfied (as I learned later, it was a HER problem). Now, don't get me wrong. I knew that if I wanted sex, I had to "play the game" which usually centered around treating her poorly. The worse I treated her, the better of a response I got....well I tried that a few times but eventually couldn't stand it. I had tried being me, then the doormat me, then a "bad boy" and I eventually realized she and I aren't compatible. I need to be me and ME doesn't work with HER.

I vowed to never play that kind of game again. I'm going to be me, and any future woman I'm with is either going to love me for who I am and respect me for who I am or we won't be together. I'm now happily married to a woman I NEVER have to play a game with. I'm me 24/7 and she's HER 24/7 and we're a great fit.

I think books like MMSLP and NMMNG should just be simplified. Love yourself, respect yourself and BE yourself. Don't tolerate someone who doesn't love and respect you. And keep looking until you find someone who does love and respect you.

If you can't be yourself without playing games...why be married?


----------



## Deejo

I don't like when we 'lose' each other in these discussions.

I don't want the women to feel drowned out or ignored. 

I don't want the points that we agree on to get lost in the minutiae that we don't.

Honestly, I don't know how we bridge the divide in terms of strategies and tactics where men use locker room talk to accomplish goals that are beneficial to them, and the women they are partnered with. 

All the while women believe that the locker room talk itself negates any possible positive outcome or consideration.

I don't want to say, "I don't care what you think."

Because it isn't true.

But based upon my own personal experience, and the experiences of other men that I have corresponded with, I just cannot agree that ALL of this stuff is stupid, derogatory, spiteful, and rapey, regardless of the rhetoric it's wrapped in.

I think within the context of individuals here on TAM, we probably agree far more than we disagree.

That and we have folks that just love the whole debate process, and we have ladies that don't shirk a good fight. We like that too.

Did I just mansplain?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> Don't know. But I think there is a world of difference between a bit of sex play and what amounts to public insults.
> 
> 
> Would *you* describe her as such time and again in a book for all the world to see.
> 
> The woman you love?
> 
> Because I certainly wouldn't.


In a book about sexuality, absolutely I would. Its all about context. My gf has clothes and shoes SHE refers to by various derivatives of sl*t. I've told her I like when she's sl*tty, its hot. She says she likes being my little sl*t. But we both know the context is of her being sexual with ME... not the dictionary definition of a woman of low moral standing.

She's even called herself my little sex slave out in public, drinking with our friends. She clearly doesn't mean she is literally my sex slave. It basically means I get everything I want.

Apparently, Athol's wife understands this context.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Dollystanford said:


> The word 'sl*t' has connotations that do not simply mean 'highly sexual being'
> 
> Come on, you know this
> 
> Yeah it's demeaning when it's a man writing it for a male audience, whatever his intention. Well that's how I (as a woman!) perceive it anyway


So is it bad when I walk up behind my wife, put my arm around her waste, pull her into me and whisper in a low voice in her ear. "You're going to be my little **** tonight!"

Or I walk into our bedroom to find her wearing a micro skirt and tight top while bending over a little and saying "I just wanted to dress a little ****ty for you"

I think words themselves aren't inherently evil, I think the usage of the words are.

I'd NEVER call a woman a ****, unless I was sexually active with her and wanted her to act like one WITH ME.


----------



## naiveonedave

D&H - you haven't read them, so how do you know what you are doing is what they prescribe?

MMSL gaming=dating,flirting, having fun with, etc, your spouse. It isn't some magic trick, where you treat them like crap and get all the sex you want.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dollystanford said:


> Oh I don't think there's much danger of me reading MMSL


Is there no context that you yourself could see applying a word to yourself that has a latent negative connotation to denote a positive sexual quality? Dirty, bad, sl*tty... etc? That is what MMSL is doing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> Did I just mansplain?


You just modsplained.


----------



## naiveonedave

FF - no where in MMSL does he really dump on women. He blames men for all the problems. He uses crude language to do it, but come on, he doesn't agree with physical or verbal abuse.

And you don't get it, he calls all humanity ****s, they want sex, that in and of itself uses a 'bad' word to describe normal behavior. 

Don't get the hate, at all.....


----------



## Dollystanford

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Is there no context that you yourself could see applying a word to yourself that has a latent negative connotation to denote a positive sexual quality? Dirty, bad, sl*tty... etc? That is what MMSL is doing.


How I choose to describe myself is up to me (and actually no, I've never described myself as a ****). However I do object to a male equating a sexually confident woman to a ****. There are other ways to describe a sexually confident woman, why does he have to use a derogatory term? Oh you said it yourself - for shock value. Which is all it is. 

Am I shocked by it? No, I'm depressed by it. Because the nature of it is insidious and damaging. Obviously you don't think it is because you're not a woman. I am and I do. We're never going to agree.


----------



## ReformedHubby

The TAM I used to know has jumped the shark. Threads have taken a darker tone as of late. Its too bad really. Lately in threads both sides fail to see that men and women will always perceive certain things differently. We're all very likely married to people that would side with gender on the topics we disagree on. Perhaps on TAM we share too much of what men and women _really_ think because anonymity.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Dollystanford said:


> How I choose to describe myself is up to me (and actually no, I've never described myself as a ****). However I do object to a male equating a sexually confident woman to a ****. There are other ways to describe a sexually confident woman, why does he have to use a derogatory term? Oh you said it yourself - for shock value. Which is all it is.
> 
> Am I shocked by it? No, I'm depressed by it. Because the nature of it is insidious and damaging. Obviously you don't think it is because you're not a woman. I am and I do. We're never going to agree.


Don't put this on "being a woman". I a woman, and I have exactly zero problem with it. Lightening up, not having a hair across one's butt, is a pretty important part of a relationship. My husband's humor, even crudity, has been HUGE in helping me remove my butt hairs. And I am extremely grateful to him. 

And yah he calls me his hottie ****. He loves me. He wants me. All The Time. In every possible way. How is that bad for me?


----------



## Blonde

((((((French Fry))))))) Sorry about the triggers and pain.

Fellas she said her H got abusive post MMSL. I personally would not want my H anywhere near either of the books MMSL OR NMMNG because of his very deep rooted misogynist tendencies as well as a history of raging insensitivity (to put it nicely) and entitlement mentality both in and out of the bedroom.

My H has never called me a **** and never will- he knows better (it would be a trigger for me and he would get an earful about who has been ****ty in this M). It took me years to accept "hot" as an acceptable adjective in polite company and I still have my doubts... According to my 16 yo, the girls who 'sleep around" and are "easy" are called "****" in high school and it is NOT a coveted descriptor (though those girls never lack a BF-  ).


----------



## Dollystanford

I didn't say all women had a problem with it. I said I am and I do. 

I'm about the most uninhibited person you could imagine. And as has been said before, what people get up to in the bedroom is entirely up to them. But this is not that. Not sure why you can't see the difference?

Perhaps we should tell the next schoolgirl that tries to hang herself because her so-called boyfriend tells all his mates she's a **** and it gets passed around school that she shouldn't worry, it just means she's sexually confident

Words matter. Is all I'm saying.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I do wonder with the word sl*t in the book. I wonder if there was a book with racial slurs in them and some people where offended, I attempted to 'whitesplain' to them why this isn't offensive what would the outcome be with a few?
There are some words that will offend some people (and be offensive to some depending on who uses it) not because a word itself is offensive but because of the history behind the word.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

naiveonedave said:


> D&H - you haven't read them, so how do you know what you are doing is what they prescribe?
> 
> MMSL gaming=dating,flirting, having fun with, etc, your spouse. It isn't some magic trick, where you treat them like crap and get all the sex you want.


Please don't take the stance that "you've never read it so you can't talk about it".

If you've been on these forums for over a year and read a lot of threads and been involved with many discussions, you start to get a handle on the content.

Like I said, I know there's a lot of positive in the books. But I also know that (whether this was in the book or on his forums) Athol Kay has basically at times advocated telling your wife/partner that you will/could replace them (paraphrasing something I DID read as quoted from his forums or book) as a way to keep the woman "off balance". Sorry but I could never and WOULD NEVER threaten my wife's security in the relationship as a way to make a point or get a specific reaction.

Again, something like that was needed for my ex-wife. If we went out to a bar with friends, and I wanted sex from her later, I would flirt with other women. Get them to flirt with me, etc. Did it work...yup...did I feel dirty...yup. Because that isn't the kind of man I am. Do I get flirted with now...yup and I shut it down...and because of that I get 100X's the sex with my wife than I had with my exW.

Because my wife ISN'T the type of woman who positively responds to me flirting with another woman LOL. That's a sure fire way to NOT get sex. And likewise with me to her. If she flirted with a guy, she'd be in the dog house and not getting her "fix" of me for a little bit 

I took the time and found a woman who is compatible with the man that I am. The issues of personal strength and respect within those books resonates with me. 100%, but the game playing aspects don't. I don't care if the game playing is only 20% of what they talk about, that's more than I want to or care to stomach.


----------



## naiveonedave

sorry I offended, but again, you are reading into what he wrote out of context. Context is the key.

The need for the flirting example only exists if you need it, aka, your ex-W. Now you don't, so don't.

If you haven't read it, you don't have the context. And that is key.


----------



## naiveonedave

MMSL does not recommend becoming a D bag. FF - sorry your hubby went there... He read, but didn't listen or only chose to read what he wanted to hear.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Dollystanford said:


> I didn't say all women had a problem with it. I said I am and I do.
> 
> I'm about the most uninhibited person you could imagine. And as has been said before, what people get up to in the bedroom is entirely up to them. But this is not that. Not sure why you can't see the difference?
> 
> Perhaps we should tell the next schoolgirl that tries to hang herself because her so-called boyfriend tells all his mates she's a **** and it gets passed around school that she shouldn't worry, it just means she's sexually confident
> 
> Words matter. Is all I'm saying.


You're hitting an important point here Dolly.

What I talked about was banter between me and my wife. Which is a COMPLETELY different situation that what language should be used in a publication/general population discussion.

There are many words which shouldn't be used in general, open population, discussions because, in that context, they are offensive.

It would be like the female version: Married Woman Sex Life routinely says something like "Do xyz if you don't want your husband to be a little limp d!ck". How many men would be petitioning against that book because of how it "paints" men.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

naiveonedave said:


> sorry I offended, but again, you are reading into what he wrote out of context. Context is the key.
> 
> The need for the flirting example only exists if you need it, aka, your ex-W. Now you don't, so don't.
> 
> If you haven't read it, you don't have the context. And that is key.


Fair point.

I'm just diametrically opposed to having to do those things in a marriage. I would rather take the stand of fixing the marriage directly or ending the marriage, than to have to walk around "planning" how I'm going to manipulate my wife to get what I want. 

For the men who are in the marriages which require it, and they don't want to end the marriage...hey all the power to you. I'm just speaking for myself and don't cast any judgement against them. Any judgement you might see in my post is judgement of myself given those parameters.


----------



## Blonde

OTH I recall men liking "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands" by Dr Laura which was kinda the same thing in reverse- men are so simple minded and here is the formula to keep them hard working, bringing home the money, and happy about it while you are a SAHM and domestic goddess.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

FrenchFry said:


> No...he did exactly what was recommended in the book and your response is exactly why I don't feel like talking about it in here--I'm going to get completely invalidated as "he did it wrong" when in actuality he did exactly what was in there.
> 
> I just hated it and it nearly destroyed our relationship because I didn't want to marry a d-bag.
> 
> I figured out what was going on only after I read the book and the forum and seriously had to construct ways to get him back and I still don't know if I will ever be 100% with him the way I was before. It is what it is.


My wife would have the same reaction you did FF. Sorry.

Each woman and man is different and will respond to stimuli differently. What turns on one woman (MMSLP's approach for instance) will turn off another.

I can see where MMSLP will work for some. I really can, which is why I'm not saying it's "bad". But it shouldn't be lauded as the bible like SOME do. For SOME marriages, it might be the best thing, for others the worst.

The ideas in those books are treated by some as a panacea and they're not. I'm not saying anyone in this thread does though, so that comment isn't directed at any one person.


----------



## Blonde

D&H,
I hear ya and ITA and resonate with you on the flirting. 

Keep me AWAY from a man who wants to flirt in bars with OW, I have NO respect for that!!!


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I truly don't understand how you come to make some of the connections you do. Objectifying women and the sex trade had not been mentioned one time or remotely hinted at in this thread ... but you made that association. Why?


It was Caribbean Man who made that connection, not me. I was merely responding to his assertion that I would support women by spreading hatred of men.

Which I wouldn't.

And, yes, I know there are lots of men spewing all kinds of horrendous things about women, and this is why I keep speaking up about it.

I get that you are smart enough to take it on, but I can't quite figure why you are so adamant in defending it. It's not, IMHO, something to be blase about.


----------



## naiveonedave

D&H good points. I see any self help book as pick what works for you and discard the rest....

So for me mmslp is: 
1) get in shape - in prog
2) stop being whiny - better
3) lead more - better longer way to go

And it is working. The W is happier with me and sex is better/more frequent = win/win I hope.

the rest is still wait and see and/or ignore.


----------



## Blonde

FrenchFry said:


> Let me clarify real quick: I don't feel like my husband got abusive after he read this book.
> 
> He did become a huge D bag who stopped listening to anything I said, stopped taking anything I was saying seriously and grew a huge entitlement and superiority complex. All things that are directly opposed to what I was attracted to before he read the book.
> 
> Did a lot of the same things in here, really. Trying to tell me why I shouldn't be offended over what he was saying is pretty familiar.


To me, that (and the comments when you were PPD) are abusive. But maybe duration of the behavior/attitude and the number of years of therapy and hard won personal recovery and having to read and apply daily things I have learned from books like Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men - Lundy Bancroft - Google Books has influenced my perception of that kind of behavior...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dollystanford said:


> How I choose to describe myself is up to me (and actually no, I've never described myself as a ****). However I do object to a male equating a sexually confident woman to a ****. There are other ways to describe a sexually confident woman, why does he have to use a derogatory term? Oh you said it yourself - for shock value. Which is all it is.
> 
> Am I shocked by it? No, I'm depressed by it. Because the nature of it is insidious and damaging. Obviously you don't think it is because you're not a woman. I am and I do. We're never going to agree.


How do you answer to women who freely claim these terms, whether its sl*t, freak, dirty girl, bad girl... etc? Is my gf damaging herself when she says she's my "sex slave" (surely she's not a slave!) or my "filthy lil sl*t" (she's actually pretty clean, and she's not a sl*t by the definition of the word). She even ribs her own friends, referring to them as "b*tch" or "sl*t".

These terms are all offensive out of context and by literal definition. Within the context of a wife having sex with her husband though? :\

What other words scream "sexual woman" as well? All words that describe highly sexual females will have a negative connotation to you, because historically female sexuality HAD a negative connotation! Its a catch 22!


----------



## Tall Average Guy

FrenchFry said:


> No...he did exactly what was recommended in the book and your response is exactly why I don't feel like talking about it in here--I'm going to get completely invalidated as "he did it wrong" when in actuality he did exactly what was in there.
> 
> I just hated it and it nearly destroyed our relationship because I didn't want to marry a d-bag.
> 
> I figured out what was going on only after I read the book and the forum and seriously had to construct ways to get him back and I still don't know if I will ever be 100% with him the way I was before. It is what it is.


Regardless of whether he did it right or wrong, it did hurt your relationship. MMSL works for many folks, but not everyone (in that sense, not much different than any other approach). In some relationships, it sets them back and harms them permanently. I am sorry that was the case for you.

I think it is useful, but I do try to get some information from the poster before suggesting it. I have missed in suggesting it a couple of times (I think) and have not after getting some more information from the poster.


----------



## skype

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> How do you answer to women who freely claim these terms, whether its sl*t, freak, dirty girl, bad girl... etc? Is my gf damaging herself when she says she's my "sex slave" (surely she's not a slave!) or my "filthy lil sl*t" (she's actually pretty clean, and she's not a sl*t by the definition of the word). She even ribs her own friends, referring to them as "b*tch" or "sl*t".
> 
> These terms are all offensive out of context and by literal definition. Within the context of a wife having sex with her husband though? :\
> 
> What other words scream sexual woman as well? All words that describe sexual females will have a negative connotation to you, because historically female sexuality HAD a negative connotation! Its a catch 22!


She can call herself a sl*t, just like black people can call each other the N word. But it means something entirely different when a white person uses that word. No longer so amusing. BTW, note how TAM blocks the word "sl*t."

But an advice publication for the general public should not include derogatory terms for either gender.


----------



## WyshIknew

naiveonedave said:


> D&H good points. I see any self help book as pick what works for you and discard the rest....
> 
> So for me mmslp is:
> 1) get in shape - in prog
> 2) stop being whiny - better
> 3) lead more - better longer way to go
> 
> And it is working. The W is happier with me and sex is better/more frequent = win/win I hope.
> 
> the rest is still wait and see and/or ignore.


Yep. The MAP.

But as I've said before Dave, did you really need a book to tell you that a wife would (in general) prefer her man to be fit, healthy, in shape, dress well, make the most of his career, be cheerful and happy and be a man?

Rocket science it ain't.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Tall Average Guy said:


> Regardless of whether he did it right or wrong, it did hurt your relationship. MMSL works for many folks, but not everyone (in that sense, not much different than any other approach). In some relationships, it sets them back and harms them permanently. I am sorry that was the case for you.
> 
> I think it is useful, but I do try to get some information from the poster before suggesting it. I have missed in suggesting it a couple of times (I think) and have not after getting some more information from the poster.


I've never read MMSL but I have a feeling it would really only work if it makes you become the man you used to be. If you have always been the way you are with your mate and MMSL encourages you to be someone "new". I can't imagine that it wouldn't backfire. You can't behave one way your entire relationship then expect your partner to react positively to a side of you they've never seen.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

You know, part of the problem here is there is no reasoning what someone finds offensive. You could find ice cream offensive and I'd never convince you otherwise and neither of us is wrong.

So perhaps a reframing is in order. So and so finds Athol's use of the word sl*t offensive. Do you think that Athol's is using the word to purposefully offend women, or make husbands think badly of their wives?

My position is that this kind of language is exactly what many "nice guys" need to hear to get the message that their wives ARE sexual beings, and that their being a passive doormat is the reason their wives are not sexual with THEM. It's all a part of the 2x4 to the head.


----------



## ReformedHubby

WyshIknew said:


> Yep. The MAP.
> 
> But as I've said before Dave, did you really need a book to tell you that a wife would (in general) prefer her man to be fit, healthy, in shape, dress well, make the most of his career, be cheerful and happy and be a man?
> 
> Rocket science it ain't.


LOL, and here is where you get into my problems with the MAP. I don't want to put down those that revere the book. But so much of it is common sense. Most of what I've heard others say is in MMSL I was told by my relatives before there was an internet. 

Even if my elders didn't talk to me about women, I would've figured out most of it in junior high. Its around this time you begin to see what attracts young ladies and what doesn't. Kudos to Kay for capitalizing on it, pretty much anybody I grew up with could have written it, and maybe done it better.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

ReformedHubby said:


> I've never read MMSL but I have a feeling it would really only work if it makes you become the man you used to be. If you have always been the way you are with your mate and MMSL encourages you to be someone "new". I can't imagine that it wouldn't backfire. You can't behave one way your entire relationship then expect your partner to react positively to a side of you they've never seen.


There might be something to that. It did provide some useful background on attraction and taking care of my side of the street. I also think that reading it in connection with NMMNG helped me read it in a way that worked for my marriage.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

skype said:


> She can call herself a sl*t, just like black people can call each other the N word. But it means something entirely different when a white person uses that word. No longer so amusing. BTW, note how TAM blocks the word "sl*t."
> 
> But an advice publication for the general public should not include derogatory terms for either gender.


So she can say she's my sl*t quite eagerly... but if *I* say that she's my dirty lil sl*t, I'm offensive? Yet, she's never actually offended. In fact, if either of us says these things I'd put money on some imminent nookie.

Its an advice publication based on PUA fundamentals, not therapy. Of course its going to use edgy language. Can we at least agree that Athol is not saying women have low character and will sleep with just anyone willy nilly? iow - not the literal definition of sl*t? It is afterall, a book meant to help men whose wives ARENT having sex with them.

I would really like someone to come up with an alternative, unoffensive word that describes an eagerly sexual woman though. I've been thinking on it a few minutes now and I have nothing. Even though you think I'm "mansplaining", I personally appreciate the discussion.


----------



## skype

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Can we at least agree that Athol is not saying women have low character and will sleep with just anyone willy nilly? iow - not the literal definition of sl*t? It is afterall, a book meant to help men whose wives ARENT having sex with them.


You can see the reaction of Mr. FrenchFry and Mr. Blonde. They took the book literally, and it was very painful for their wives.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Don't know. But I think there is a world of difference between a bit of sex play and what amounts to public insults.
> 
> 
> Would *you* describe her as such time and again in a book for all the world to see?
> 
> The woman you love?
> 
> Because I certainly wouldn't.


Well I also call her terms like " dear " " sweetie" and " darlin " when we're talking, or bantering and sometimes even when we're
" negging" each other.

Wouldn't say what she calls me.

According to some of the women on this thread, those terms are " condescending " towards women , and amount to " mansplining. "

Oh, I forgot.
" Negging " is also not a respectable thing for a " good man" to do to his wife whom he loves...









Go figure.


----------



## Blonde

skype said:


> You can see the reaction of Mr. FrenchFry and Mr. Blonde. They took the book literally, and it was very painful for their wives.


Correction. My H didn't read the book. He got his male superiority and entitlement mentality from how he was raised by a farmer who had little use for female children and how he interpreted the Bible that men are vastly superior and women should "keep silent" and have no say so over anything because GOD says so.

"Adam's big mistake was listening to Eve and I have no intention of making that mistake!" - Mr. B


----------



## COGypsy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So she can say she's my sl*t quite eagerly... but if *I* say that she's my dirty lil sl*t, I'm offensive? Yet, she's never actually offended. In fact, if either of us says these things I'd put money on some imminent nookie.
> 
> Its an advice publication based on PUA fundamentals, not therapy. Of course its going to use edgy language. Can we at least agree that Athol is not saying women have low character and will sleep with just anyone willy nilly? iow - not the literal definition of sl*t? It is afterall, a book meant to help men whose wives ARENT having sex with them.


I think the point is that there's a huge difference between public language and private language. Do you call your GF a sl*t in front of your kids? Her boss? What would be the reaction if you introduced her in some social situation and the response was "Oh yeah, you're the sl*t Dvls been seeing. Great to meet you, I've heard so much about you."

From my perspective, if you are using that language publicly to refer to the woman you ostensibly love and respect, then you're demonstrating either a distinct lack of honor regarding your private life or a distinct lack of regard for women.

Few of us care how adults talk to each other in the bedroom, it's when you're talking about women abstractly as a group (as in, oh, I don't know, a published book) or sharing far, far too much about your sex life in random conversation that words like sl*t, b*tch and wh*re become terms that pretty much every woman will be offended by.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> I just wanted to add that I am utterly *bafflegabbed*.....


:toast:


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> Yep. The MAP.
> 
> But as I've said before Dave, did you really need a book to tell you that a wife would (in general) prefer her man to be fit, healthy, in shape, dress well, make the most of his career, be cheerful and happy and be a man?
> 
> Rocket science it ain't.


Well Wysh,

If it ain't rocket science , why are so many married men 
[ and women] over the age of 30 obese?

What is common sense to you and I ain't so common to some men who don't have a clue how long term sexual attraction works in a marriage.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What other words scream "sexual woman" as well? All words that describe highly sexual females will have a negative connotation to you, because historically female sexuality HAD a negative connotation! Its a catch 22!


Okay... I relent on all the other offensiveness discussion, I'm simply out of energy. I know why its thought offensive.

However, as my last bit in this thread, I really want to know the answer to the above question. I felt all kinds of clever when I realized that. haha 

So what word that describes a woman behaving in a highly sexual manner isn't derogatory? Do we even have one?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

COGypsy said:


> Few of us care how adults talk to each other in the bedroom, it's when you're talking about women abstractly as a group (as in, oh, I don't know, a published book) or sharing far, far too much about your sex life in random conversation that words like sl*t, b*tch and wh*re become terms that pretty much every woman will be offended by.


And Athol's wife?


----------



## skype

How about arousing, exciting, carnal, nubile, entrancing, sensual?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> Awesome is a good one.


lol

Its a good point though, no?


----------



## COGypsy

Athol's wife is clearly a fool. In my personal opinion. But who am I to argue if that floats her boat?

If my husband had ever referred to me with that kind of language privately and especially publicly, I would have left a heck of a lot sooner than I did.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> Well Wysh,
> 
> If it ain't rocket science , why are so many married men
> [ and women] over the age of 30 obese?
> 
> What is common sense to you and I ain't so common to some men who don't have a clue how long term sexual attraction works in a marriage.


Well...you got me there. It must not be common sense. I just came back from Disney World with the fam. I was absolutely shocked at how large people are these days. Lots of adults with scooters not because they are disabled. They were just fat. 

Wifey and I were there to run the half marathon so perhaps I am judgmental. But it does seem like an awful lot of men just don't care anymore.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

skype said:


> How about arousing, exciting, carnal, nubile, entrancing, sensual?


Those apply to the perception of the third party, not the person's own behavior.... and sensual doesn't really capture what sl*tty says pretty loudly.

I need another sl*t d*mn it! 

I mean... another charged sexual word without the negative connotation.


----------



## COGypsy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Okay... I relent on all the other offensiveness discussion, I'm simply out of energy. I know why its thought offensive.
> 
> However, as my last bit in this thread, I really want to know the answer to the above question. I felt all kinds of clever when I realized that. haha
> 
> So what word that describes a woman behaving in a highly sexual manner isn't derogatory? Do we even have one?


Why do you need a word to describe that? Is there a word to describe a man behaving in a highly sexual manner--derogatory or not? Dog and player come to mind, but even those don't have the same vitrol as sl*t and b*tch.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Tall Average Guy said:


> Regardless of whether he did it right or wrong, it did hurt your relationship. MMSL works for many folks, but not everyone (in that sense, not much different than any other approach). In some relationships, it sets them back and harms them permanently. I am sorry that was the case for you.
> 
> I think it is useful, but I do try to get some information from the poster before suggesting it. I have missed in suggesting it a couple of times (I think) and have not after getting some more information from the poster.


And this is one of the reasons why I have NEVER suggested it to anyone.
The other is that I have never fully read the book , because on a personal level, I can't really identify with some of his methods.

However , I clearly recognize that the amount of people who have benefitted from it far outweigh those who have not. That seems like a normal ratio to me for any self help book on any topic out there.
I frequent body building forums and I am a long time member on two. When nutritional companies release new products,we try them and then rate their effectiveness.
The ratio is usually around 70 : 30 if its good and just reverse it , if it's bad.
We do the same thing on books with training templates / programmes.

Some bodybuilders swear by Louie Simmons book with his 
"_West Side Barbell_ " template.
I prefer a mix of German Volume training and a few others.
But I would never condemn Louie Simmons West Side because it has produced tremendous results with some of the guys I know.

IMO, it is quite normal to disagree with an author or product.




It is quite another thing to advocate confiscating and burning his books.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

COGypsy said:


> Why do you need a word to describe that? Is there a word to describe a man behaving in a highly sexual manner--derogatory or not? Dog and player come to mind, but even those don't have the same vitrol as sl*t and b*tch.


Player, Don Juan, Casanova, beast, dog, alpha, lover man, womanizer, pimp, himbo, lady's man, man ho, mansl*t, manwh*re, STUD.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I can't speak for the term **** but my wife certainly loves it when I call her a skinny b!tch.


----------



## Middle of Everything

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So she can say she's my sl*t quite eagerly... but if *I* say that she's my dirty lil sl*t, I'm offensive? Yet, she's never actually offended. In fact, if either of us says these things I'd put money on some imminent nookie.
> 
> Its an advice publication based on PUA fundamentals, not therapy. Of course its going to use edgy language. Can we at least agree that Athol is not saying women have low character and will sleep with just anyone willy nilly? iow - not the literal definition of sl*t? It is afterall, a book meant to help men whose wives ARENT having sex with them.
> 
> I would really like someone to come up with an alternative, unoffensive word that describes an eagerly sexual woman though. I've been thinking on it a few minutes now and I have nothing. Even though you think I'm "mansplaining", I personally appreciate the discussion.


Wife? :rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> I can't speak for the term **** but my wife certainly loves it when I call her a skinny b!tch.



There's a name I call my wife, I won't say it here.
But timing is everything with her.

If I call her that name at the wrong time she gets really mad,and starts throwing stuff at me. If I call her that name at the right time , a little banter occurs , back and forth escalating tensions, until some great sex follows .

That word is a two edged sword.

But when skillfully used , it has a wonderful effect!


----------



## SolidSnake

Interesting point of views here. 

I agree with Blonde that there are better books than MMSLP, like _Boundaries in Marriage_ which address the core issues that likely need to be addressed in a marriage. The "Elephant in the Room," as Athol calls it. 

Earlier DvlsAdvc8 referenced "lazy speech," inherent in many sweeping generalizations like "all women don't know what they want sexually." I can buy that it is lazy speech, but these types of sweeping generalizations need to be clarified in the context of published works for sale.

I think that many of the objections some of us are making to MMSLP would be rendered moot of Athol would add an introduction or preface to MMSLP that clarify the context of any generalizations and the crass language he uses. For example: 

*This book is for an audience that feels victimized by women. The man going sexless in spite of being everything his wife seemingly wants (at least as he understands it) is going to be very confused and even a bit angry about it. I use crass language and generalizations in the specific context of the needs of the intended audience. No one should assume that these terms of generalizations apply to all women or all men. *


----------



## Sandfly

Conrad said:


> North American and western phenomenon.
> 
> In the rest of the world, boys largely work with their fathers during and after puberty.
> 
> In North America, millions of male children were raised primarily by women with their father "at work"
> 
> These boys learned that putting a smile on a woman's face was how to interact with women (in other words, pleasing her as you would your mother).
> 
> If that is your end goal, you are headed for big big trouble.


Perfect. This sums up my experience and observation of living in five different countries and seeing the difference in communities which have happy kids and parents, and ones that don't.

Lots of posters here have never seen how it _could be_. They've only experienced the me-me-me Anglo-american cultural disaster. 

And what some people are really scared of... is that their (so-far unexercised) gender advantages will disappear, affecting them personally.


----------



## Caribbean Man

" Cultural Relativity " ^^^.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> How do you answer to women who freely claim these terms, whether its sl*t, freak, dirty girl, bad girl... etc? Is my gf damaging herself when she says she's my "sex slave" (surely she's not a slave!) or my "filthy lil sl*t" (she's actually pretty clean, and she's not a sl*t by the definition of the word). She even ribs her own friends, referring to them as "b*tch" or "sl*t".
> 
> These terms are all offensive out of context and by literal definition. Within the context of a wife having sex with her husband though? :\
> 
> What other words scream "sexual woman" as well? All words that describe highly sexual females will have a negative connotation to you, because historically female sexuality HAD a negative connotation! Its a catch 22!


Same reason why movies use swear words, there is humor or other kind of attachment we put on certain kinds of language.


----------



## jld

Sandfly said:


> They've only experienced the me-me-me Anglo-american cultural disaster.


But how do you explain to people what they do not know, what probably what their grandparents or great-grandparents knew?

People are so prideful, Sandfly. They _know it all._. They do not feel the need to listen, to say please help me understand. They already _have all the answers._


----------



## Sandfly

jld said:


> But how do you explain to people what they do not know, what probably what their grandparents or great-grandparents knew?


I had to see it to believe it. You have also seen a different world, or more usefully, lived in it!

Do you have any ideas? Most anglo-americans would never learn a second language, so their world view is limited to what Murdoch tells them anyway. And he says things are always getting better.


----------



## jld

Sandfly said:


> I had to see it to believe it. You have also seen a different world, or more usefully, lived in it!
> 
> Do you have any ideas? Most anglo-americans would never learn a second language, so their world view is limited to what Murdoch tells them anyway. And he says things are always getting better.


Yes, I do. And you know more than I do. And I am going to share some ideas when I get back from picking up my son at ballet school.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Middle of Everything said:


> Wife? :rofl:


:rofl::iagree:


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Player, Don Juan, Casanova, beast, dog, alpha, lover man, womanizer, pimp, himbo, lady's man, man ho, mansl*t, manwh*re, STUD.


nymph, seductress, temptress, vamp, femme fatale, minx, vixen, wildcat, Venus

and of course the endless list of derogatory terms that I'll refrain from repeating


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> Regarding the book its crudely written but I get why he uses that tone. This is honestly how men talk. My wife would shudder if she heard half the things that came out my mouth when I'm with my pops let alone my friends. Even the most sophisticated/academic/religious men loosen up when the ladies aren't around. Its part of who we are. We are anything but prim and proper when its just the fellas.


It truly depresses me how cavalier some men can be about demeaning women. That it just comes so naturally, without a question or concern for how hurtful it is.

And when called on it, the response is indifferent: "Oh that's just locker room talk", "yeah men are crude", "oh you women always want to be PC", and the ever famous, "you just don't understand."

I understand enough to know that if you can share these thoughts so freely, then they do in fact reflect what you think about women. 

And that it's defended so vociferously here makes me even sadder.

I couldn't be with someone who could spew sh!t that would make me shudder like that. Even if he hides from me


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*

I apologize for the oversight. 

I'm torn.

I have a friend who is foul mouthed. He swears incessantly. His efforts to self moderate when in front of wives, girlfriends, mothers or kids looks like no effort at all.
Without question, people find him offensive. But I also know this man would bend over backwards and give you the shirt off his back to help a friend of either gender. 

And when most people get beyond the f bombs, they see that too. My mom stands out in my mind. I remember she responded to him once using his vernacular. He didnt bat an eye. I blushed, then busted out laughing.

I don't feel compelled to apologize for his behavior. I used to. My inner Nice Guy could clearly see when others would react to him. And it made me uncomfortable. I used to try coaching him on making different word choices. It was met with tolerant ambivalence. 

Then I changed up my thinking. My job is to be responsible for myself. His job is to be responsible for himself, and hes obviously comfortable with his conduct. 

I'm ok with him. I'm ok with the fact that others are not.


I am not blase at all about the personal changes I've made.

When I have stopped to think about it, I really don't see or have a need to defend the better man stuff.

And Athol Kay is no more responsible for who I am now, than is Mystery, Dale Carnegie, or Wayne Dyer.

You feel the content is hateful and misogynistic. I can accept that, and respect your choice to call it out.

I don't want to get in the way of that, or to appear that I want to silence you or anyone with an opposing viewpoint. 

I do not accept that my having consumed the content makes me hateful and misogynistic any more than having read Mystery Method makes me a fuzzy hat wearing pickup artist, that reading Ann Coulter makes me a hardline right wing conservative, or listening to NPR makes me a liberal, lame stream sycophant. 

I don't always agree with you. But you and many of the other women that contribute here do make me stop and think. Often. Thanks for that.









always_alone said:


> It was Caribbean Man who made that connection, not me. I was merely responding to his assertion that I would support women by spreading hatred of men.
> 
> Which I wouldn't.
> 
> And, yes, I know there are lots of men spewing all kinds of horrendous about women, and this is why I keep speaking up about it.
> 
> I get that you are smart enough to take it on, but I can't quite figure why you are so adamant in defending it. It's not, IMHO, something to be blase about.


----------



## jld

Sandfly said:


> And what some people are really scared of... is that their (so-far unexercised) gender advantages will disappear, affecting them personally.


Could you explain this, please?


----------



## jld

So, if we want to avoid the "me, me, me Anglo-American cultural disaster," as it was called, one thing we can do is not send our kids to school.

Schools are cultural indoctrination centers. And if you do not like the materialistic, self-oriented nature of American society, you can opt out of schools.

Kids can grow at their own rate and learn according to their own interests outside of school. Six year olds do not need a math book. Six, eight, and ten year olds need to play. When they learn to read, they can read widely and freely with just a library card. They can explore their own interests through projects.

And they grow up under the influence of their parents. Their parents' values guide them, not those of their peers. They learn to help their families, even when they do not want to, simply because the family has things that must be done, and everyone needs to pitch in to get those things done.

Parents can listen to and learn from their kids. Everyone's strengths can be identified and developed and put to use for the good of themselves and the family. Problems can be worked through and solved. Because everyone is working together for the best of the family, there is more leisure time for everyone. And no one needs to be lonely.

And when you grow up this way, you have self-confidence. You have not been used, and so your first thought is not to use other people, esp. people of the opposite sex. And because you have been listened to, you can listen to others, and not feel threatened by ideas that are new and different, but sound useful. 

And you look for results. You do not get caught up in prejudice; you just look at where you are, where you want to be, and what would be an effective way of getting yourself there that leaves your integrity, and everyone else's, intact.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Sandfly said:


> Ha ha!
> 
> It's not completely true what I posted, I for one would prefer daughters to sons. My point was simply that there are other ways we could divide the family, if people are too self-involved, ambitious in their careers and vindictive toward the opposite sex to make the two-parent unit work.


lol the only reason my husband was ranting was because I would get sole custody of our daughter (I was speechless it would be so easy  ).



> My real opinion is that extended families are the best thing for a child, lots of aunties, uncles and cousins living nearby, because the nuclear family is a failure, second only to single-mother households.


:iagree:
Unfortunately not always a viable option.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> It truly depresses me how cavalier some men can be about demeaning women. That it just comes so naturally, without a question or concern for how hurtful it is.
> 
> And when called on it, the response is indifferent: "Oh that's just locker room talk", "yeah men are crude", "oh you women always want to be PC", and the ever famous, "you just don't understand."
> 
> I understand enough to know that if you can share these thoughts so freely, then they do in fact reflect what you think about women.
> 
> And that it's defended so vociferously here makes me even sadder.
> 
> I couldn't be with someone who could spew sh!t that would make me shudder like that. Even if he hides from me


Well , to be honest AA, I live on a tiny dot in the Caribbean sea that has a population of just about 1.5 million people of every imaginable race , religion and culture , living side by side , peacefully.
A highly industrialized country, the wealthiest in the region and the strongest economy. 
Our GDP per capita ranks somewhere along the lines of Baharain, Singapore, and most countries in the Middle East.

So people always ask how is this possible?
How is it possible that so many people of different , conflicting religions , cultures and political ideologies can exist so peacefully without conflict?

The answer is , > drumroll please < Tolerance!

People don't have to fight over differences. We can all exist happily even though we're all _different,_and hold different views.

It is pretty normal here for Muslims to marry Christians, Hindus marry Muslims , Blacks marry Whites , Asians marrying non Asians and for women to be in leadership positions over men , because women outnumber men 2 :1.

While I get that you and a few others take personal offence to Athol's work ,and you are well within your right to do so, I can't wrap my head around the fact that you feel personally offended because _other people ,_on an anonymous internet forum , who you don't even know and would never even meet or interact with, have a different opinion.
If you feel a sense of outrage towards Athol because of his publication , fine. I respect that and take no offence because of it. That is your right.
But why do you *need* to be upset that other people read his book and have a different opinion?

The author of the quote in my signature below , Friederich Nietzsche , was a German philosopher who also happened to be a supremacist. He believed in Eugenics and racial purity.
So why would I have a quote from_ him_ in my siggy?

Doesn't mean that I idolize him, I have read some of his work and there are parts that I like.
All I do is simply take what I can appreciate and discard the rest.
I tend not to see much value in wasting time and energy on hate.
But that's just me.


----------



## naiveonedave

Wysh - it is not common sense to most people, especially when the day to day grind makes you listless and your whole life you have been trained to be a totally beta male when dealing with women.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> Wysh - it is not common sense to most people, especially when the day to day grind makes you listless and your whole life you have been trained to be a totally beta male when dealing with women.


Yep. You are not living in a healthy society. 

Sorry if I missed it, but what are you doing to untrain yourself?


----------



## TiggyBlue

My opinion of Athol's book is people are going to take out of it what they want to.
Really putting down others to try to build others confidence is done all the time and if all someone take's from the book is that they are going to be hot commodity (assuming they have money) while women will become hags (and all women are essentially prostitutes), I think they were looking for things to 'confirm' that for them anyway.
If others take out what might work for them and apply it to there lives to help their marriage then that's what they where looking for.
No matter what book someone writes how people interpret it will be different.
I can see why some will be offended though (especially if it impacted your marriage in a negative way).


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD - posted above
1) get in shape
2) work on not being whiny
3) lead more

that is all. and I see the results daily, my primary goal was the title, se was most important. The in shape may be common sense, the whiny and leadership was identified clearly to me in mmslp. I needed the 2x4 upside the head to understand where I was not playing my part. W is now being much more proactive in playing her part. This plays out in more than just sex, but I believe it is because I am improving myself, she is upping herself. This is a huge win/win for us and probably nearly desparately needed.

I get the sl*t thing being offensive, but when you are not getting sex and someone compares your W to being a highly sexual woman, it adds a lot to the message. And it blames the men for essentially repressing their W sexuality. that is a huge 2x4.


----------



## jld

I'm glad it is working out for you, naiveonedave.

I think for those of us who have not experienced sexless marriage, some of this is just kind of theory, you know? We don't have practical experience. 

I can only imagine how trapped people in sexless marriages feel. 

Then again, when dh does not pay attention to me, I feel pretty trapped, too.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

naiveonedave said:


> D&H good points. I see any self help book as pick what works for you and discard the rest....
> 
> So for me mmslp is:
> 1) get in shape - in prog
> 2) stop being whiny - better
> 3) lead more - better longer way to go
> 
> And it is working. The W is happier with me and sex is better/more frequent = win/win I hope.
> 
> the rest is still wait and see and/or ignore.


I completely agree with you and also what works in MMSLP for you. That is 100% about making you a better man, which are the positives of the book. It's the negatives that turn me off from it.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

COGypsy said:


> Athol's wife is clearly a fool. In my personal opinion. But who am I to argue if that floats her boat?
> 
> If my husband had ever referred to me with that kind of language privately and especially publicly, I would have left a heck of a lot sooner than I did.


That's offensive to Athol's wife.

LOL sorry had to do it.

Before you take me wrong, go back a few pages and you'll see I stated the exact same thing you did about public versus private discussions and what is accepted and offensive LOL.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Those apply to the perception of the third party, not the person's own behavior.... and sensual doesn't really capture what sl*tty says pretty loudly.
> 
> I need another sl*t d*mn it!
> 
> I mean... another charged sexual word without the negative connotation.


I've always been a fan of minx. But you could go with scarlet or vamp as well


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dad&Hubby said:


> I've always been a fan of minx. But you could go with scarlet or vamp as well


Minx... I like that one.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> nymph, seductress, temptress, vamp, femme fatale, minx, vixen, wildcat, Venus
> 
> and of course the endless list of derogatory terms that I'll refrain from repeating


Nymph, temptress and femme fatale aren't derogatory? I like the others though.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I would be flattered to get called a foxy minx for some reason


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Note to self....remember "foxy minx" for future usage.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nymph, temptress and femme fatale aren't derogatory? I like the others though.


Nymph not derogatory.... :scratchhead:


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I also like 'saucy little minx' too.But that comes from an old crush on Hugh Grant in Love Actually...


----------



## WyshIknew

naiveonedave said:


> Wysh - it is not common sense to most people, especially when the day to day grind makes you listless and your whole life you have been trained to be a totally beta male when dealing with women.


Perhaps you are right NoD, I suppose it is easy to 'judge' and criticise.

I was never trained to be beta, alpha or anything.

Really glad that you are shaping up and reaping the fruits of a great marriage.

Is there not a feeling for you now of "duh" and hand smacking your forehead when you realise that was all there was to it?


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I also call her terms like " dear " " sweetie" and " darlin " when we're talking, or bantering and sometimes even when we're
> " negging" each other.
> 
> Wouldn't say what she calls me.
> 
> According to some of the women on this thread, those terms are " condescending " towards women , and amount to " mansplining. "
> 
> Oh, I forgot.
> " Negging " is also not a respectable thing for a " good man" to do to his wife whom he loves...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go figure.



But you still didn't answer my question.

Would you refer to your wife repeatedly and publically as a slvt?

I'm not talking about height of passion talk, negging, teasing etc. in private, I'm talking about doing so openly.


----------



## NobodySpecial

FrenchFry said:


> Let me clarify real quick: I don't feel like my husband got abusive after he read this book.
> 
> He did become a huge D bag who stopped listening to anything I said, stopped taking anything I was saying seriously and grew a huge entitlement and superiority complex. All things that are directly opposed to what I was attracted to before he read the book.
> 
> Did a lot of the same things in here, really. Trying to tell me why I shouldn't be offended over what he was saying is pretty familiar.


I don't know you and your ex. I don't know what he did or did not do. But it DOES seem that he missed a rather big point. The end goal. A happy marriage.


----------



## naiveonedave

Wysh, no I don't have the duh feeling. I was trained wrong and there is no innate knowledge on this stuff. It is a work in progress.

Also, what term would be used in public to describe a wife who wants sex a lot? There really isn't one, imo.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

naiveonedave said:


> Also, what term would be used in public to describe a wife who wants sex a lot? There really isn't one, imo.


delightfully insatiable.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

You know, thinking on this some more, someone can be offended by virtually anything. I have religious friends who are highly offended when I say "Jesus Christ, that's ridiculous." or "Oh God, don't get me started." I don't find them offensive, nor do most people I know, but since these people do - I should not use these expressions when talking to my non-religious friends? Knowing these religious friends are offended by them, I tend to not use them in their private company - out of respect for them. Yet, I still use them. Is this different from men's braggish language to describe a very sexual woman? When I say "Jesus Christ" as such in like company, am I purposefully belittling religious people? Naturally, I don't think so.

I think intent and meaning matter just as much as time and place. The non-derogatory words lack the visceral appeal of sl*t or sl*tty. TBH, and maybe I'm unusual (or not?), but I've never given it the moral value that others appear to. As far as I'm concerned, sl*t is just a sharp word describing highly sexual women. The old moral value ascribed to it, isn't really how its used, at least as I've heard it. When I've heard it, its always been a positive. I don't think I've heard someone deriding a woman as a sl*t in real life. If they were, *I* would be somewhat offended and think less of the person saying it, just as I would if they had the same intent with a more PC word. If you are deriding someone or you willfully use the word in the presence of someone you know it offends, then to my thinking you're purposefully insulting them. That's where my personal line is. I don't see Athol as doing either.

I understand many women aren't going to see it that way. Should we stop using certain words because uninvolved parties are offended by their dictionary meaning, even though that isn't the meaning being applied and its not meant as an insult? So we shouldn't only worry about offending the people we're with, we should concern ourselves with the people who aren't even there because they are offended by meanings we're not even using?

This is where the PC bandwagon loses me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> Would you refer to your wife repeatedly and publically as a slvt?


I have no problem with it in company that understands my usage, which would be a humorous way to say she's really into me. ie - people I could call "b*stards" or "b*tches" and they know I'm not being literal. Its kinda like when I crack a joke at someone's expense and they reply with nothing but "@sshole". There's no derogatory intent there. There's a lot of camaraderie in it.

Literally speaking, all of this *should* be offensive no?


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



TiggyBlue said:


> My opinion of Athol's book is people are going to take out of it what they want to.
> Really putting down others to try to build others confidence is done all the time and if all someone take's from the book is that they are going to be hot commodity (assuming they have money) while women will become hags (and all women are essentially prostitutes), I think they were looking for things to 'confirm' that for them anyway.
> If others take out what might work for them and apply it to there lives to help their marriage then that's what they where looking for.
> No matter what book someone writes how people interpret it will be different.
> I can see why some will be offended though (especially if it impacted your marriage in a negative way).


And I think sometimes in order to get enough out of something, the governor has to be removed for us to really understand the real meaning behind it. Maybe in order for a nice guy to take women off of pedestals or realize his own worth means he has to be floored with the idea that both women, and himself, are human with human needs.


----------



## Blonde

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Y The old moral value ascribed to it, isn't really how its used, at least as I've heard it.


You're wrong. As I mentioned above, my 16yod says that there are HS girls referred to as "****s" who never lack a BF, but it is not an honorable title. (she and I feel sorry for them. One of her classmates had an abortion at age 13)

Now I don't know how you are IRL? I see that your squeeze is a GF not a wife. Don't know how old you are or if you have children.

My H can be extremely insensitive and non-empathetic with his words. He has lost multiple jobs over it (professor jobs, college students don't tolerate it!!!) He has deeply wounded his children with cutting comments (teen girls @ their weight, 10 yos about being a "wuz" because he is not athletic and coordinated like his older brothers and H, etc.). He has stuck his foot in his mouth in social contexts offending people about their race, religion, etc and getting defensive when called on it about how they should have "tougher skin".

When a man shoots his mouth off, hurts someone, and then accuses the target of being at fault for being "too sensitive", IMO it's abusive behavior and that MAN has a problem. Blaming the victim doesn't fly.


----------



## WyshIknew

naiveonedave said:


> Wysh, no I don't have the duh feeling. I was trained wrong and there is no innate knowledge on this stuff. It is a work in progress.
> 
> Also, what term would be used in public to describe a wife who wants sex a lot? There really isn't one, imo.


Nod, I get what you guys are saying and I hope that I get what MMSLP means by the word slvt.

I hope it is meant to mean a woman who openly and blatantly craves filthy, dirty, bang your brains out sex with her SO.

I do get that none of the negative connotations are meant by the use of the word but TAM lady after TAM lady has posted that they are uncomfortable at the least with it's use. The only one that I recall supporting the usage was NobodySpecial and I _think_ that she really meant usage within a private setting. (Apologies if wrong Nobody, just my take).

I just think sometimes as a guy you have to do the man thing and instead of wagging your finger, saying "No no no that's not what I meant so therefore you are silly to think otherwise" it is perhaps time to say "Sorry, I never realised that you found the use of that term so disgusting, I never meant it in that manner, I'll stop using it, at least in your presence.


----------



## WyshIknew

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have no problem with it in company that understands my usage, which would be a humorous way to say she's really into me. ie - people I could call "b*stards" or "b*tches" and they know I'm not being literal. Its kinda like when I crack a joke at someone's expense and they reply with nothing but "@sshole". There's no derogatory intent there. There's a lot of camaraderie in it.
> 
> Literally speaking, all of this *should* be offensive no?


Still not publicly Dvls.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde said:


> You're wrong.


Given I was speaking to my experience, its impossible to be wrong. My experience is what it is. That's not how people I've known have used the term. I can't even say anyone I knew in HS used it in the derogatory sense... but I wasn't very social back then.

What you are saying is that you've experienced its use in the derogatory sense.



Blonde said:


> When a man shoots his mouth off, hurts someone, and then accuses the target of being at fault for being "too sensitive", IMO it's abusive behavior and that MAN has a problem. Blaming the victim doesn't fly.


I agree, but I'm not blaming anyone's sensitivity for anything. I get it. But the implication of your position is that we have an imperative to not say that which we and our company are comfortable with because you... or someone, somewhere... is sensitive to it. I go as far as to say that one ought not spuriously insult others, even behind their backs, but then - in my experience these particular words have not been used with derogatory intent. They are bragging on having a sexy insatiable (good word scarlet) woman.


----------



## skype

WyshIknew said:


> Still not publicly Dvls.


This is the heart of the issue. Should a book use this kind of language? Isn't there a way to get through to men that they should stand up for themselves without demeaning women?

I wonder if Athol used this kind of language because he knew that it would be controversial and thus sell more books.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> Still not publicly Dvls.


No, I would not use the word with a broader public audience, because they would apply the dictionary meaning and think I'm insulting someone.

That's a recognition that communication is a two-way street.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

skype said:


> This is the heart of the issue. Should a book use this kind of language? Isn't there a way to get through to men that they should stand up for themselves without demeaning women?
> 
> I wonder if Athol used this kind of language because he knew that it would be controversial and thus sell more books.


Not really. This sort of language is par for the course for the pickup crowd - even the ones who aren't dismissive of women. They use such language because the intent is to break free from the constraints of being so careful to avoid offending.

There is a balance these books tend not to go into imo, but the men who would benefit from it are likely the very sweet, careful to avoid offending, eager to please, passive types - the "nice guys". Men who need to be hit by a 2x4 to recognize how unattractive their attempts to be perfect are. Excessively beta types who worry about how their every action will be perceived by others.

Its their way of expressing, "stop caring so much about what other people think, do as you damn well please." The notion being that boldness is attractive. And it is to a degree, but there is a balance. This is the old concept that the @sshole seems to get all the women. Why? He has an attitude of plenty and does what he wants. Confidence. The line can be fuzzy. My personal take is balance.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> It truly depresses me how cavalier some men can be about demeaning women. That it just comes so naturally, without a question or concern for how hurtful it is.
> 
> And when called on it, the response is indifferent: "Oh that's just locker room talk", "yeah men are crude", "oh you women always want to be PC", and the ever famous, "you just don't understand."
> 
> I understand enough to know that if you can share these thoughts so freely, then they do in fact reflect what you think about women.
> 
> And that it's defended so vociferously here makes me even sadder.
> 
> I couldn't be with someone who could spew sh!t that would make me shudder like that. Even if he hides from me


I can respect your frame of thought on this. But its more complicated than that. I don't demean my wife and daughter. I certainly don't demean my female employees, or any other women I encounter. 

Admittedly I have been known to make non PC comments regarding gender, race, etc., etc. from time to time when amongst friends. It does not however mean that I have any less respect for anyone. I don't think I'm the only person like this but I could be wrong. I think the level of sophistication and political correctness you expect men to have is maybe a little bit unrealistic. Just because someone enjoys an occasional dirty joke it doesn't mean that person is some sort of misogynist.


----------



## WyshIknew

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not really. This sort of language is par for the course for the pickup crowd - even the ones who aren't dismissive of women. They use such language because the intent is to break free from the constraints of being so careful to avoid offending.
> 
> There is a balance these books tend not to go into imo, but the men who would benefit from it are likely the very sweet, careful to avoid offending, eager to please, passive types - the "nice guys". Men who need to be hit by a 2x4 to recognize how unattractive their attempts to be perfect are. Excessively beta types who worry about how their every action will be perceived by others.
> Its their way of expressing, "stop caring so much about what other people think, do as you damn well please." The notion being that boldness is attractive. And it is to a degree, but there is a balance. This is the old concept that the @sshole seems to get all the women. Why? He has an attitude of plenty and does what he wants. Confidence. The line can be fuzzy. My personal take is balance.


Ooops.

Wysh sneaks out the back door and hopes no one notices him.


It's just that I can't imagine referring to my wife (apart *perhaps* when giving her a damn good seeing to) as a slvt.

It's just beyond my comprehension.

The most I have let on in public is that she calls me M'lord and I call her my wench, but even that is limited to private phone texts.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> I just think sometimes as a guy you have to do the man thing and instead of wagging your finger, saying "No no no that's not what I meant so therefore you are silly to think otherwise" it is perhaps time to say "Sorry, I never realised that you found the use of that term so disgusting, I never meant it in that manner, I'll stop using it, at least in your presence.


Sure, but if you're using it, you likely have a good feel for who is receiving it. This is where I find balance. The pickup crowd's dismissal of others complaints by saying "Yeah, I know, I'm just an @sshole babe" is unsatisfying. I'm going to say what I want to say, but I'm not going to willfully and purposefully disrespect someone. Again, there's a balance and too far on either side can be problematic. A slap in the face, or a long, slowly dying relationship that lacks any spark of conflict or tension.

This discussion is specifically over how the word is used by Athol in a book for passive men. It even begins with a preamble that acknowledges that women won't like it, may be offended and probably shouldn't read it. Surely you don't think apologies are called for?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> Ooops.
> 
> Wysh sneaks out the back door and hopes no one notices him.
> 
> 
> It's just that I can't imagine referring to my wife (apart *perhaps* when giving her a damn good seeing to) as a slvt.
> 
> It's just beyond my comprehension.
> 
> The most I have let on in public is that she calls me M'lord and I call her my wench, but even that is limited to private phone texts.


You're a sensitive guy Wysh, but I have doubts you fit the type. I've seen no reason to think you're a pushover or doormat.


----------



## Racer

Words are funny and can convey a ton of messages. Honestly, I’ve called my wife some really horrible names in public. The c-word is a favorite I reserve for those truly special moments. The difference is the emotional projection behind the name. There is a massive difference between a name thrown out in anger, thrown out casually, and one thrown out as a term of endearment. People can tell the difference and the subtle sub-tones and meanings. 

Written word does not convey all that message. For example, with a mischievous smile on my face, a twinkle in my eye, and my arm around my wife, I can say something like “she’s a mean c*nt” in front of friends if she’s ripping on me. It is a warning shot, a term of endearment, and a way to let others know I’m not just going to tolerate it. One of those special ‘all in one’ terms.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This discussion is specifically over how the word is used by Athol in a book for passive men. It even begins with a preamble that acknowledges that women won't like it, may be offended and probably shouldn't read it. Surely you don't think apologies are called for?


This is why I've never read it.I would likely find it just as offensive as the surrendered wife book and throw it across the room.
*sigh* Someday I'll grow up and be able to view these things without bringing my emotions into it.


----------



## skype

I'm glad that you used the word "balanced," Dvls. I think that is what is missing from my perception of MMSL. It is completely absent from the passages FW quoted.

We each bring our own baggage to books and movies, and see them through our own filters. Since I do not like game-playing in relationships, I have trouble relating to people who do. I have a history of dealing with an over-bearing father, so this sort of language triggers a negative response in me.


----------



## ReformedHubby

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Anyone seen the "hover hands" pics? Loosely in the same vein as this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are guys who I think one day would really benefit from books like MMSL. They've been so deeply indoctrinated to avoid anything a woman may be offended by that they can't even put their hands on a woman when taking a picture with them. Careful and unassertive.
> 
> In reality, there is a balance - you don't want to come out the other end seriously thinking women are sl*ts or objects, but in order to get a guy out of this funk of being so extremely careful to avoid offending women, he probably needs to be shocked. Otherwise his tendency is going to be to continue thinking he's plenty assertive - rarely does one being a p*ss realize it. The guy pictured probably thinks he's plenty assertive. Thus, 2x4 => head.
> 
> I read the book because I thought it would be interesting to see game in a marriage context - given my own situation and familiarity with a number of the old school PUA books. Maybe I'd lost my edge. Maybe I had become too domestic. Its the only such book I've seen. It turned out almost none of what was said applied to my situation, but I could easily see that it could be very relevant to some.


Kind of off topic but I mentioned this hoverhands thing to my wife last night and showed her the pic. Her reaction was surprising. She claimed I did the exact same thing about five years ago. I chuckled and insisted I would never do something so lame. That was the wrong answer. She went and pulled out the picture and there it was. I remembered it clearly then.

I was a groomsman in a wedding and we were doing a groomsman/bridesmaid dance. My partner was very tipsy and touchy feely. My wife was watching so I was uncomfortable and barely touching my partner, which was a lot different than the other couples. I had no idea that she had even noticed this. She said she found this quite funny but never told me about it until last night. So yep, I chickened out and shamed myself. I belong on hoverhands.

She also said that the guy was probably in the process of putting his arms around the young ladies but the picture was snapped too soon. I think this is indeed plausible.


----------



## Blonde

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> . But the implication of your position is that we have an imperative to not say that which we and our company are comfortable with because you... or someone, somewhere... is sensitive to it.


Yes, a kind and empathetic person would accept correction when he/she has trodden on someone else's feelings with his/her words and would try to be more sensitive going forward.

Empathy means being able to put oneself in the shoes of another. 

Lack of empathy is saying, "that is not MY experience and I don't feel that way about that word so YOU shouldn't feel that way. you need a tougher skin. you are too sensitive, PC run amok, etc"

JFTR not picking on you Dvl. You sound quite sensitive IRL and forums are pretty much the wild west and one does need a tough skin to participate.


----------



## Blonde

Although I would not want my H to read MMSL or NMMNG because of alpha a$$H history, I am not in the camp of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 

My 27yos reads over at MMSL and I am sympathetic. He is a very empathetic and sensitive H. I was particularly impressed with how he learned to track his W's cycles and adjust his approach using MMSL advice. It is the definition of the biblical counsel to "live with your W in an understanding manner"


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



ReformedHubby said:


> Kind of off topic but I mentioned this hoverhands thing to my wife last night and showed her the pic. Her reaction was surprising. She claimed I did the exact same thing about five years ago. I chuckled and insisted I would never do something so lame. That was the wrong answer. She went and pulled out the picture and there it was. I remembered it clearly then.
> 
> I was a groomsman in a wedding and we were doing a groomsman/bridesmaid dance. My partner was very tipsy and touchy feely. My wife was watching so I was uncomfortable and barely touching my partner, which was a lot different than the other couples. I had no idea that she had even noticed this. She said she found this quite funny but never told me about it until last night. So yep, I chickened out and shamed myself. I belong on hoverhands.
> 
> She also said that the guy was probably in the process of putting his arms around the young ladies but the picture was snapped too soon. I think this is indeed plausible.


I have never hover-handed, because I am usually too aware of situations when there is an attractive woman and a camera present, and I take evasive action to avoid even being in the frame long before the shutter is even pressed. For those rare moments when I am in the pic I usually am found at the far end of the frame and 1.5 shoulder widths away, and for when there is actual arm around body poses I wouldn't dare get caught hover-handing (that would be worse than the blush on my face that actually happens) instead you have to decide quickly where to place the hand and go for it and hope to get it right the first time because moving it after would only draw attention to it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

WyshIknew said:


> But you still didn't answer my question.
> 
> Would you refer to your wife repeatedly and publically as a slvt?
> 
> I'm not talking about height of passion talk, negging, teasing etc. in private, I'm talking about doing so openly.


No.

I have never called my wife or any woman a slvt in public because I understand when used in _that_ context , exactly what it meant.
However , based on what was posted here , I don't think Athol meant it in the way you're implying _either._

If I'm talking to my lady friends ,I have very few male friends, and use the word "slvttish" , surprisingly enough _they _understand exactly what I mean...

I've also seen the word used countless times in erotic literature , even those written by women, and the readers seem to understand. I'm pretty sure that 50 shades has much worse descriptive terms than MMSL, and women seem to be enamored by it.

If you think Athol is bad,then maybe you can expand your horizons a bit by visiting some BDSM literature / websites that cater for married couples venturing into the lifestyle ?
Across there, they teach you exactly how to call your wife or husband in sub / domme roles, and it ain't no " _minx_" "_awesome_" or anything " _politically correct_."

Two or more times on this thread you have implied that men who read MMSL and realized they were overweight, are fools.
Were you deliberately implying that married men on TAM who sometimes have to work two jobs , suffer high stress levels which increase cortisol in the blood stream , which causes the body to store fat are fools ?
Or were you implying that men in general should take their health more seriously , whether they've read MMSL or not?

See what I just did there^^^?
[ That's called " implying improper motives."]

_I could also say that, any man who thinks that Athol is telling him in MMSL, to call his wife a slvt in public, and expect a good result is a stoopid >insert F - word right here< fool._

Right there^^^, I just did it again.

See?
Context.


BTW, the term my wife use to refer to me is local french term which means " nasty boy."
And I'm sure she uses it when exchanging stories with her girlfriends.
But I understand _exactly_ what she means.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> Although I would not want my H to read MMSL or NMMNG because of alpha a$$H history, I am not in the camp of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> 
> My 27yos reads over at MMSL and I am sympathetic. He is a very empathetic and sensitive H. I was particularly impressed with how he learned to track his W's cycles and adjust his approach using MMSL advice. It is the definition of the biblical counsel to "live with your W in an understanding manner"


I completely agree with that Biblical counsel.

The information in MMSL helps you crack the code to understand.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Although I would not want my H to read MMSL or NMMNG because of alpha a$$H history, I am not in the camp of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> 
> My 27yos reads over at MMSL and I am sympathetic. He is a very empathetic and sensitive H. *I was particularly impressed with how he learned to track his W's cycles and adjust his approach using MMSL advice. * It is the definition of the biblical counsel to "live with your W in an understanding manner"


Interesting!

I learned to track women's cycles long before I was married.
In our culture, it is something older men teach younger men , in order for them to know how and when to approach their wives for sex , and how to either get her to conceive or not conceive.

It is also taught as a method of understanding her mood swings [ PMS etc] and interpreting her words and actions around that time...

It's cultural.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> It is the definition of the biblical counsel to "live with your W in an understanding manner"


I think the ESV, NASB, ISV, etc. employ a pretty liberal paraphrase 

...συνοικουντεϛ κατα γνωσιν ωϛ ασθενεστερω σκευει..

...dwell with [them] according to knowledge as to [a] weaker vessel...


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> I think the ESV, NASB, ISV, etc. employ a pretty liberal paraphrase
> 
> ...συνοικουντεϛ κατα γνωσιν ωϛ ασθενεστερω σκευει..
> 
> ...dwell with [them] according to knowledge as to [a] weaker vessel...


knowledge=understanding

and JFTR "weaker" is no a flaw, but by God's design. A delicate porcelain vase as compared to a manly thick clay pot.

So a husband who is living with his wife according to knowledge/in an understanding way will avoid "bull in china shop" behavior

since you're the OP, it's not a tangent, right?


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> since you're the OP, it's not a tangent, right?


Right. The idea of alleged superiority, not just in the sense of raw physical strength, but in an ethical, moral and spiritual sense as well is absolutely what I had in mind.

I realize most Christians today don't automatically understand that from the passage and a lot of modern translations change the noun to a gerund or make other subtle changes to avoid that connotation.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> Right. The idea of alleged superiority, not just in the sense of raw physical strength, but in an ethical, moral and spiritual sense as well is absolutely what I had in mind.


At a time of spiritual crisis, I decided that if I was understanding anything in the Bible as communicating that God devalues me because of my femininity, I was MISunderstanding because I can feel His love and acceptance and such a MISunderstanding contradicts His character.

The passage states she is weaker but does not say this is a flaw or something to be looked down on. It is by design and in the immediate context, the H is told not to look upon her as less but as an "equal heir". 

A porcelain vase is a 'weaker vessel' than a chamber pot. Does not make the porcelain vase less valuable. One could make a case that the stronger vessels should be *protective* toward the weaker vessels.


----------



## missthelove2013

women f*** the bad boys
then they marry the nice (provider) guy

guys do the same thing generally speaking

I was a "bad boy with a heart" when I was younger...not a bad boy anymore...and it always surprised me how women were attracted to the bad boys, especially the ones who were good deep down LOL


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> At a time of spiritual crisis, I decided that if I was understanding anything in the Bible as communicating that God devalues me because of my femininity, I was MISunderstanding because I can feel His love and acceptance and such a MISunderstanding contradicts His character.
> 
> The passage states she is weaker but does not say this is a flaw or something to be looked down on. It is by design and in the immediate context, the H is told not to look upon her as less but as an "equal heir".
> 
> A porcelain vase is a 'weaker vessel' than a chamber pot. Does not make the porcelain vase less valuable. One could make a case that the stronger vessels should be *protective* toward the weaker vessels.



I understand and respect your balanced Christian perspective and would never try to change it. I'm only speaking in generalities as a non-Christian.

There are plenty of denominations that view the 66 book Bible as a single contiguous work from cover to cover rather than as a far more loosely organized anthology. For them, it's only a short hop, skip and jump between 1 Peter 3:7 and other passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 11:7. String them all together and an uncomplimentary picture emerges. This was far more common in centuries past, but there are still examples today.

I believe some of this thinking still permeates popular consciousness, but understand if other people don't see it.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



missthelove2013 said:


> women f*** the bad boys
> then they marry the nice (provider) guy
> 
> guys do the same thing generally speaking
> 
> I was a "bad boy with a heart" when I was younger...not a bad boy anymore...and it always surprised me how women were attracted to the bad boys, especially the ones who were good deep down LOL


Recently reformed bad boys trump the white knight, particularly if the bad boys turned it around because of the female lead being in their lives. It's like they were badasses due to circumstance and they just needed some noble cause to use their powers for good. It's like reverse gender knight in shining armor syndrome. Of course in reality, bad boys choose to harm others and disrespect people because they lack decent values or self control and more often than not remain thugs and lowlifes. But there is always romantic fantasy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ReformedHubby said:


> So yep, I chickened out and shamed myself. I belong on hoverhands.
> 
> She also said that the guy was probably in the process of putting his arms around the young ladies but the picture was snapped too soon. I think this is indeed plausible.


I think its a sort of conditioned response - the notion that we are to treat women as delicate porcelain dolls, very much in the same vein as pedastaling and being uber careful not to offend. Don't want to touch her and have her think I'm pervy or otherwise make her uncomfortable. Ultimately, these things are tied to confidence, and even guys who think highly of themselves might still shy away here. The conditioned response to be "nice" supercedes - nice guy wouldn't "grope". Every time I hear these things they're expressed in a bi-polar manner. Like you're either not touching at all, or your groping and pressing into her. These guys think you're either being "nice", or you're being an @sshole - so they see the guys drawing all the attention while not being suck-ups and they say... "what does she see in that @sshole?? MMSL, and a lot of pickup concepts, are about breaking out of that.

While it is plausible the pic was snapped too early, its far too common a phenomenon to accept that explanation. A quick look at hoverhands.org will reveal a plethora of pics of guys who are clearly not in mid-movement - stiff hands with extended fingers and awkward body positions because *gasp*, "I might touch her and offend!!" Its as if these women have invisible force fields around themselves... and they do... namely, his lack of confidence with them. 

These men are just uncomfortable with even innocently touching an attractive girl (maybe any girl?) who hasn't expressed interest. They're passive and can't act assertively without her permission (say, a signal of interest). The pickup mentality is to touch the girl like you KNOW she wants it regardless. Its often expressed crudely, because again the point is to stop being overly concerned with what you think women think about it, and do it because YOU want to. Let her decide to withdraw if she doesn't like it, but don't make the call for her - you're just being friendly. Its assertive and borderline c*cky. The idea being that she reads it as comfortable and confident - hence more attractive.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

missthelove2013 said:


> women f*** the bad boys
> then they marry the nice (provider) guy
> 
> guys do the same thing generally speaking
> 
> I was a "bad boy with a heart" when I was younger...not a bad boy anymore...and it always surprised me how women were attracted to the bad boys, especially the ones who were good deep down LOL


I think its just that men misinterpret what it means to be a "bad boy" vs "nice guy". I'm inclined to believe they want a confident, assertive man... and its more likely that a "bad boy" has those traits, otherwise he'd be following all the "rules" like the "nice guy".


----------



## ocotillo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its as if these women have invisible force fields around themselves... and they do... namely, his lack of confidence with them.


I was tempted to say that an HR department with a scorched earth policy practically is a force field. But then I went to the site and see what you mean...Weird.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> For them, it's only a short hop, skip and jump between 1 Peter 3:7 and other passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 11:7. String them all together and an uncomplimentary picture emerges.


Oh, believe me, I hear ya! You have pinpointed the SOURCE of my spiritual crisis. I got to where I would not speak at all ever in church, to where I hung my head in shame because I had the misfortune to be born female. 

I had constant constant questions the verses you mentioned as well as why a woman was unclean for twice as long after a female childbirth (80 days versus 40 for a boy child). I assumed this was a reflection of women being worth less or maybe more evil? And my perception of Eve was just horrible... woman- responsible for all evil in the world...

I'm a very devout Bible believing Christian but I have been unchurched for maybe a year and have no desire to go back.


----------



## Conrad

Dvls and others,

I don't know if Kay puts it this way directly, but his strategies open the door for men to communicate emotionally. Yes, yes, "ask her what she wants" and she'll tell you. Unless, she doesn't.

Anthony DeMello points out that the "problem is rarely where you think it is". I've found that to be incontrovertible truth.

Once you surmount most - if not all - of our own issues and you see them clearly, you can see through others.

For instance, my wife and I had a disconnect last night. I waited to speak with her about a business opportunity that is truly life-changing for both of us.

As I began, she glanced down at her phone and interrupted me telling me she had to call her daughter to say "goodnight"

I silently left the room and went to bed.

In "niceguy" phase, I'd have either simply bulled past it and secretly seethed inside at the disrespect. Or, I'd have had enough and ripped her apart.

I now think enough of myself that she will not get the opportunity to share this possible bit of news until she asks for it - and means it.

If she never asks, I'll never tell.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde said:


> Lack of empathy is saying, "that is not MY experience and I don't feel that way about that word so YOU shouldn't feel that way. you need a tougher skin. you are too sensitive, PC run amok, etc"
> 
> JFTR not picking on you Dvl. You sound quite sensitive IRL and forums are pretty much the wild west and one does need a tough skin to participate.


Totally legitimate, and no offense taken. It is not my objective to invalidate you or convince you that you're wrong to feel offended by whatever offends you for any reason. By strict definitions, all those terms I mentioned ARE offensive terms. I even see how women could think that using those terms means one is lowering women. Surely some men do so, but that hasn't been my experience.

The role I'm trying to take is intermediary. I'm trying to explain how most/many (I hate qualifiers) men use and interpret the language. I'm trying to give my perspective.

I think some of the wannabe alpha crowd and pickup crowd DO take it too far and the pickup forums are LOADED with it. This is the easy way to pick out the real deal from the imitation. Its an exaggeration in a deliberate attempt to send the signal, "hey, I'm alpha and I don't give a sh*t". But weirdly, even this attitude has an attractive quality in as much as it comes off confident vs the "nice guy" selling himself out by sucking-up to the pretty girl. Though I've gathered partly from this forum that things may change as people get older. Maybe women start appreciating the beta qualities more; or maybe men of all sorts get more confident with age. Then again, we have example after example of the overly beta husband who thought he could make his wife happy by catering to her only to see her become less and less interested. Dunno, but I find it all really interesting so I post my thoughts on it like crazy.


----------



## Conrad

Dvls,

Men do get more confident with age.

It's the triumph of experience over delusion.

They're kicked to the curb by their wife and - if they're open to it - they suddenly receive all sorts of attention from late 30's early 40's women who are attractive, smart, and open to them.

Often, these women are products of bad marriages, but along the way they learn to appreciate men much much more. And, they are far more open sexually than the women these men encountered when they were younger.

The grass is sometimes unexpectedly greener.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> Oh, believe me, I hear ya! You have pinpointed the SOURCE of my spiritual crisis. I got to where I would not speak at all ever in church, to where I hung my head in shame because I had the misfortune to be born female.
> 
> I had constant constant questions the verses you mentioned as well as why a woman was unclean for twice as long after a female childbirth (80 days versus 40 for a boy child). I assumed this was a reflection of women being worth less or maybe more evil? And my perception of Eve was just horrible... woman- responsible for all evil in the world...
> 
> I'm a very devout Bible believing Christian but I have been unchurched for maybe a year and have no desire to go back.


Blonde,

I've been following your posts and your scriptural references for sometime.
I know of your past traumas from what you have posted here before. 
Sometimes you come across with a strong female bias , but I fully understand, and based on your past experience, and I think that for you to be otherwise wouldn't be right.

I want to say in all honesty , that I think you're a very strong woman. 
I admire how you articulate your faith in God despite certain things being at odds to the point of cognitive dissonance.

Whatever it is that is keeping you _that_ strong , my advice to you is to hold on to it.
I've seen quite a few women go through much less than you and didn't survive.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> Oh, believe me, I hear ya! You have pinpointed the SOURCE of my spiritual crisis. I got to where I would not speak at all ever in church, to where I hung my head in shame because I had the misfortune to be born female.


It's a pretty big 'burr under the saddle' for my wife too.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde said:


> I was particularly impressed with how he learned to track his W's cycles and adjust his approach using MMSL advice. It is the definition of the biblical counsel to "live with your W in an understanding manner"


Oh man... the cycle thing was eye opening for me. I didn't believe it. Maybe I was clueless. In my post-divorce mansl*t (  ) tantrum, I was paying attention to it. I found it damn near universal that women were less guarded, more flirty and even more likely to send me seemingly random texts (seek attention?) during the magic week. In geek speak, its like there is firmware code running underneath all of the conscious software. Kinda felt like having a "cheat code" or free pass.

Was it unethical to pay attention and pursue those women at those times... I dunno, it does have a ambiguous sketchy quality. You're not doing anything "wrong" per se, but its definitely opportunistic. Over all though I thought its too much effort and a little weird/creepy, so I gave it up. If I were married and sexless today though, I'd definitely start paying attention to her cycle and sail with the wind, among other things.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> In our culture, it is something older men teach younger men , in order for them to know how and when to approach their wives for sex , and how to either get her to conceive or not conceive.


That is SO different from what I perceive here in the states. I've mentioned it to a few female friends of mine who seemingly love telling me what crap this stuff is, and not only do they claim there's no difference in their attitude (with the exception of actually being on the rag, they all agree they want sex more when they can't have it... well, without additional mess anyway haha).

While they all thought the idea was crap, they all thought it was an unethical advantage taking even if it was true.

Logically, I see no ethical problem with it, but yet I still have a sense of it being a little off. Doesn't feel right. Ugh. lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> I was tempted to say that an HR department with a scorched earth policy practically is a force field.


:rofl: There's that!!


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That is SO different from what I perceive here in the states. I've mentioned it to a few female friends of mine who seemingly love telling me what crap this stuff is, and not only do they claim there's no difference in their attitude (with the exception of actually being on the rag, they all agree they want sex more when they can't have it... well, without additional mess anyway haha).
> 
> While they all thought the idea was crap, they all thought it was an unethical advantage taking even if it was true.


Yes, merely "ask her to tell you" and she will.... unless she doesn't.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Conrad said:


> As I began, she glanced down at her phone and interrupted me telling me she had to call her daughter to say "goodnight"
> 
> I silently left the room and went to bed.
> 
> In "niceguy" phase, I'd have either simply bulled past it and secretly seethed inside at the disrespect. Or, I'd have had enough and ripped her apart.
> 
> I now think enough of myself that she will not get the opportunity to share this possible bit of news until she asks for it - and means it.
> 
> If she never asks, I'll never tell.


While I don't mean to be critical, I think I'd have gone a different route. Firstly, I'd have deferred because the child and personal connections are more important. Secondly, I'd have just informed her after the "goodnight" call.

I don't know your relationship dynamics or how it really went, but I'm inclined to feel that going to bed without a word and not informing her of the news you wanted to tell IS a passive-aggressive expression that you felt injured by the interruption.

By no means am I some guru, but what do you think about this interpretation?

I think there ARE interruptions that show blatant disregard/disrespect and I think they should be met with overt condemnation. This one, to me, seems legit. But again, I don't know jack so pour the salt.


----------



## skype

Conrad's wife has prioritized her children over their marriage often, so he must show her that he will no longer tolerate her disrespect.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

skype said:


> Conrad's wife has prioritized her children over their marriage often, so he must show her that he will no longer tolerate her disrespect.


Oh yeah!!! I forgot about that! Been there done that, got the t-shirt. lol

I was always good with waiting my turn so to speak though, so momentary interruptions were fine. But in the context of never getting dedicated priority, I know exactly how nothing remains fine.

Where's that salt?


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> While I don't mean to be critical, I think I'd have gone a different route. Firstly, I'd have deferred because the child and personal connections are more important. Secondly, I'd have just informed her after the "goodnight" call.
> 
> I don't know your relationship dynamics or how it really went, but I'm inclined to feel that going to bed without a word and not informing her of the news you wanted to tell IS a passive-aggressive expression that you felt injured by the interruption.
> 
> By no means am I some guru, but what do you think about this interpretation?


Without 6+ years of her teaching her children that their time is more important than anyone else's on earth, I might agree.

I do not believe finishing our conversation and then calling her child would have cost anyone a thing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Yeah, I knew your history but I had forgotten. 

Been there, I sympathize.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah, I knew your history but I had forgotten.
> 
> Been there, I sympathize.


It's also a bit more nuanced than that.

Think of her subconscious reaction to me allowing those sorts of things.

Any sort of kindness following that sort of treatment is an emotional "thank you" and an invitation for something bigger next time.


----------



## SolidSnake

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That is SO different from what I perceive here in the states. I've mentioned it to a few female friends of mine who seemingly love telling me what crap this stuff is, and not only do they claim there's no difference in their attitude (with the exception of actually being on the rag, they all agree they want sex more when they can't have it... well, without additional mess anyway haha).
> 
> While they all thought the idea was crap, they all thought it was an unethical advantage taking even if it was true.
> 
> Logically, I see no ethical problem with it, but yet I still have a sense of it being a little off. Doesn't feel right. Ugh. lol


No, cycle differences are very real for most people, myself included.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Well Wysh,
> 
> If it ain't rocket science , why are so many married men
> [ and women] over the age of 30 obese?
> 
> What is common sense to you and I ain't so common to some men who don't have a clue how long term sexual attraction works in a marriage.


Poor diet and lack of exercise.


----------



## Miss Taken

SolidSnake said:


> No, cycle differences are very real for most people, myself included.


I am very aware of my cycle differences too. I think all women should be more aware even if they're able to take hormonal contraceptives. I can't take hormones anymore. Something about my body changed once I had kids - I get ALL the side effects no matter what I take so I use natural family planning and condoms until my referral goes through and can get the copper IUD (which I pray works).

Since tracking my cycle, I found that when I'm ovulating, I want sex more than I do when I'm not ovulating. It makes sense on a biological basis that you'd want to have sex when you're at your most fertile period. In the animal kingdom, we call this being in heat. You'd recognize it if you've ever had an unspayed cat lol. :rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Totally makes sense to me, but I was oblivious, and these girls still claim they don't feel any difference. Glad to see someone confirming it though, the way most of my observations go, I was expecting to receive hostility and have to make my case. lol


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Totally makes sense to me, but I was oblivious, and these girls still claim they don't feel any difference. Glad to see someone confirming it though, the way most of my observations go, I was expecting to receive hostility and have to make my case. lol


From an evolutionary concept, it makes total sense.

And, practical experience bears that out.


----------



## WyshIknew

missthelove2013 said:


> women f*** the bad boys
> then they marry the nice (provider) guyguys do the same thing generally speaking
> 
> I was a "bad boy with a heart" when I was younger...not a bad boy anymore...and it always surprised me how women were attracted to the bad boys, especially the ones who were good deep down LOL


But I see this as a good life strategy.

Go out, have fun, raise hell and sow your wild oats.

Then as you get a bit older and start to settle down, find a good, dependable, family orientated man, with good career prospects to build your nest with.

This often seems to be looked down on by many at TAM.


----------



## Sandfly

ScarletBegonias said:


> I would be flattered to get called a foxy minx for some reason


In some Slavic languages, for a woman to be called a fox (i.e.vixen) is hugely offensive.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Miss Taken said:


> I am very aware of my cycle differences too. I think all women should be more aware even if they're able to take hormonal contraceptives. I can't take hormones anymore. Something about my body changed once I had kids - I get ALL the side effects no matter what I take so I use natural family planning and condoms until my referral goes through and can get the copper IUD (which I pray works).
> 
> Since tracking my cycle, I found that when I'm ovulating, I want sex more than I do when I'm not ovulating. It makes sense on a biological basis that you'd want to have sex when you're at your most fertile period. In the animal kingdom, we call this being in heat. You'd recognize it if you've ever had an unspayed cat lol. :rofl:


My wife's cycle used to run dead on time.
She had her yearly calender planned out every year and her period was never late.
She didn't like birth control so she never used it nor any other contraceptive , except the morning after pill a few times.

But during ovulation sex drive usually went up.
Now she's peri , everything's out of sync and her drive is through the roof.

Kinda crazy.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> My wife's cycle used to run dead on time.
> She had her yearly calender planned out every year and her period was never late.
> She didn't like birth control so she never used it nor any other contraceptive , except the morning after pill a few times.
> 
> But during ovulation sex drive usually went up.
> Now she's peri , everything's out of sync and her drive is through the roof.
> 
> Kinda crazy.


Could have quoted exactly this for Mrs Wysh.


----------



## ReformedHubby

WyshIknew said:


> But I see this as a good life strategy.
> 
> Go out, have fun, raise hell and sow your wild oats.
> 
> Then as you get a bit older and start to settle down, find a good, dependable, family orientated man, with good career prospects to build your nest with.
> 
> This often seems to be looked down on by many at TAM.


C'mon Wysh. I can't imagine that things are that different across the pond. The reason why men on TAM frown on it is because it can be disastrous.

Absolutely nothing wrong with being young and sowing your oats for men or women(unless you're my daughter). But.....all too often people emerge from this and marry a person who is the opposite of their "type". Its basically a divorce waiting to happen.

I'll give you an example even though its non PC. I grew up with quite a few white gals that dated nothing but black guys, particularly athletes. They clearly had a type. However, half of them married men that were the total opposite of who they used mess around with. Unassuming suburban white men with no clue about their past. In my opinion this was a disservice to themselves and their husbands. If you like black guys, marry one. 

This goes for any other "type" you prefer based on size/shape/race/personality. If you go against it you'll only end up resenting your spouse for something they can't change about themselves.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I do not accept that my having consumed the content makes me hateful and misogynistic any more than having read Mystery Method makes me a fuzzy hat wearing pickup artist, that reading Ann Coulter makes me a hardline right wing conservative, or listening to NPR makes me a liberal, lame stream sycophant.


It's not what you read that's the issue, it's what you take on board, what you defend, how you act.

If you defend racist ideas and act differently towards people based on race, then you're a bigot.

If you defend misogynistic ideas, and treat women with contempt, then you are a misogynist.

I'm not talking about dirty jokes, or crudity, or private sexual interactions. I'm talking only about discrimination and demeaning others.

I'm glad to hear you don't really want to defend it. 

Some things really do drag us down, rather than make us better.


----------



## Omego

WyshIknew said:


> But I see this as a good life strategy.
> 
> Go out, have fun, raise hell and sow your wild oats.
> 
> Then as you get a bit older and start to settle down, find a good, dependable, family orientated man, with good career prospects to build your nest with.
> 
> This often seems to be looked down on by many at TAM.


I think this is kind of sad for the partner who ends up being the good, dependable husband, and frankly, for the wife as well. Where is the passion in this scenario?

I started a thread a while back asking men why they chose their wives (or something to that effect). Some women posted and said they felt second best. I wouldn't want that. And I wouldn't want to be married to a man who had only the qualities you describe above. Passion has to be a part of the present, not the past, in my opinion....


----------



## Caribbean Man

Omego said:


> I think this is kind of sad for the partner who ends up being the good, dependable husband, and frankly, for the wife as well. Where is the passion in this scenario?
> 
> I started a thread a while back asking men why they chose their wives (or something to that effect). Some women posted and said they felt second best. I wouldn't want that. And I wouldn't want to be married to a man who had only the qualities you describe above. Passion has to be a part of the present, not the past, in my opinion....


Whilst this might sometimes or even most times be true , as with everything else in life, there are exceptions.

I too , did some wild stuff during my teen and early 20's but in hindsight, I was not passionate about those women, neither did I see any " future" with them [ except the last one before my wife, who cheated on me].
But to be fair to them , I wasn't looking for a lifetime mate either.

That's why I decided to marry my wife.

The passion wasn't there initially, but it soon developed and is very much, still alive today.

So I can safely say that the way I feel about her, I have never felt that way about any other woman.

I guess it all comes down to personal perspective.


----------



## TiggyBlue

ReformedHubby said:


> I'll give you an example even though its non PC. I grew up with quite a few white gals that dated nothing but black guys, particularly athletes. They clearly had a type. However, half of them married men that were the total opposite of who they used mess around with. Unassuming suburban white men with no clue about their past. In my opinion this was a disservice to themselves and their husbands. If you like black guys, marry one.


I think with both genders there are people who have the type they sleep with and the type they marry (not meaning a race, but it doesn't automatically mean they not as attracted to their husband 
as the guys they messed around with before).


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Sandfly said:


> In some Slavic languages, for a woman to be called a fox (i.e.vixen) is hugely offensive.


 I've heard that before. Most people don't realize fox=vixen=not a pleasant gal to be around


----------



## Omego

Caribbean Man said:


> I guess it all comes down to personal perspective.


True. As a woman (am I am obviously not implying that ALL women are this way), I cannot imagine wild, satisfying sex being separate from a romantic relationship, but I think many men can....


----------



## Omego

TiggyBlue said:


> I think with both genders there are people who have the type they sleep with and the type they marry .


As a woman, I would want to be both! Not JUST the type they sleep with.


----------



## Racer

It’s funny and sad that you mention cycles. I have mentioned this to my wife. The days just prior to her Aunt Flow visiting, is when she thinks about sex. It is the only time I am assured of sex that won’t be the duty kind because she is feeling randy. It is bad enough that now I know her cycle by instinct and am ‘tuned in’ to it. We’ll have great sex, then the next day she starts... that is how it is.


----------



## Fozzy

Blonde said:


> Although I would not want my H to read MMSL or NMMNG because of alpha a$$H history, I am not in the camp of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> 
> My 27yos reads over at MMSL and I am sympathetic. He is a very empathetic and sensitive H. I was particularly impressed with how he learned to track his W's cycles and adjust his approach using MMSL advice. It is the definition of the biblical counsel to "live with your W in an understanding manner"


Blonde, I've seen you mention this a couple of times. Maybe it's me personally, but I really wouldn't put MMSL and NMMNG in the same camp. I agree MMSL was completely over the top, but NMMNG seemed to be written in a completely different tone, and was only partially addressed toward marital issues. In fact for the guys that it actually applies to, the lessons learned in it can be helpful for interactions with women AND men.


----------



## naiveonedave

Fozzy - read both, don't agree.....

MMSLP is written to be a 2x4, NMMNG is saying a lot of the same stuff, but no 2x4. While you could say that NMMNG would work for M to M friends, you typically don't have the same behavior to you spouse as you do to other males. So it doesn't really apply.


----------



## Fozzy

I didn't get much more out of MMSL than "work out and keep her off balance". NMMNG helped clarify a lot of personality deficiencies, identify their origins, and gave tools for dealing with them. Yes he does say to work out also. Dunno, i just found it 1000% more useful.


----------



## naiveonedave

Maybe up to individual needs, I really didn't fit into the stereotypical problems explained in NMMNG, but did see more of the need for mmslp.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Fozzy said:


> I didn't get much more out of MMSL than "work out and keep her off balance". NMMNG helped clarify a lot of personality deficiencies, identify their origins, and gave tools for dealing with them. Yes he does say to work out also. Dunno, i just found it 1000% more useful.


Interesting. I read NMMNG after FW made reference to it in a thread a long time ago and found it to be long on cause and short on actual solutions. Maybe because only some of it really applied to me? I dunno. I found it really interesting but next to useless.


----------



## Fozzy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Interesting. I read NMMNG after FW made reference to it in a thread a long time ago and found it to be long on cause and short on actual solutions. Maybe because only some of it really applied to me? I dunno. I found it really interesting but next to useless.


Different problems, different solutions I guess. My main point was that I didn't really see NMMNG belonging in the woman-bashing category that it was being lumped into.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Fozzy said:


> Different problems, different solutions I guess. My main point was that I didn't really see NMMNG belonging in the woman-bashing category that it was being lumped into.


I agree. I don't either. Its a true therapy book by a therapist.

But any time you tell men to stop being nice, needy, p*ssies, you're probably going to get lumped in with all the other books meant to help find healthy masculinity, even if you do so in polite clinical terms.

Some read NMMNG and still think its advocating being an @sshole, even though the author specifically addresses this complaint.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree. I don't either. Its a true therapy book by a therapist.
> 
> But any time you tell men to stop being nice, needy, p*ssies, you're probably going to get lumped in with all the other books meant to help find healthy masculinity, even if you do so in polite clinical terms.
> 
> Some read NMMNG and still think its advocating being an @sshole, even though the author specifically addresses this complaint.


I suppose it's not approved by those that would rather see the pedestal in place.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree. I don't either. Its a true therapy book by a therapist.
> 
> But any time you tell men to stop being nice, needy, p*ssies, you're probably going to get lumped in with all the other books meant to help find healthy masculinity, even if you do so in polite clinical terms.
> 
> Some read NMMNG and still think its advocating being an @sshole, even though the author specifically addresses this complaint.



Some women are deeply offended by the idea of a man thinking for himself , independently of their input and taking matters into his own hands.
They absolutely love the idea of having men under their control.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Some women are deeply offended by the idea of a man thinking for himself , independently of their input and taking matters into his own hands.
> They absolutely love the idea of having men under their control.


CM, are you trying to start a war?


----------



## Blonde

Caribbean Man said:


> Some men are deeply offended by the idea of a woman thinking for herself , independently of their input and taking matters into her own hands.
> They absolutely love the idea of having women (and children) under their control.


fixed that for ya


----------



## Blonde

Fozzy said:


> Different problems, different solutions I guess. My main point was that I didn't really see NMMNG belonging in the woman-bashing category that it was being lumped into.


for a certain type of man (alpha a$$H), it is dangerous because of the way it validates selfishness

I'll just paste here again the example I posted earlier:

Imagine a fella who is very self-centered and controls the bank accounts reading this encouragement from NMMNG to "put yourself first" 

page 66:
When the Nice Guy *puts himself first *there is only one voice to consider —* his own.* Decisions are now made by *one individual*, rather than by a committee. He no longer has to mind read, predict, or try to please multiple voices with conflicting agendas.* When putting himself first* all the information he needs to make a decision is within him: "*Is this what I want? Yes. Then that's what I'll do."*​
So, if he "wants" to drink, gamble, and use prostitutes instead of paying for his child's braces, heat for the house, rent, or whatever else it is the "multiple voices" of his wife and children at home want...
well he has just been validated in his selfishness by what the book said.

Personally, I think the Boundaries books by Cloud and Townsend might yield similar personal growth without the same potential for twisting to justify evil.

Some men use the book to be pricks


----------



## Blonde

NNMNG is a version of codependency recovery. I was the doormat in my M and read books like "Codependent No More" and the Boundaries books to help me get up off the floor and have a backbone.

Harley of MB whose book HNHN is frequently recommended by TAMers has an article entitled How the Co-dependency Movement Is Ruining Marriages


----------



## jld

I read that article recently and liked it. You have to be careful not to believe everything you hear, you know? Just because someone thinks something is bad, doesn't mean it is always bad, or for everyone.


----------



## always_alone

Let's flip the script, shall we? 

After all, there are a lot of women that pedestalize men, and are devaluing themselves, pining away as he ignores her. They need empowerment too, yes?

They could find that power within, and learn to look after themselves, their health, their interests independently. But why should they?

Fact is there are some fantastic books out there, like Gold-Diggers Guide, and websites, that will introduce them to a whole world of guys who are lining up to be their stepping stones, and will lavish them with gifts while thanking them for the privilege to do so.

See, according to the science, men are biologically wired to spread their seed and they can't really control this. Their brains are located in the little head, which means they're wired to be untrustworthy. They don't want to commit, and when they do, they inevitably cheat, it's just a matter of time. 

But the good news is that once understood, this is the key to women's success. And it's easy, as men are quite simple creatures that will just simply give you what you ask for. A flirty smile and ego-stroking compliment is all you need to activate that little head, and whatever it says, he does. And, best news yet, you don't ever even need to touch it to keep its interest. A woman can set herself up for life without ever having sex if she wants to.

Now, some men might dispute the way they are stereotyped in the above descriptions, but then, really, they are arguing against science. Everyone knows that men are biologically wired to spread their seed as wide and far as possible. And can't help but respond to sexual suggestion. That's why women always control the sex.

Some men might find comments like the above both untrue and offensive. But they have to realize that these books and websites weren't written for them. You can tell by the entry buttons that read "for ladies only" and the warnings on the covers! And the fact is, the women this is geared towards are stuck, waiting around for some guy who really isn't interested in anything but sex anyway. These women need a 2x4 to the head, so they can realize that men too are fallible, narcissistic, and need to be kept in line.

Some men may suggest that hostility and gaming is the wrong way to address the problem, but that's just because they can't see how vulnerable women are, and how we need to secure our futures. And since men are going to trade us in for two 20s once we hit 40, we need to stockpile as much as we can, while we're still young and beautiful.

Some men cry foul at the way the insults against them are continually repeated, defended, and justified -- 

--but that's just because they have a deep fear of a woman thinking for herself.


----------



## WyshIknew

1. What is an IPO? I googled and got Intellectual Property Office or Initial Public Offering.

2. Damn, Always. You so got me! :rofl:


----------



## WyshIknew

ReformedHubby said:


> C'mon Wysh. I can't imagine that things are that different across the pond. The reason why men on TAM frown on it is because it can be disastrous.
> 
> Absolutely nothing wrong with being young and sowing your oats for men or women(unless you're my daughter). But.....all too often people emerge from this and marry a person who is the opposite of their "type". Its basically a divorce waiting to happen.
> 
> I'll give you an example even though its non PC. I grew up with quite a few white gals that dated nothing but black guys, particularly athletes. They clearly had a type. However, half of them married men that were the total opposite of who they used mess around with. Unassuming suburban white men with no clue about their past. In my opinion this was a disservice to themselves and their husbands. If you like black guys, marry one.
> 
> This goes for any other "type" you prefer based on size/shape/race/personality. If you go against it you'll only end up resenting your spouse for something they can't change about themselves.


But people change RH.

The person I was at 18 is different to the person I was at 28 who was different to the person I was at 38.

A woman at 16, 17 or 18 is not the same person she is at 28. People grow up, mature and gain responsibility, plus this biological clock thingy ticks away.

Their type at 18 may bear no resemblance to their type at 30.

The party dude, stereotypical 'bad boy' that all the women are allegedly flocking around may look very attractive to a woman at 18, but not nearly so attractive when she is 28 and looking to settle down and may in fact represent a poor life choice.

I can't see how a woman would be any less attracted to her hard working, unassuming husband than to the guys she was attracted to as a teenager. Providing of course that they both work at keeping the marriage sexy and fun.


----------



## WyshIknew

Omego said:


> I think this is kind of sad for the partner who ends up being the good, dependable husband, and frankly, for the wife as well. Where is the passion in this scenario?
> 
> I started a thread a while back asking men why they chose their wives (or something to that effect). Some women posted and said they felt second best. I wouldn't want that. And I wouldn't want to be married to a man who had only the qualities you describe above. Passion has to be a part of the present, not the past, in my opinion....


What on earth is wrong with a dependable, family orientated, family motivated man?

Ok, go marry Mr Party Party, live for today, snort a line, hey babe how are you today? guy. Just don't be surprised when it all goes wrong.

Why would you think that a dependable, family orientated man lacks passion?

The thing is, is that man reserves all that passion for *you*.

I may be a family man but I am twice the man and lover of any faux alpha, wannabe PUA player 'bad boy'.



I liken it to fishing.


As a guy, when you are young you set yourself up to go fishing for girls.
When you are young you might be using the wrong bait for that time of year, you are using the wrong bait for the season and therefore get less bites, whereas some guy using a different bait catches fish after fish. Later on you find that suddenly your bait comes into season and you start getting the bites.

25 years next year, 4 children and six grandchildren (so far), nookie three times a week, wife who adores me.

I'd take that any day of the week over being a slightly pathetic aging stud who thinks that notches in bed posts is what it's all about.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> fixed that for ya



Good work Blondie!

Can't say I disagree with you.
So you just mansplaned me.:rofl:


But in reality instead of " some men " or " some women " it should really be " some people " or more accurately ," insecure people."


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Let's flip the script, shall we?
> 
> After all, there are a lot of women that pedestalize men, and are devaluing themselves, pining away as he ignores her. They need empowerment too, yes?
> 
> They could find that power within, and learn to look after themselves, their health, their interests independently. But why should they?
> 
> Fact is there are some fantastic books out there, like Gold-Diggers Guide, and websites, that will introduce them to a whole world of guys who are lining up to be their stepping stones, and will lavish them with gifts while thanking them for the privilege to do so.
> 
> See, according to the science, men are biologically wired to spread their seed and they can't really control this. Their brains are located in the little head, which means they're wired to be untrustworthy. They don't want to commit, and when they do, they inevitably cheat, it's just a matter of time.
> 
> But the good news is that once understood, this is the key to women's success. And it's easy, as men are quite simple creatures that will just simply give you what you ask for. A flirty smile and ego-stroking compliment is all you need to activate that little head, and whatever it says, he does. And, best news yet, you don't ever even need to touch it to keep its interest. A woman can set herself up for life without ever having sex if she wants to.
> 
> Now, some men might dispute the way they are stereotyped in the above descriptions, but then, really, they are arguing against science. Everyone knows that men are biologically wired to spread their seed as wide and far as possible. And can't help but respond to sexual suggestion. That's why women always control the sex.
> 
> Some men might find comments like the above both untrue and offensive. But they have to realize that these books and websites weren't written for them. You can tell by the entry buttons that read "for ladies only" and the warnings on the covers! And the fact is, the women this is geared towards are stuck, waiting around for some guy who really isn't interested in anything but sex anyway. These women need a 2x4 to the head, so they can realize that men too are fallible, narcissistic, and need to be kept in line.
> 
> Some men may suggest that hostility and gaming is the wrong way to address the problem, but that's just because they can't see how vulnerable women are, and how we need to secure our futures. And since men are going to trade us in for two 20s once we hit 40, we need to stockpile as much as we can, while we're still young and beautiful.
> 
> Some men cry foul at the way the insults against them are continually repeated, defended, and justified --
> 
> --but that's just because they have a deep fear of a woman thinking for herself.


Well AA, 
I'm glad that you flipped the script , and did it with such ease and so accurately!
You haven't said anything earth shattering or new there^^^.
Ask the average man across in the CWI section of TAM to review their marriage in hindsight and they would tell you that they were thinking with their " little head" and their wives took them for everything they had.

That's human nature . That's why it was so easy for you to come up with such an accurate parallel , because it happens every single day to the average Joe Plumber , who believes in the " American Dream " and " happily ever after."
They get screwed over by women who hate them.

Doesn't mean that she hats men , she just wasn't in love with them.

Hence the need for self help books with the 2 x 4 across the big head approach to knock some reality back into their heads.

Frankly speaking , hardly any man would find what you just posted above as " offensive." He would quicker nod his head in agreement and tell you it's reality because it happened to him , or someone he knew.

And he would blame himself.

In fact Kanye West and Jamie Fox had a hit song some years ago along that exact , same script, called ," Gold Digger."

Recently a female friend of mine posted this interesting meme on her Facebook page entitled " Ten Rules For Dating My Son."
Have a look at it below.



Does the first three look familiar?

So far every mother with a son that Iv'e shared it with , agreed with it and shared it.

BTW , her son is just 16 yrs old.

Fact is AA , people's eyes have been opened and we know in spite of what some might say ,
Sh!t happens quite a lot in relationships between men and women.
This ain't time to be " politically correct," it's time to REAL.

That's why I like this list and personally like rule # 7.

_" You are not in charge of him and it is not up to you to change him, take him for who he is..."_

Wish more people could get that.

BTW there's also a " Ten Rules For Dating My Daughter " list , which is just as accurate and interesting.


----------



## ReformedHubby

WyshIknew said:


> But people change RH.
> 
> The person I was at 18 is different to the person I was at 28 who was different to the person I was at 38.
> 
> _*A woman at 16, 17 or 18 is not the same person she is at 28. People grow up, mature and gain responsibility, plus this biological clock thingy ticks away.
> *_
> Their type at 18 may bear no resemblance to their type at 30.
> 
> The party dude, stereotypical 'bad boy' that all the women are allegedly flocking around may look very attractive to a woman at 18, but not nearly so attractive when she is 28 and looking to settle down and may in fact represent a poor life choice.
> 
> I can't see how a woman would be any less attracted to her hard working, unassuming husband than to the guys she was attracted to as a teenager. Providing of course that they both work at keeping the marriage sexy and fun.


People absolutely do change. If someone has matured and focuses on other attributes then I think it can definitely work and they can make a happy couple. This definitely happens a lot. But the flip side also happens a lot.

The part where I'm skeptical is how much of that change/maturation you mention is driven by society's "norms"? How much of this maturation is the result of an individual rationalizing that suitor A would be a better provider than suitor B? The biological clock that you mentioned in some women certainly could cause them to seek security over what they find most sexually appealing. It can also cause them to settle down with someone that they may not even be all that attracted to because he just happens to be the guy that proposes to them and they decide to settle.

One only needs to take a cursory view of the sex board to realize that MMSL or any other book for that matter will not work if "she's just not that into you". I'm no expert but I would have to think that if the attraction to the husband is that dead the guy is either a complete a-hole, or it was never there in the first place.

My late grandfather gave me some good advice when I was getting ready for a dance in junior high. He said to me when you get to the dance don't find a young lady to chase, find the one that's chasing you. I just think men are better off in the long run if they end up with someone that they really have good chemistry with. Marrying someone who dated the complete opposite of you repeatedly in my opinion decreases the odds of maintaining that chemistry once the newness wears off.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> People absolutely do change. If someone has matured and focuses on other attributes then I think it can definitely work and they can make a happy couple. This definitely happens a lot. But the flip side also happens a lot.
> 
> The part where I'm skeptical is how much of that change/maturation you mention is driven by society's "norms"? How much of this maturation is the result of an individual rationalizing that suitor A would be a better provider than suitor B? The biological clock that you mentioned in some women certainly could cause them to seek security over what they find most sexually appealing. It can also cause them to settle down with someone that they may not even be all that attracted to because he just happens to be the guy that proposes to them and they decide to settle.
> 
> One only needs to take a cursory view of the sex board to realize that MMSL or any other book for that matter will not work if "she's just not that into you". I'm no expert but I would have to think that if the attraction to the husband is that dead the guy is either a complete a-hole, or it was never there in the first place.
> 
> *My late grandfather gave me some good advice when I was getting ready for a dance in junior high. He said to me when you get to the dance don't find a young lady to chase, find the one that's chasing you. I just think men are better off in the long run if they end up with someone that they really have good chemistry with. Marrying someone who dated the complete opposite of you repeatedly in my opinion decreases the odds of maintaining that chemistry once the newness wears off.*


RH , 
Looks like both you and I had the same grandfather!:rofl:
Lol, mine told me when I was just 11 years old , that when I wanted to get married, I should only choose the woman who loved me and was crazy for me, and not the woman I was crazy for. 
So being the inquisitive minded 11 yr old that I was , I asked him, 
" _But Papi , what if the girl I'm crazy for is also crazy for me and loves me?_"
He responded:
" _CM ,then you'd be one helluva lucky feller!_"




On the other score, I think that both you and Wysh are looking at the same object in the glass of water , but because of the effect of light and the refractive indices of water and glass, you perspectives seem different.

The thing is that human beings main objective in life is survival of it's own species. Youth is a time of folly and most of the decisions made when we wee young were made outside of that inner sanctum we now have called maturation.

A 19 yr old woman is really a girl with the mind of a 14 yr old, inside a 30 something yr old woman's body. The same can be said of a 19 yr old young man. 

Both parties are feeling their way around , just looking for new thrills. They make choices that are inimical to their own interests and based on their upbringing and values they either learn quickly or they continue indefinitely till " biological urges " for survival kicks in.

On one extreme end of the spectrum we have your scenario of a woman , or a man just looking for a stable partner to ' retire" with when the biological urges kicks in. On the other end , we have the young woman or man who chose moral restraint due to their upbringing , they mature just like the person on the other end of the spectrum when and their biological urges for survival kicks in. 
In between there are many different possible combinations.
But there is really no hard and fast rule that guarantees the person who practiced moral restraint will automatically make a better partner.
The possibilities of them making a better partner, chemistry etc is very high , because the decision making process that got them there isn't questionable.
However here are no guarantees.
On the other side of the spectrum , there is also no rule that says a person who sowed wild oats would NEVER make a stable , good partner, because once they have reached maturation , their experience can have a positive impact on their thinking. The possibilities of that happening is considerably lower than the other , because that person may have issues that need to be dealt with. The decision making process that got them where they are might be questionable.
However , it is not unheard of that such a person might have an epiphany, and develop a normal, healthy long term relationship, love and chemistry , include. 

Indeed, I am an example of such a person.


----------



## jld

Well, I certainly don't agree with that list (Rules for Dating my Son).

I don't intend to interfere in my sons' dating lives at all. It is up to them who they invest in. I might make comments, but I certainly would not say anything to a potential dil. Would not even consider it.

Any young man who needs his mother's protection is not any man at all. He is a boy, and I cannot imagine my daughter wanting anything to do with such a person.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Well, I certainly don't agree with that list (Rules for Dating my Son).


#6 was a real winner, wasn't it? If she's trying to kill his dating life forever, that one ought to do it!


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> 1. What is an IPO? I googled and got Intellectual Property Office or Initial Public Offering.


Second one. A reference to FrenchFry's up and coming money maker, the MMSL survivor's toolkit, that I volunteered to invest in earlier in this thread.

But if I can get in *before* it goes public, I surely would.


----------



## Blonde

ReformedHubby said:


> MMSL or any other book for that matter will not work if "she's just not that into you". I'm no expert but I would have to think that if the attraction to the husband is that dead the guy is either a complete a-hole, or it was never there in the first place.


All of the formulas (including Melody Beattie's codependent recovery books) recommend taking care of oneself, doing such things as eating right, exercising, getting enough sleep. The "man up" ones tell the guys to lose weight if they are overweight.

Very surprised to read threads on here where a man is overweight and the wife expressed dis-satisfaction and the advice is "she should accept you as you are" and "unconditional love" and yadda yadda. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/172313-she-doesnt-love-all-me.html OK but she might not be sexually attracted to that- so sexless M here we come.

Some things @ my H which keeps it sizzling even though the M almost ended over various serious issues. He is in shape, works on that, looks good, I am too. We are both healthy.

As a med surg floor nurse, I see a lot of patients, some of them younger than me who have very serious health issues *as a result of lifestyle choices.* (eating, drinking, smoking, drug use, etc)


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> Well AA,
> I'm glad that you flipped the script , and did it with such ease and so accurately!
> You haven't said anything earth shattering or new there^^^.
> Ask the average man across in the CWI section of TAM to review their marriage in hindsight and they would tell you that they were thinking with their " little head" and their wives took them for everything they had.
> 
> That's human nature . That's why it was so easy for you to come up with such an accurate parallel , because it happens every single day to the average Joe Plumber , who believes in the " American Dream " and " happily ever after."
> They get screwed over by women who hate them.
> 
> Doesn't mean that she hats men , she just wasn't in love with them.
> 
> Hence the need for self help books with the 2 x 4 across the big head approach to knock some reality back into their heads.
> 
> Frankly speaking , hardly any man would find what you just posted above as " offensive." He would quicker nod his head in agreement and tell you it's reality because it happened to him , or someone he knew.
> 
> And he would blame himself.
> 
> In fact Kanye West and Jamie Fox had a hit song some years ago along that exact , same script, called ," Gold Digger."
> 
> Recently a female friend of mine posted this interesting meme on her Facebook page entitled " Ten Rules For Dating My Son."
> Have a look at it below.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the first three look familiar?
> 
> So far every mother with a son that Iv'e shared it with , agreed with it and shared it.
> 
> BTW , her son is just 16 yrs old.
> 
> Fact is AA , people's eyes have been opened and we know in spite of what some might say ,
> Sh!t happens quite a lot in relationships between men and women.
> This ain't time to be " politically correct," it's time to REAL.
> 
> That's why I like this list and personally like rule # 7.
> 
> _" You are not in charge of him and it is not up to you to change him, take him for who he is..."_
> 
> Wish more people could get that.
> 
> BTW there's also a " Ten Rules For Dating My Daughter " list , which is just as accurate and interesting.


Loved it!

The only one I've seen about daughters goes something like this.

"Son, you're dating my daughter. I'd just like you to know that I have a very big gun, a big shovel and a big back yard."

"Treat her right."


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> Second one. A reference to FrenchFry's up and coming money maker, the MMSL survivor's toolkit, that I volunteered to invest in earlier in this thread.
> 
> But if I can get in *before* it goes public, I surely would.


Thanks!


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> Well, I certainly don't agree with that list (Rules for Dating my Son).
> 
> I don't intend to interfere in my sons' dating lives at all. It is up to them who they invest in. I might make comments, but I certainly would not say anything to a potential dil. Would not even consider it.
> 
> Any young man who needs his mother's protection is not any man at all. He is a boy, and I cannot imagine my daughter wanting anything to do with such a person.


I think (hope) it's meant to be a joke.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Well, I certainly don't agree with that list (Rules for Dating my Son).
> 
> I don't intend to interfere in my sons' dating lives at all. It is up to them who they invest in. I might make comments, but I certainly would not say anything to a potential dil. Would not even consider it.
> 
> *Any young man who needs his mother's protection is not any man at all. He is a boy*, and I cannot imagine my daughter wanting anything to do with such a person.



I don't think I fully agree with this. That's not how it went, at least not in my case.

A young person can always benefit from their parent's guidance and protection...
Especially in choosing a potential mate.

I can tell you all about that.
My mother was never satisfied with any girl I brought home,
Until I introduced her to my wife.










An in hindsight, she was right!


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> On the other score, I think that both you and Wysh are looking at the same object in the glass of water , but because of the effect of light and the refractive indices of water and glass, you perspectives seem different.
> 
> On one extreme end of the spectrum we have your scenario of a woman , or a man just looking for a stable partner to ' retire" with when the biological urges kicks in. On the other end , we have the young woman or man who chose moral restraint due to their upbringing , they mature just like the person on the other end of the spectrum when and their biological urges for survival kicks in.
> In between there are many different possible combinations.
> But there is really no hard and fast rule that guarantees the person who practiced moral restraint will automatically make a better partner.
> The possibilities of them making a better partner, chemistry etc is very high , because the decision making process that got them there isn't questionable.
> However here are no guarantees.
> On the other side of the spectrum , there is also no rule that says a person who sowed wild oats would NEVER make a stable , good partner, because once they have reached maturation , their experience can have a positive impact on their thinking. The possibilities of that happening is considerably lower than the other , because that person may have issues that need to be dealt with. The decision making process that got them where they are might be questionable.
> However , it is not unheard of that such a person might have an epiphany, and develop a normal, healthy long term relationship, love and chemistry , include.
> 
> Indeed, I am an example of such a person.


I don't disagree with Wysh at all. I think the only difference in our views is I think you can reduce the odds of failure depending on whom you choose. People can certainly change for the better or worse, so there are no guarantees. I also am an example of this. There was mutual attraction between my wife and I when we met, but based on her background I pretty much knew I had to clean myself up to be with her. In fact I didn't even bother to start dating her until I had my head screwed on straight. Even after getting married I still had more growing to do.

In all honesty I think she loves me more because I was able to become a better person for her. I can't say I changed so much for only myself. 

Regarding the advice from dad, grandad, and uncles on dating, marriage, and the opposite sex. It was all pure gold. Hanging around TAM has made me appreciate it even more. I was so naive that I was completely unaware that folks were paying for stuff I assumed all father's taught their sons. It will certainly be passed on to my sons.


----------



## Blonde

I actually gave a list like this to a young man once. (didn't go over really well with his parents )


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> #6 was a real winner, wasn't it? If she's trying to kill his dating life forever, that one ought to do it!


Are you saying that a boy who's close to his mother is not a good man to partner with?

What about a girl who's close to her dad?
Would that also make her an unsuitable partner?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> I actually gave a list like this to a young man once. (didn't go over really well with his parents )


That's the reality of dating in the 21st century.

We're talking equality here.


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> #6 was a real winner, wasn't it? If she's trying to kill his dating life forever, that one ought to do it!


Given your perspective, that's a very ironic observation.


----------



## WyshIknew

ReformedHubby said:


> People absolutely do change. If someone has matured and focuses on other attributes then I think it can definitely work and they can make a happy couple. This definitely happens a lot. But the flip side also happens a lot.
> 
> The part where I'm skeptical is how much of that change/maturation you mention is driven by society's "norms"? How much of this maturation is the result of an individual rationalizing that suitor A would be a better provider than suitor B? The biological clock that you mentioned in some women certainly could cause them to seek security over what they find most sexually appealing. It can also cause them to settle down with someone that they may not even be all that attracted to because he just happens to be the guy that proposes to them and they decide to settle.
> 
> One only needs to take a cursory view of the sex board to realize that MMSL or any other book for that matter will not work if "she's just not that into you". I'm no expert but I would have to think that if the attraction to the husband is that dead the guy is either a complete a-hole, or it was never there in the first place.
> 
> My late grandfather gave me some good advice when I was getting ready for a dance in junior high. He said to me when you get to the dance don't find a young lady to chase, find the one that's chasing you. I just think men are better off in the long run if they end up with someone that they really have good chemistry with. Marrying someone who dated the complete opposite of you repeatedly in my opinion decreases the odds of maintaining that chemistry once the newness wears off.


I suppose we have to be careful not to colour our opinions by our experiences.

I married my 'wild child' and we have made a success of our marriage. Although I don't think she was as wild as some.

I can understand though if you have the scenario I've read about on here where a guys wife commits adultery, takes him to the cleaners in court, moves her new guy into the family home and the ex hubby is reduced to living in a one room apartment that the ex hubbies view is somewhat jaundiced.

Are there any figures to show that a woman who had fun (or a man for that matter) when she was young is more of a risk?

I see posts in CWI where virgin couples have problems with infidelity.


----------



## jld

I love that rules for the daughter one!


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> *1]* I think you can reduce the odds of failure depending on whom you choose.
> 
> *2]* *Regarding the advice from dad, grandad, and uncles on dating, marriage, and the opposite sex. It was all pure gold. Hanging around TAM has made me appreciate it even more. I was so naive that I was completely unaware that folks were paying for stuff I assumed all father's taught their sons. It will certainly be passed on to my sons.*


1] Positively, YES!
You can greatly reduce the odds by choosing carefully. But " choosing carefully" does not exempt the subset of people who , having had a checkered past, once they've come to terms with it , decide to work on themselves and CHANGE. 
Which feeds into your last paragraph and point #[2]



2] "_Regarding the advice from dad, grandad, and uncles on dating, marriage, and the opposite sex_". *It was all pure gold.*

Couldn't have said it better myself, and that's what's missing today. Solid , down to earth advice from those who have lived and experienced it before.


----------



## Blonde

WyshIknew said:


> I think (hope) it's meant to be a joke.


It's tongue in cheek but also sounds a warning shot that parents are watching and care.

My kids were not allowed to date till 15 and the 14yod started sneaking around. Well one time H gave him a ride home and waylaid him for 45 minutes and gave him a talking to about behaving himself with our daughter. He was a physics prof and used geeky physics language about "urge to merge",

When the high school sweethearts got married a few years later, H told the story in the toast (very tastefully) and the groomsmen put "urge to merge" on the getaway car.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Conrad said:


> Given your perspective, that's a very ironic observation.



Makes you wonder.:scratchhead:


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> This ain't time to be " politically correct," it's time to REAL.


When PC trumps truth, and stops free speech, it has gone _too far._


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> I love that rules for the daughter one!



This is just a father's list for dating his daughter ,and # 8 is just the gender opposite of #6 [ momma's boy] in the rules for dating my son.

#6 = " He's Momma's boy."
#8= " She's Daddy's girl."


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> As a med surg floor nurse, I see a lot of patients, some of them younger than me who have very serious health issues *as a result of lifestyle choices.* (eating, drinking, smoking, drug use, etc)


Yeah, but try telling people that. All I am doing is trying to help people in a simple, cheap way, and it is not appreciated, let me tell you.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> This is just a father's list for dating his daughter ,and # 8 is just the gender opposite of #6 [ momma's boy] in the rules for dating my son.
> 
> #6 = " He's Momma's boy."
> #8= " She's Daddy's girl."


It's not the same, CM. I know you know that.


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> RH ,
> Looks like both you and I had the same grandfather!:rofl:
> Lol, mine told me when I was just 11 years old , that when I wanted to get married, I should only choose the woman who loved me and was crazy for me, and not the woman I was crazy for.
> So being the inquisitive minded 11 yr old that I was , I asked him,
> " _But Papi , what if the girl I'm crazy for is also crazy for me and loves me?_"
> He responded:
> " _CM ,then you'd be one helluva lucky feller!_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other score, I think that both you and Wysh are looking at the same object in the glass of water , but because of the effect of light and the refractive indices of water and glass, you perspectives seem different.
> 
> The thing is that human beings main objective in life is survival of it's own species. Youth is a time of folly and most of the decisions made when we wee young were made outside of that inner sanctum we now have called maturation.
> 
> A 19 yr old woman is really a girl with the mind of a 14 yr old, inside a 30 something yr old woman's body. The same can be said of a 19 yr old young man.
> 
> Both parties are feeling their way around , just looking for new thrills. They make choices that are inimical to their own interests and based on their upbringing and values they either learn quickly or they continue indefinitely till " biological urges " for survival kicks in.
> 
> On one extreme end of the spectrum we have your scenario of a woman , or a man just looking for a stable partner to ' retire" with when the biological urges kicks in. On the other end , we have the young woman or man who chose moral restraint due to their upbringing , they mature just like the person on the other end of the spectrum when and their biological urges for survival kicks in.
> In between there are many different possible combinations.
> But there is really no hard and fast rule that guarantees the person who practiced moral restraint will automatically make a better partner.
> The possibilities of them making a better partner, chemistry etc is very high , because the decision making process that got them there isn't questionable.
> However here are no guarantees.
> On the other side of the spectrum , there is also no rule that says a person who sowed wild oats would NEVER make a stable , good partner, because once they have reached maturation , their experience can have a positive impact on their thinking. The possibilities of that happening is considerably lower than the other , because that person may have issues that need to be dealt with. The decision making process that got them where they are might be questionable.
> However , it is not unheard of that such a person might have an epiphany, and develop a normal, healthy long term relationship, love and chemistry , include.
> 
> Indeed, I am an example of such a person.


I was going to flag you as a guy who'd been a ladies man etc, then, on finding the woman you loved, put that aside to become a man.
But thought it might be a bit presumptuous to speak for you.

I sometimes think that I would be more liable to wander given the right circumstances rather than someone that has 'been there done, that'.


----------



## Blonde

Had rules about age for dating but otherwise much more lax with the son. No "talking to" gf's there. We raised them deeply religious and he and his W were virgins, M at age 21. 

He's never been a momma's boy. IME the boys pull away and get a little c0cky sometime between 13-16. (I have two more sons ages 11 and 13 who have not hit dating age yet)


----------



## Blonde

jld said:


> Yeah, but try telling people that. All I am doing is trying to help people in a simple, cheap way, and it is not appreciated, let me tell you.


((((((((((hugs))))))))))

At least you have an H who respects you JLD. :smthumbup:

As for the others, feel sorry for them, it's their loss. KWIM?


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> He's never been a momma's boy. IME the boys pull away and get a little c0cky sometime between 13-16. (I have two more sons ages 11 and 13 who have not hit dating age yet)


This is what I see with ds15, though he was never very dependent on me. He has always been pretty independent, in fact.

Sorry, but Mama's boy is just a total turnoff to me, in every possible way. I am sure my dd18 feels the same.


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> ((((((((((hugs))))))))))
> At least you have an H who respects you JLD. :smthumbup:


Thanks, Blonde. It is what I truly want for _every_ woman.

And he does follow my vegan diet (most of the time ).

I was referring to a thread I was asked to leave this morning when I was truly just trying to be helpful.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> It's not the same, CM. I know you know that.


I think I know what you're saying there are men that are taught to respect women by their mom's and that is a good thing. That isn't a momma's boy necessarily.

I think you are referring to men that are so hopelessly co-dependent on their mothers that they can barely function in the real world. I've seen this type before but they really don't do a whole lot of dating. But then again I don't know any of them that well because they tend to not have many friends either.


----------



## WyshIknew

ReformedHubby said:


> I think I know what you're saying there are men that are taught to respect women by their mom's and that is a good thing. That isn't a momma's boy necessarily.
> 
> I think you are referring to men that are so hopelessly co-dependent on their mothers that they can barely function in the real world. I've seen this type before but they really don't do a whole lot of dating. But then again I don't know any of them that well because they tend to not have many friends either.


Unless their mother has arranged the date of course.

Usually with the slightly dopey daughter of a friend.


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> I think I know what you're saying there are men that are taught to respect women by their mom's and that is a good thing. That isn't a momma's boy necessarily.
> 
> I think you are referring to men that are so hopelessly co-dependent on their mothers that they can barely function in the real world. I've seen this type before but they really don't do a whole lot of dating. But then again I don't know any of them that well because they tend to not have many friends either.


I would not want to be with a man who had to be protected by his mother. Yuck. Not a man.

I totally intend to be watching out for my daughter. Think hawk.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> Thanks, Blonde. It is what I truly want for _every_ woman.
> 
> And he does follow my vegan diet (most of the time ).
> 
> I was referring to a thread I was asked to leave this morning when I was truly just trying to be helpful.


JLD, don't let the haters get you down girl. Haters are gonna hate. Be you. Its an internet forum, not everybody is going to agree with you. Heck, there are some posters I never agree with. 

Its not right when posters are rude to each other, but don't let it upset you. Nobody on TAM is worth getting upset over.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> I would not want to be with a man who had to be protected by his mother. Yuck. Not a man.
> 
> I totally intend to be watching out for my daughter. Think hawk.


This reminds me of something that my neighbor did recently. When something went bump in the night he clammed up and sent his wife to check it out. She told everybody who would listen the next day. I think I'll post a thread about it on the men's forum. Its worth a chuckle or two.


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> JLD, don't let the haters get you down girl. Haters are gonna hate. Be you. Its an internet forum, not everybody is going to agree with you. Heck, there are some posters I never agree with.
> 
> Its not right when posters are rude to each other, but don't let it upset you. Nobody on TAM is worth getting upset over.


Oh, I love you, RH! And I mean that in the most chaste way possible!  My dh reads these forums!


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> This reminds me of something that my neighbor did recently. When something went bump in the night he clammed up and sent his wife to check it out. She told everybody who would listen the next day. I think I'll post a thread about it on the men's forum. Its worth a chuckle or two.


What a guy. I bet she is feeling really safe with him.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I would not want to be with a man who had to be protected by his mother. Yuck. Not a man.
> 
> I totally intend to be watching out for my daughter. Think hawk.


Holy sexist double standard, batman!


----------



## Caribbean Man

NobodySpecial said:


> Holy sexist double standard, batman!


It _is_ a double standard!

AA where are you?


As a teen my mother and I were always at loggerheads , but deep down inside I always wanted her approval of the person I was going to get married to, because I deeply respected her judgment.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> Thanks, Blonde. It is what I truly want for _every_ woman.
> 
> And he does follow my vegan diet (most of the time ).
> 
> I was referring to a thread I was asked to leave this morning when I was truly just trying to be helpful.


JLD, I politely asked you to leave because you kept posting the same suggestions over and over trying to push me into trying your lifestyle. This was after I already told you we are healthy people who eat good food and exercise. You just kept pushing and pushing. It's REALLY unfair of you to come onto this thread and passive aggressively bash me for asking you to stop pushing the vegan agenda on me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> It _is_ a double standard!



Not a good one. My daughter is no less capable of protecting herself than my son is. Or no more.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

ReformedHubby said:


> JLD, don't let the haters get you down girl. Haters are gonna hate. Be you. Its an internet forum, not everybody is going to agree with you. Heck, there are some posters I never agree with.
> 
> Its not right when posters are rude to each other, but don't let it upset you. Nobody on TAM is worth getting upset over.


No one was "hating" on JLD. It was MY thread she's referring to and I was trying to get the male opinion on how to make my husband feel better about erection issues that happen to him once in a blue moon.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> Holy sexist double standard, batman!


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


>


You think raising your daughter to feel not capable with the need to rely on someone else to protect her is funny? Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## TiggyBlue

NobodySpecial said:


> Not a good one. My daughter is no less capable of protecting herself than my son is. Or no more.


:iagree:
That's my thinking as well.


----------



## Omego

ReformedHubby said:


> I just think men are better off in the long run if they end up with someone that they really have good chemistry with. Marrying someone who dated the complete opposite of you repeatedly in my opinion decreases the odds of maintaining that chemistry once the newness wears off.





WyshIknew said:


> What on earth is wrong with a dependable, family orientated, family motivated man?
> 
> Ok, go marry Mr Party Party, live for today, snort a line, hey babe how are you today? guy. Just don't be surprised when it all goes wrong.
> 
> Why would you think that a dependable, family orientated man lacks passion?
> 
> The thing is, is that man reserves all that passion for *you*.
> 
> I may be a family man but I am twice the man and lover of any faux alpha, wannabe PUA player 'bad boy'.
> 
> 
> 
> I liken it to fishing.
> 
> 
> As a guy, when you are young you set yourself up to go fishing for girls.
> When you are young you might be using the wrong bait for that time of year, you are using the wrong bait for the season and therefore get less bites, whereas some guy using a different bait catches fish after fish. Later on you find that suddenly your bait comes into season and you start getting the bites.
> 
> 25 years next year, 4 children and six grandchildren (so far), nookie three times a week, wife who adores me.
> 
> I'd take that any day of the week over being a slightly pathetic aging stud who thinks that notches in bed posts is what it's all about.


@ Wysh, I didn't mean that at all. I meant something along the lines of the quote from RH above. I'm just saying that the chemistry AND the reliability and other characteristics you metionned are important. Passion, chemistry, whatever you want to call it.

I'll tell you a story: I had a roommate in grad school who was dating a very nice, reliable, pleasant young man. Just a normal guy. He was absolutely smitten with her. He was her knight in shining armor, really. Anyway, I asked her if she had plans to marry him. She said, "Well, he is someone I WOULD marry, yes." It was said in a rather neutral tone. 

To make a long story short: they had a fabulous wedding (organized by his family), hundreds of guests, etc. etc. His family was thrilled that he had chosen her. 

She left him a year later for someone with whom she had fallen madly in love. The guy was beyond devastated.

Obviously, this is an extreme example.


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> JLD, I politely asked you to leave because you kept posting the same suggestions over and over trying to push me into trying your lifestyle. This was after I already told you we are healthy people who eat good food and exercise. You just kept pushing and pushing. It's REALLY unfair of you to come onto this thread and passive aggressively bash me for asking you to stop pushing the vegan agenda on me.


I have feelings, too, SB, and the right to express them. I left your thread because you asked me to. I still care about the health of you and your husband.

Your doctors are not going to tell you about how a low-fat vegan diet could cure your husband's ED. I, an anonymous internet poster, care enough to tell you about it.

Good food and healthy lifestyle are ambiguous terms. 

Pushing a vegan agenda? I care about you and your happiness. If he changes his diet drastically, there is a good chance this ED can be a thing of the past.

Labeling me passive aggressive does not make me so. Bashing you? Please.

I don't know why I feel the need to defend myself against you. Eat however you want. Anyone who wants to read your thread will see your posts and mine, and can make his/her own decision about what I, and you, have said.

And I still care about you, and your dh, and your happiness.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> You think raising your daughter to feel not capable with the need to rely on someone else to protect her is funny? Different strokes for different folks.


My daughter is probably one of the most capable 18 year old females out there, in every way. But I am her mother, and love her more than life itself. And yes, I am going to be watching. You bet I am going to be watching.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> I have feelings, too, SB, and the right to express them. I left your thread because you asked me to. I still care about the health of you and your husband.
> 
> Your doctors are not going to tell you about how a low-fat vegan diet could cure your husband's ED. I, an anonymous internet poster, care enough to tell you about it.
> 
> Good food and healthy lifestyle are ambiguous terms.
> 
> Pushing a vegan agenda? I care about you and your happiness. If he changes his diet drastically, there is a good chance this ED can be a thing of the past.
> 
> Labeling me passive aggressive does not make me so. Bashing you? Please.
> 
> I don't know why I feel the need to defend myself against you. Eat however you want. Anyone who wants to read your thread will see your posts and mine, and can make his/her own decision about what I, and you, have said.
> 
> And I still care about you, and your dh, and your happiness.


I don't know why you feel the need to defend yourself either. I was polite to you. Please stop saying you care about me JLD.It comes off very fake to me.If you TRULY cared you wouldn't have come to this thread to vent about being asked to leave my thread. If you TRULY cared you would understand I am struggling today and don't need someone pushing their lifestyle on me after I already told you we are healthy.
Just because people aren't living your lifestyle does not mean they don't know anything about being healthy.


----------



## WyshIknew

Omego said:


> @ Wysh, I didn't mean that at all. I meant something along the lines of the quote from RH above. I'm just saying that the chemistry AND the reliability and other characteristics you metionned are important. Passion, chemistry, whatever you want to call it.
> 
> I'll tell you a story: I had a roommate in grad school who was dating a very nice, reliable, pleasant young man. Just a normal guy. He was absolutely smitten with her. He was her knight in shining armor, really. Anyway, I asked her if she had plans to marry him. She said, "Well, he is someone I WOULD marry, yes." It was said in a rather neutral tone.
> 
> To make a long story short: they had a fabulous wedding (organized by his family), hundreds of guests, etc. etc. His family was thrilled that he had chosen her.
> 
> She left him a year later for someone with whom she had fallen madly in love. The guy was beyond devastated.
> 
> Obviously, this is an extreme example.


Ouch!


Must have been so difficult for the guy to bounce back from that.

I hope he eventually found someone else to love.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> My daughter is probably one of the most capable 18 year old *females *out there, in every way. But I am her mother, and love her more than life itself. And yes, I am going to be watching. You bet I am going to be watching.


But not your son? Because that would make him a momma's boy?

Raise your kids how you like. No skin off my nose. But from my opinion, we do our children no service when we raise them to limit their growth based on gender stereotypes. People who are protected tend to fail to protect themselves.

My daughter is one of the most capable PEOPLE out there in every way.


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> I don't know why you feel the need to defend yourself either. I was polite to you. Please stop saying you care about me JLD.It comes off very fake to me.If you TRULY cared you wouldn't have come to this thread to vent about being asked to leave my thread. If you TRULY cared you would understand I am struggling today and don't need someone pushing their lifestyle on me after I already told you we are healthy.
> Just because people aren't living your lifestyle doesn't not mean they don't know anything about being healthy.


How can I help? I am sorry you are struggling. I haven't gone through what you are going through, but I do care. Let me show it. I won't mention what happened this morning anymore. What else can I do, SB?

I am a mom, too, and a good bit older than you. I may be able to at least offer some comforting words. And they are sincere, SB.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> How can I help? I am sorry you are struggling. I haven't gone through what you are going through, but I do care. Let me show it. I won't mention what happened this morning anymore. What else can I do, SB?
> 
> I am a mom, too, and a good bit older than you. I may be able to at least offer some comforting words. And they are sincere, SB.


That's fine,JLD. I have enough issues and I'm done with this one. Take care.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> But not your son? Because that would make him a momma's boy?


I don't know how much help my ds15 would need. He doesn't appear to need any. 

I am more protective towards my daughter. I am not going to lie, no matter how politically incorrect my view is.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I don't know how much help my ds15 would need. He doesn't appear to need any.
> 
> I am more protective towards my daughter. I am not going to lie, no matter how politically incorrect my view is.


The issue is not one of political correctness. It is about taking the 18 or so years we are given to parent and arming them with the tools that THEY need to take care of themselves. Doing less of that simply because one of them is female is, in my view, not in that female child's best interest. Political correctness be damned.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> The issue is not one of political correctness. It is about taking the 18 or so years we are given to parent and arming them with the tools that THEY need to take care of themselves. Doing less of that simply because one of them is female is, in my view, not in that female child's best interest. Political correctness be damned.


May I ask how old you are, and how old your children are?

I am not a total fool. I am a 43 year old mother of five children, dd18, ds15, ds11, ds8, and ds5.

I think they are well-armed, lol. And I am still watching out for my daughter. I guess I am a mama bear.


----------



## Hope1964

jld said:


> Anyone who wants to read your thread will see your posts and mine, and can make his/her own decision about what I, and you, have said.


I read it all, and totally agree with scarlett. You've pushed veganism in other threads as a cure for different ailments, and frankly it's getting old. I'm a mom too and am older than YOU. Does that mean that you should also listen to me then? Because IMO veganism is one step away from an eating disorder, and telling everyone who will listen how wonderful it is can do WAY more harm than good.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NobodySpecial said:


> The issue is not one of political correctness. It is about taking the 18 or so years we are given to parent and arming them with the tools that THEY need to take care of themselves. Doing less of that simply because one of them is female is, in my view, not in that female child's best interest. Political correctness be damned.


I tend to agree with this, especially because of my experience.

I was a very independent minded, wayward teen and wanted to do my own thing. Very self reliant to the point whee I got myself into serious troubles.
To make matters worse, I always worked part time for my own money since I was pretty young.

But my mother was always there, telling me the right thing to do, trying to point me in the right direction and make the right decisions.
One thing I'm thankful for is that she installed sound moral values in me when I was a little kid.
They stuck like a broken record in the back of my head, even when I knew what I was doing was wrong.
In hindsight, if things had turned out badly for me, I still could not have blamed her.She tried really hard, and never left me to myself.
I was just the second out of four kids for her.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> I tend to agree with this, especially because of my experience.
> 
> I was a very independent minded, wayward teen and wanted to do my own thing. Very self reliant to the point whee I got myself into serious troubles.
> To make matters worse, I always worked part time for my own money since I was pretty young.
> 
> But my mother was always there, telling me the right thing to do, trying to point me in the right direction and make the right decisions.
> In hindsight, if things had turned out badly for me, I still could not have blamed her.She tried really hard, and never left me to myself.
> I was just the second out of four kids for her.


Yup. We scaffold as much protection as our kids actually need. It is not helpful to our boys to artificially toughen them up, nor is it helpful to our girls to raise them as damsels in distress. How many princess damsels in distress do we envision are on the other side of the cheating and sexless marriage threads?


----------



## jld

Hope1964 said:


> I read it all, and totally agree with scarlett. You've pushed veganism in other threads as a cure for different ailments, and frankly it's getting old. I'm a mom too and am older than YOU. Does that mean that you should also listen to me then? Because IMO veganism is one step away from an eating disorder, and telling everyone who will listen how wonderful it is can do WAY more harm than good.


How about starting a thread in health, and I will listen to what you have to say?


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> How about starting a thread in health, and I will listen to what you have to say?


You value other people's feelings which is awesome. Veganism aside, one possible take away for you might be that it is kind to people's feelings to state your opinion once or twice. If it is not taken, leave it alone.


----------



## jld

We are not going to get anywhere on these boards if we just follow one line of thinking. We have got to have open discussion. I am not even sure debate is the word. 

An attitude of "Help me understand," and, "How can I help?" is going to get us farther than "You don't know anything!" and "Stop saying that already!"

If you knew my kids, I think you would say the same things people IRL say about them.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> You value other people's feelings which is awesome. Veganism aside, one possible take away for you might be that it is kind to people's feelings to state your opinion once or twice. If it is not taken, leave it alone.


And this is good advice.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> We are not going to get anywhere on these boards if we just follow one line of thinking. We have got to have open discussion. I am not even sure debate is the word.
> 
> An attitude of "Help me understand," and, "How can I help?" is going to get us farther than "You don't know anything!" and "Stop saying that already!"
> 
> If you knew my kids, I think you would say the same things people IRL say about them.


I am curious about something. Where do you think "we" are all trying to get? Do you believe that we are all trying to get to the same place? Do you feel that you have a right to choose what opinions someone is interested in exploring and what not? The truth is, you don't get to choose other people's attitudes. You seem to think you do.


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> Not a good one. My daughter is no less capable of protecting herself than my son is. Or no more.


I disagree with this.

Daughters are the ones who have to deal with rape and abortions not to mention that the fallout of STD's is often way more serious for a woman than a man d/t anatomical differences. HPV KILLS women (by causing cervical cancer).

As I mentioned above, my (now 16yo) daughter had a 13 yo classmate and friend who had an abortion.* thirteen*!!! My 18yod has a friend (a neighbor and dd's best friend) who got pregnant at age 16 and dropped out. My school district (small, white, rural) is in one of the poorest counties in my state (big northeast state) and has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy.

My teaching to my son was to treat girls with respect, not to use them sexually, to save sex for M. My daughters OTH, their bf's did not grow up with my teachings.... so they got "the talk" and "rules for dating my daughter".


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> I disagree with this.
> 
> Daughters are the ones who have to deal with rape and abortions not to mention that the fallout of STD's is often way more serious for a woman than a man d/t anatomical differences. HPV KILLS women (by causing cervical cancer).
> 
> As I mentioned above, my daughter has a 13 yo classmate and friend who had an abortion.* thirteen*!!! My 18yod has a friend who got pregnant at age 16 and dropped out. My school district (small, white, rural) is in one of the poorest counties in my state (big northeast state) and has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy.
> 
> My teaching to my son was to treat girls with respect, not to use them sexually, to save sex for M. My daughters OTH, their bf's did not grow up with my teachings.... so they got "the talk" and "rules for dating my daughter".


Why not talk about your daughters about "rules" to protect themselves?


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> I am curious about something. Where do you think "we" are all trying to get? Do you believe that we are all trying to get to the same place? Do you feel that you have a right to choose what opinions someone is interested in exploring and what not? The truth is, you don't get to choose other people's attitudes. You seem to think you do.


Well, that is a good point. I assume we are all trying to get to truth, the healthiest, happiest way for us to live. But indeed, there may be different truths.

And for sure, I do not want to stifle free speech. Quite the opposite.

But "truth," if there is such a thing, can withstand rigorous questioning. It remains stable despite our emotions.

It helps us even when we hate it, when it's hard, and when it is not at all what we want to do.

I do want the best for people, but you are right that I have an idea of what "the best" is. I want people to be healthy and happy, but indeed, what is "healthy" and "happy" ?

Enlightening discussion. Thank you, Nobody Special.


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ This is actually interesting. Boys also have to deal with rape, STDs and pregnancy. I wonder how much this kind of attitude contributes to the poor rape reporting among boys? I would bet a dollar quite a bit.


----------



## Hope1964

jld said:


> How about starting a thread in health, and I will listen to what you have to say?


I have absolutely NO desire to listen to what you have to say, though.


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> Why not talk about your daughters about "rules" to protect themselves?


That too. 

IME my parents were *not protective* of me as a teenage girl and they were lousy parents, NS. I was abused, molested, and scr#ewed up because my parents had no rules and no boundaries...

So, I made it up as I went along and I am far from perfect...

but

I have 4 adult children 3M, 1 engaged who were not sexually promiscuous and were virgins at M as far as I know (the 21yos vocal and proud of it). They are all productive taxpaying citizens and all 4 couples making over 6 figures (which H and I never did their entire childhood).

So, my way of parenting is working for me. And I believe and practice that boys and girls are different. As CM noticed above, I tend to have quite a female-centric perspective believing that girls and women are very very precious and need to be empowered *and protected.*


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Well, that is a good point. I assume we are all trying to get to truth, the healthiest, happiest way for us to live. But indeed, there may be different truths.
> 
> And for sure, I do not want to stifle free speech. Quite the opposite.
> 
> But "truth," if there is such a thing, can withstand rigorous questioning. It remains stable despite our emotions.


True enough. But that does not mean you have the absolute handle on what it is. And you assume regularly that those who don't agree with you misunderstand this truth on which you have a superior handle.

Or at least that is how it comes across to me with no emotional dog in this fight whatsoever.

Is this bordering on personal attack? It is not intended to.


----------



## ReformedHubby

NobodySpecial said:


> You value other people's feelings which is awesome. Veganism aside, one possible take away for you might be that it is kind to people's feelings to state your opinion once or twice. If it is not taken, leave it alone.


Definitely true, one of the reasons I don't post personal questions on TAM anymore is because nobody listens. You end up making posts defending your spouse against all the "advice" you're getting. You have to take only what is applicable to you on here.

Regarding diets, wifey is in vegan mode these days and I'm on the primal diet. Both are pretty much polar opposite diets but we both feel great!!


----------



## jld

Hope1964 said:


> I have absolutely NO desire to listen to what you have to say, though.


Okay. Just give your side, and I will ask questions, sincerely and respectfully, as I have them. Agreed?


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ This is actually interesting. Boys also have to deal with rape, STDs and pregnancy. I wonder how much this kind of attitude contributes to the poor rape reporting among boys? I would bet a dollar quite a bit.


The boys are not raped by female classmates however.

Homosexual rape or teacher/coach adult female on child rape.

I'm not gonna research statistics, but girls are raped and molested by male *classmates* (IME unfortunately)


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> That too.
> 
> IME my parents were *not protective* of me as a teenage girl and they were lousy parents, NS. I was abused, molested, and scr#ewed up because my parents had no rules and no boundaries...


Sorry to hear that! Counter point, my Dad was VERY forthright. Still I did not come out unscathed. But I was able to avoid some scary situations, and defend myself from others. 



> So, I made it up as I went along and I am far from perfect...
> 
> but
> 
> 
> 
> I have 4 adult children 3M, 1 engaged who were not sexually promiscuous and were virgins at M as far as I know (the 21yos vocal and proud of it). They are all productive taxpaying citizens and all 4 couples making over 6 figures (which H and I never did their entire childhood).
> 
> 
> 
> Well aside from the paying taxes, those are not values that I am the slightest interested in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, my way of parenting is working for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I believe and practice that boys and girls are different. As CM noticed above, I tend to have quite a female-centric perspective believing that girls and women are very very precious and need to be empowered *and protected.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am glad that approach has worked for you. I have given my opinions to anyone who is interested.
Click to expand...


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> The boys are not raped by female classmates however.
> 
> Homosexual rape or teacher/coach adult female on child rape.
> 
> I'm not gonna research statistics, but girls are raped and molested by male *classmates* (IME unfortunately)


I guess I have two things to say about that. Interviewing their boyfriends is not much protection for the girl. And having acted against one threat, many many more are being ignored. Like strangers, non-rape threat...


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> True enough. But that does not mean you have the absolute handle on what it is. And you assume regularly that those who don't agree with you misunderstand this truth on which you have a superior handle.
> 
> Or at least that is how it comes across to me with no emotional dog in this fight whatsoever.
> 
> Is this bordering on personal attack? It is not intended to.


It definitely feels like a personal attack. But I am not the type to report anyone to a mod. 

How about rereading what you wrote to me, and put yourself in my place, with something you feel could be helpful to people? How does it feel then?


----------



## Blonde

I dislike the brand of feminism that so hates femininity that they want to be androgynous and fail to acknowledge the unique biological vulnerabilities of girls and women


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> Definitely true, one of the reasons I don't post personal questions on TAM anymore is because nobody listens. You end up making posts defending your spouse against all the "advice" you're getting. You have to take only what is applicable to you on here.
> 
> Regarding diets, wifey is in vegan mode these days and I'm on the primal diet. Both are pretty much polar opposite diets but we both feel great!!


Do you want me to take that "I love you" post down, RH? I didn't mean to embarrass you. I just felt overwhelming gratitude for some empathy and kindness.


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> I dislike the brand of feminism that so hates femininity that they want to be androgynous and fail to acknowledge the unique biological vulnerabilities of girls and women


I hope you and I are just misunderstanding this, Blonde, because I feel the same way. Maybe, indeed, we are just misinterpreting what we have heard?


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> It definitely feels like a personal attack. But I am not the type to report anyone to a mod.
> 
> How about rereading what you wrote to me, and put yourself in my place, with something you feel could be helpful to people? How does it feel then?


If it helps you to be heard, then it was helpful. If not, not. If I valued being heard, and my own approach was in the way of that, then I would be very happy to hear about it. Then I would have the power to do something about it.

Internet forums don't hurt my feelings.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Blonde said:


> I dislike the brand of feminism that so hates femininity that they want to be androgynous and fail to acknowledge the unique biological vulnerabilities of girls and women


What does being vulnerable have to do with being feminine?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> I dislike the brand of feminism that so hates femininity that they want to be androgynous and fail to acknowledge the unique biological vulnerabilities of girls and women


I am not sure who is posting that.


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> Do you want me to take that "I love you" post down, RH? I didn't mean to embarrass you. I just felt overwhelming gratitude for some empathy and kindness.


You didn't embarrass me at all. Not sure why you think that. I'm good.

But...since this thread is a long way from home anyway. As a vegan what do you think of the primal diet? I'm just curious.


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess I have two things to say about that. Interviewing their boyfriends is not much protection for the girl. And having acted against one threat, many many more are being ignored. Like strangers, non-rape threat...


I don't ignore threats to my sons.

In fact, I homeschooled my *son* at age 12 last year because he was being bullied (for his intelligence). The biggest perp (instigator and role model for the classmates) was his steroid taking iron pumping male social studies teacher.

I like to think my decision to homeschool him (with lots of communication to the principal, superintendent, and school board as to my reasons) is why the school now has anti bullying teaching and an effective system for reporting with follow through in place so that these things don't continue on and on unaddressed.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> I don't ignore threats to my sons.
> 
> In fact, I homeschooled my *son* at age 12 last year because he was being bullied (for his intelligence). The biggest perp (instigator and role model for the classmates) was his steroid taking iron pumping male social studies teacher.
> 
> I like to think my decision to homeschool him (with lots of communication to the principal, superintendent, and school board as to my reasons) is why the school now has anti bullying teaching and an effective system for reporting with follow through in place so that these things don't continue on and on unaddressed.


I am not attacking you. I am responding objectively to the actions you mention. 

Cheers. Peace out.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TiggyBlue said:


> What does being vulnerable have to do with being feminine?


Rape fear can be very strong. The fact that we have an orifice into which we can have things inserted against our will makes us more vulnerable. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Doesn't change the fact that I think we should arm our children to guard their own vulnerabilities.


----------



## jld

NobodySpecial said:


> If it helps you to be heard, then it was helpful. If not, not. If I valued being heard, and my own approach was in the way of that, then I would be very happy to hear about it. Then I would have the power to do something about it.
> 
> Internet forums don't hurt my feelings.


I am not exactly sure I understand what you are saying. I will try to reread this a few times, and maybe I will get it. And thank you for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## Blonde

TiggyBlue said:


> What does being vulnerable have to do with being feminine?


the anatomy is different

we are not androgynous.


----------



## jld

ReformedHubby said:


> You didn't embarrass me at all. Not sure why you think that. I'm good.
> 
> But...since this thread is a long way from home anyway. As a vegan what do you think of the primal diet? I'm just curious.


I don't usually go around telling men I love them, even though, very chastely , I do. Thanks for not being offended.

You just never know what in the world is going to offend people these days. Or at least I don't.

Primal is meat-based, with some veggies and no fruit, is that right? I am worried about you now, with all that protein and fat from the meat. It is so hard on your kidneys, RH. 

Is it okay if I do some research and just pm it to you? I don't know much about primal specifically.

And it would be interesting to hear what your wife's vegan diet looks like, and what she says about your diet. Dh and I are together on this. 

I think I would cry every time he would prepare meat if he ate primal. I would be so worried about him. I love him very much and don't want to lose him.


----------



## TiggyBlue

NobodySpecial said:


> Rape fear can be very strong. The fact that we have an orifice into which we can have things inserted against our will makes us more vulnerable. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Doesn't change the fact that I think we should arm our children to guard their own vulnerabilities.


I agree with that, rape can result in pregnancy does make female's more vulnerable (although men do have a orifice where they can be raped). I just don't understand why the solution seems to teach girls to defend themselves so their not so vulnerable is seen as hating femininity.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> I dislike the brand of feminism that so hates femininity that they want to be androgynous and fail to acknowledge the unique biological vulnerabilities of girls and women


Much anger in that group.


----------



## Blonde

TiggyBlue said:


> I agree with that, rape can result in pregnancy does make female's more vulnerable (although men do have a orifice where they can be raped). I just don't understand why *the solution seems to teach girls to defend themselves so their not so vulnerable is seen as hating femininity*.


Who said that?:scratchhead: 

Though I really did not have to teach them to defend themselves. Just taught them good Christian morals and they stayed out of trouble, chose OS friends wisely, and had very good boundaries- come down like a ton of bricks if a fella gets fresh and stay away from high risk environments, such as drinking parties


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> Given your perspective, that's a very ironic observation.


??? So because I don't think we should be feeding demeaning stereotypes and contempt for women, I therefore want men to be mama's boys?

Talk about the fallacy of the false dichotomy!

ETA: For those who are hinting otherwise, I'm not on board with with the daddy's little princess either.

Double standards are not for me.


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> ??? So because I don't think we should be feeding demeaning stereotypes and contempt for women, I therefore want men to be mama's boys?
> 
> Talk about the fallacy of the false dichotomy!


I read your words differently.

The pedestal seems just fine if it's you on it - instead of mom.


----------



## Blonde

Conrad said:


> Much anger in that group.


Self rejection and self hatred of femininity

BT but in the uber submissive patriarchal quiver full manifestation of trying to prove the value of a woman by being a "superwoman" (and still feeling rejected by God and second class)

My recovered self fully enjoys, accepts, and LOVES being a woman  Vive la difference!

"weaker vessel" 1 Pet 3:7, more vulnerable, is not a design flaw...


----------



## ReformedHubby

jld said:


> I don't usually go around telling men I love them, even though, very chastely , I do. Thanks for not being offended.
> 
> You just never know what in the world is going to offend people these days. Or at least I don't.
> 
> Primal is meat-based, with some veggies and no fruit, is that right? I am worried about you now, with all that protein and fat from the meat. It is so hard on your kidneys, RH.
> 
> Is it okay if I do some research and just pm it to you? I don't know much about primal specifically.
> 
> And it would be interesting to hear what your wife's vegan diet looks like, and what she says about your diet. Dh and I are together on this.
> 
> I think I would cry every time he would prepare meat if he ate primal. I would be so worried about him. I love him very much and don't want to lose him.


Definitely PM me. I am curious on your thoughts. Being honest though I'd hate to let go of it. Its pretty much giving me my old body back.


----------



## Racer

Blonde said:


> The boys are not raped by female classmates however.


Totally untrue. And it is different. Essentially a girl throws herself at a guy she’s crushing on. And thanks to modern morals, sex is now what you do to keep a man so it is often the hook. 

He may not really want to or even like her. This is what makes it a rape. 

But his own buddies, her harassment, her friend’s harassment really come into play like accusations of being gay (seems to be the attack of preference). Guys are really hard on other guys who pass on sex at that young age and the girls are even more vicious. Not having sex when offered by a female is generally seen as a horrible character flaw unless you have an excuse like a current girlfriend or appear to have a lot of options. But for the kid who’s struggled with girls? Not doing it seriously harms his reputation and makes his sexual orientation questionable. It is a date rape of sorts, a ton of peer pressure and not all that uncommon.

Basically, it is not considered ‘normal’ for a man to pass on sex. It’s valued and prized by males. It is more socially acceptable to say no to drugs or alcohol or even passing on red meat . It is ‘normal’ for a girl to reject it and be choosy. The peer pressure and desire to fit in is massive.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Blonde said:


> Who said that?:scratchhead:


Sorry i thought you where equating vulnerability with being female and people that don't embrace this thought are trying to be androgynous and hate femininity. My bad if I got it wrong. 



Blonde said:


> I dislike the brand of feminism that so hates femininity that they want to be androgynous and fail to acknowledge the unique biological vulnerabilities of girls and women


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> Self rejection and self hatred of femininity


I am curious where you are seeing it? You have brought it up in this thread. Do you think that what I am talking about has anything to do with that?



> My recovered self fully enjoys, accepts, and LOVES being a woman  Vive la difference!



I love being a woman too!


----------



## ReformedHubby

Racer said:


> Totally untrue. And it is different. Essentially a girl throws herself at a guy she’s crushing on. And thanks to modern morals, sex is now what you do to keep a man so it is often the hook.
> 
> He may not really want to or even like her. This is what makes it a rape.
> 
> But his own buddies, her harassment, her friend’s harassment really come into play like accusations of being gay (seems to be the attack of preference). Guys are really hard on other guys who pass on sex at that young age and the girls are even more vicious. Not having sex when offered by a female is generally seen as a horrible character flaw unless you have an excuse like a current girlfriend or appear to have a lot of options. But for the kid who’s struggled with girls? Not doing it seriously harms his reputation and makes his sexual orientation questionable. It is a date rape of sorts, a ton of peer pressure and not all that uncommon.
> 
> Basically, it is not considered ‘normal’ for a man to pass on sex. It’s valued and prized by males. It is more socially acceptable to say no to drugs or alcohol or even passing on red meat . It is ‘normal’ for a girl to reject it and be choosy. The peer pressure and desire to fit in is massive.


Sorry Racer, but what you are describing is in no way considered rape. Not even close.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Racer said:


> Totally untrue. And it is different. Essentially a girl throws herself at a guy she’s crushing on. And thanks to modern morals, sex is now what you do to keep a man so it is often the hook.
> 
> He may not really want to or even like her. This is what makes it a rape.


Well, no. That really does not make it rape. 



> But his own buddies, her harassment, her friend’s harassment really come into play like accusations of being gay (seems to be the attack of preference). Guys are really hard on other guys who pass on sex at that young age and the girls are even more vicious. Not having sex when offered by a female is generally seen as a horrible character flaw unless you have an excuse like a current girlfriend or appear to have a lot of options. But for the kid who’s struggled with girls? Not doing it seriously harms his reputation and makes his sexual orientation questionable. It is a date rape of sorts, a ton of peer pressure and not all that uncommon.
> 
> Basically, it is not considered ‘normal’ for a man to pass on sex. It’s valued and prized by males. It is more socially acceptable to say no to drugs or alcohol or even passing on red meat . It is ‘normal’ for a girl to reject it and be choosy. The peer pressure and desire to fit in is massive.



You should look up the definition of rape.


----------



## Racer

ReformedHubby said:


> Sorry Racer, but what you are describing is in no way considered rape. Not even close.


Turn the gender around and it is. There was a boy in my son's school who was charged with statutory rape by the parents of a girl whom he peer pressured into sex. Lot's of school assemblies after that talking about peer pressure and sex throughout our school district; middle school to high school. Even then, and why my head goes there, it was more for the girls where the boys would be the one pressuring. That's bull. My son tells me it is as much the girls doing this as the guys. 

And no... you can't really call it a 'true rape' in my head either because he did consent. It's unwanted sex based on a fear of ramifications for saying no.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Racer said:


> Turn the gender around and it is. There was a boy in my son's school who was charged with statutory rape by the parents of a girl whom he peer pressured into sex.


Do you know what statutory rape is? No where in the definition is peer pressure.


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> I read your words differently.
> 
> The pedestal seems just fine if it's you on it - instead of mom.


That only shows how little you know about me, and how much you are reading into what I am saying.

I have zero desire for a pedestal. I only want to not be treated with contempt.

Alas, it looks like I will have to be *very* selective about who I associate with to make that happen.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Racer said:


> Totally untrue. And it is different. Essentially a girl throws herself at a guy she’s crushing on. And thanks to modern morals, sex is now what you do to keep a man so it is often the hook.
> 
> He may not really want to or even like her. This is what makes it a rape.
> 
> But his own buddies, her harassment, her friend’s harassment really come into play like accusations of being gay (seems to be the attack of preference). Guys are really hard on other guys who pass on sex at that young age and the girls are even more vicious. Not having sex when offered by a female is generally seen as a horrible character flaw unless you have an excuse like a current girlfriend or appear to have a lot of options. But for the kid who’s struggled with girls? Not doing it seriously harms his reputation and makes his sexual orientation questionable. It is a date rape of sorts, a ton of peer pressure and not all that uncommon.
> 
> Basically, it is not considered ‘normal’ for a man to pass on sex. It’s valued and prized by males. It is more socially acceptable to say no to drugs or alcohol or even passing on red meat . It is ‘normal’ for a girl to reject it and be choosy. The peer pressure and desire to fit in is massive.


This brings back memories for me.

When I was in high school, I used to hang out in a group of guys , most of us played basketball on the school team.

A group of girls used to hang out with us , doing stuff like wild parties,drinking everything.

I remember a couple of those girl would target the quiet, shy guys in class to harass and embarrass them by rubbing themselves on them and making them, uncomfortably by sitting on their laps, all sort of sexual contact including touching them just to make them uncomfortable, and we would laugh at them.

In hindsight it was cruel, and the girls got a power trip off it.

I guess back then those guys were just expected to take it without complaining, but embarrassed , they surely were!

But it was part of the way we were cultured.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> I don't usually go around telling men I love them, even though, very chastely , I do. Thanks for not being offended.
> 
> You just never know what in the world is going to offend people these days. Or at least I don't.
> 
> Primal is meat-based, with some veggies and no fruit, is that right? I am worried about you now, with all that protein and fat from the meat. It is so hard on your kidneys, RH.
> 
> Is it okay if I do some research and just pm it to you? I don't know much about primal specifically.
> 
> And it would be interesting to hear what your wife's vegan diet looks like, and what she says about your diet. Dh and I are together on this.
> 
> I think I would cry every time he would prepare meat if he ate primal. I would be so worried about him. I love him very much and don't want to lose him.


I have to eat a high protein diet due to weight loss surgery. I am now a vegetarian, but when I had the surgery, I was a meat eater. It's been almost a year since I have eaten meat... but I still consume dairy and eggs. My kidneys are just fine. My husband and kids are not vegetarian. I refuse to force that on them. I don't cook meat at home, but I will buy a sandwich for my husband at Subway or at the deli in the store. The kids eat meat at school. 

I think, if someone were to get upset and cry and/or say something to my kids about how they shouldn't eat meat... I'd take a bite of my kid's food, just to stand up for my kids.... and suffer the stomach pains later.

jld, you said your husband "mostly follows your vegan diet"...that means he is not vegan... which means he consumes some sort of animal product, be it cheese, eggs, or milk. How does that make you feel?

Also, I was wondering something else. How do you get b12? Every pro-vegan site I have seen says that b12 is LOW in vegetables/fruits/grains... In fact, the one that they say has the most is spinach, but you would have to eat a TON of that everyday to get enough b12. Eating that much spinach can throw other nutrients off balance. So, logically, you would have to supplement, somehow, correct? What do you use/take?


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by jld
> 
> 
> 
> You think raising your daughter to feel not capable with the need to rely on someone else to protect her is funny? Different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...

^^NS-splaining

jld, can you keep your tender heart and develop a tough skin?


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Sorry Racer, but what you are describing is in no way considered rape. Not even close.


Not rape, but sexual harassment.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> Self rejection and self hatred of femininity
> 
> BT but in the uber submissive patriarchal quiver full manifestation of trying to prove the value of a woman by being a "superwoman" (and still feeling rejected by God and second class)
> 
> My recovered self fully enjoys, accepts, and LOVES being a woman  Vive la difference!
> 
> "weaker vessel" 1 Pet 3:7, more vulnerable, is not a design flaw...


It's one of creation's most beautiful synergies.


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> That only shows how little you know about me, and how much you are reading into what I am saying.
> 
> I have zero desire for a pedestal. I only want to not be treated with contempt.
> 
> Alas, it looks like I will have to be *very* selective about who I associate with to make that happen.


I'm curious now.

As females grow and mature, what sort of self-discipline must they develop to reach their full potential? In other words, what are the common issues that would prevent a young girl from becoming a psychologically mature woman?


----------



## U.E. McGill

jld said:


> I don't usually go around telling men I love them, even though, very chastely , I do. Thanks for not being offended.
> 
> 
> 
> You just never know what in the world is going to offend people these days. Or at least I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Primal is meat-based, with some veggies and no fruit, is that right? I am worried about you now, with all that protein and fat from the meat. It is so hard on your kidneys, RH.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it okay if I do some research and just pm it to you? I don't know much about primal specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> And it would be interesting to hear what your wife's vegan diet looks like, and what she says about your diet. Dh and I are together on this.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I would cry every time he would prepare meat if he ate primal. I would be so worried about him. I love him very much and don't want to lose him.



Paleo eater here. I eat a palm sized protein, I don't watch my fat and my carbohydrate intake is from veggies and two servings of fruit. Eggs 5 times a week, steak, avacados, nuts, etc. 

I've lost 30 pounds of fat. I sleep way better, my cholesterol is low and I can get up and move in a moments notice. No mid morning crash, no digging for sweets, no cravings and most of all I'm not constantly hungry. I'm fat powered!

I think the move to "low fat" is one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated on the masses.


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> I am curious where you are seeing it? You have brought it up in this thread. Do you think that what I am talking about has anything to do with that?


Just sharing my views NS. 

I wrote a paper for a nursing class on the history of the interaction of feminism with nursing and love the new stream of feminism which recognizes and celebrates feminine attributes.

IMO abortion culture and on an individual basis is a symptom and fruit of female self hatred and the rejection of femininity. It's androgyny enforcement.

Leaving the room now.... 

How did we get off on this tangent anyway? :scratchhead:


----------



## Racer

Caribbean Man said:


> In hindsight it was cruel, and the girls got a power trip off it..


Oh my and how times have changed. Remember spin the bottle? Truth or dare? Welcome to the new age of sexual revolution and gender equality... Now girls are testing each other’s courage to do sexual acts. Sort of like the old days mean guys asking the ‘fat girl’ to dance to prove to his friends he could do something ‘gross’. Everything now is “extreme” with the X-Game generations and pushing the limits. Girls have learned that no reasonable guy would turn away sexual favors. So, they’ll dare so and so to blow ‘the ugly guy’ because just dancing with him isn’t ‘extreme’ enough to generate much gossip... then laugh about how gross that and he is.

I’ve caught glimpses of this overhearing conversations of my teenagers. According to my son’s friend, “Nicky only does anal & oral because she doesn’t want to get pregnant or lose her virginity. She’s saving her virginity until college.” And he’s frustrated and probably going to dump her because she doesn’t ‘put out’... WTF? I haven’t dared tell Mom about this but have had some conversation with my son.... and gave him my copy of NMMNG so hopefully he’ll learn to handle who he is without needing approval by others.


----------



## Hope1964

U.E. McGill said:


> I think the move to "low fat" is one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated on the masses.


:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: I don't eat paleo but I do eat TF and I couldn't agree more about the low fat craze. The trick is eating the RIGHT fats. Not only the types of food, but how the animals were raised and what they were fed and even how they were killed is hugely important.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Racer said:


> Turn the gender around and it is. There was a boy in my son's school who was charged with statutory rape by the parents of a girl whom he peer pressured into sex. Lot's of school assemblies after that talking about peer pressure and sex throughout our school district; middle school to high school. Even then, and why my head goes there, it was more for the girls where the boys would be the one pressuring. That's bull. My son tells me it is as much the girls doing this as the guys.
> 
> And no... you can't really call it a 'true rape' in my head either because he did consent. It's unwanted sex based on a fear of ramifications for saying no.


Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I was pretty mature in appearance for my age so I lost my virginity early. I wouldn't say I wanted things to go that far it but I wouldn't say I was forced either. I certainly don't feel damaged by it in anyway. I guess I just don't believe that being pursued sexually is as damaging to a young man as you implied in your post. If anything most would be flattered. I know I was. Half the guys in school trying to get laid and you somehow just walk into it with minimal effort. I think men and women are different when it comes to this.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Well AA,
> I'm glad that you flipped the script , and did it with such ease and so accurately!
> You haven't said anything earth shattering or new there^^^.
> Ask the average man across in the CWI section of TAM to review their marriage in hindsight and they would tell you that they were thinking with their " little head" and their wives took them for everything they had.


Well, my impression was that men were not entirely in favour of such behaviour, indeed, we're inclined to disparage the gold-digger lifestyle, and would find it objectionable to see it not only condoned, but advocated for, complete with ridiculous stereotypes of men.

Silly me! 

Had I known that you would be so eager to get behind the gold-digger's manifesto, as the truth and the way, I might have approached the problem differently.(You do know that the definition of success for a gold-digger is to take everything he has and *never* have sex with him don't you?)

Had I known that you would be so happy to condone the gold-digger's manifesto, I might have approached the problem differently.

At any rate, if you wish to live in a world where men advise each other to demean women, and women advise each other to demean men, and anyone who suggests that all this demeaning isn't actually standing in the way of the happily ever afters deserves to be dismissed and derided, well, that's your prerogative, I suppose.

Me, I'm just glad I'm an introvert, and will just do my best to avoid all of it.


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> I'm curious now.
> 
> As females grow and mature, what sort of self-discipline must they develop to reach their full potential? In other words, what are the common issues that would prevent a young girl from becoming a psychologically mature woman?


Not sure I understand what you're getting at?

Seems to me there are a zillion factors that go into reaching one's full potential. Which ones are we talking about here?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Well, my impression was that men were not entirely in favour of such behaviour, indeed, we're inclined to disparage the gold-digger lifestyle, and would find it objectionable to see it not only condoned, but advocated for, complete with ridiculous stereotypes of men.
> 
> Silly me!
> 
> Had I known that you would be so eager to get behind the gold-digger's manifesto, as the truth and the way, I might have approached the problem differently.(You do know that the definition of success for a gold-digger is to take everything he has and *never* have sex with him don't you?)
> 
> Had I known that you would be so happy to condone the gold-digger's manifesto, I might have approached the problem differently.
> 
> *At any rate, if you wish to live in a world where men advise each other to demean women, and women advise each other to demean men, and anyone who suggests that all this demeaning isn't actually standing in the way of the happily ever afters deserves to be dismissed and derided, well, that's your prerogative, I suppose.*
> 
> Me, I'm just glad I'm an introvert, and will just do my best to avoid all of it.


I don't wish to live in a world where men and women demean and objectify each other..,

But I DO.

And it has happened to me more than once in the past ever since I started " liking " girls at age 14.
Ask any man or ask the average " nice guy" and they would tell you that they have experienced this at least once in their lives.


But we are taught just to * accept it and move on *, " _better luck next time_", " _get over it ,you're supposed to be a man_" , blah, blah, blah.

Lol, doesn't quite fit into your stereotype / rhetoric of men having it easy, does it?


Welcome to ground zero AA, and it's the year 2014.

That's why I chose my wife carefully.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> Just sharing my views NS.
> 
> I wrote a paper for a nursing class on the history of the interaction of feminism with nursing and love the new stream of feminism which recognizes and celebrates feminine attributes.
> 
> IMO abortion culture and on an individual basis is a symptom and fruit of female self hatred and the rejection of femininity. It's androgyny enforcement.
> 
> Leaving the room now....
> 
> How did we get off on this tangent anyway? :scratchhead:


I have no idea. You brought it up. My posts had not one single thing to do with feminism.


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> Not sure I understand what you're getting at?
> 
> Seems to me there are a zillion factors that go into reaching one's full potential. Which ones are we talking about here?


I asked you first.

For a girl to mature into a woman, what are the most common stumbling blocks in that journey?

I'll be more specific. For a boy to mature into a man, he's quite aware he needs to overcome vice in areas of sex and violence... those are areas to which he's predisposed.

What are the similar areas for women?

What must they overcome to emotionally grow up?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> I asked you first.


 You didn't ask me...anyway since it is a public thread. 




> I'll be more specific. For a boy to mature into a man, he's quite aware he needs to overcome vice in areas of sex and violence... those are areas to which he's predisposed.


I don't agree with this At All. Boys are not predisposed by biology or anything else to have a vice like attitude toward sex. Parents give them that. Also there is little reason to think that boys are predisposed to violence. Aggression, yes. But there are many good ways to USE aggression which are not violence. I think we have mistakenly sought to squash aggression in boys in the attempt to root out violence. Good
read:

The Wonder of Boys: Michael Gurian: 9781585425280: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> You didn't ask me...anyway since it is a public thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this At All. Boys are not predisposed by biology or anything else to have a vice like attitude toward sex. Parents give them that. Also there is little reason to think that boys are predisposed to violence. Aggression, yes. But there are many good ways to USE aggression which are not violence. I think we have mistakenly sought to squash aggression in boys in the attempt to root out violence. Good
> read:
> 
> The Wonder of Boys: Michael Gurian: 9781585425280: Amazon.com: Books


Yes, yes, males instinctively think monogamy is grand.

LOL


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> Yes, yes, males instinctively think monogamy is grand.
> 
> LOL


I'm sorry. What does what I said have to do with monogamy? Where I come from, no one marries one and only one sex partner. It is more than possible for a man or woman to explore sexuality in a mature, respectful, healthy way before or instead of marriage.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Wait a minute. Did I miss a memo? Is the exclusively a christian board?


----------



## Sandfly

Wow, this thread really took off since I last visited.

Always Alone, I enjoyed reading your 'flip' version of the misogynist guide to dating. Good stuff!

It describes my eldest brother quite well, actually - little brain, dictating to big brain, and wife making the most of it. In his case it was perfectly sound advice, if it were published. And he cheats on her, so hole in one!

My second brother is of course, the opposite, when his wife was dragging her feet about moving country and earning big money for herself, pushing her to earn more (!), he just told her to hit the road. Instead, she went with him and now can't believe she had spent so long without cutting her family apron-strings.

I'm different again.

I didn't get past the first few pages of married man's guide to sex, or whatever it's called, because the language was so corny and just silly. And the title is like: "Uh.... I don't actually need this bit, I need the "single guy's guide to spotting and avoiding untrustworthy females"." Actually, I don't even need that one, because they're incredibly transparent as long as little head isn't doing the thinking... so I need the:

"How to get a nice woman, who wants the same things you do."

I see you are working on publishing the antidote to misogynistic moronity, but... I have the antidote already for you: "don't go out with a guy with tattoos, nor gamblers". No exceptions! No, not even david beckham!

There, done! 

So now that I've completed that all you need to know when picking men guide-book for you, you ladies could work on this title for us ^^^ .

"How to get a nice woman, who wants the same things you do."

So far, I've come up with "give up on England". Not a promising start


----------



## Racer

ReformedHubby said:


> ... I guess I just don't believe that being pursued sexually is as damaging to a young man as you implied in your post. If anything most would be flattered. I know I was. Half the guys in school trying to get laid and you somehow just walk into it with minimal effort. I think men and women are different when it comes to this.


Probably different experiences. I do absolutely agree men and women are different when it comes to this. And yes, it is very flattering... 

The issue is saying ‘no’. It’s part of my downfall setting off a whole chain of events that carries forward throughout your life. Basically, when I adopted morals and began to seek and get selective about whom I’d date; adopting a no sexual interaction with those I wasn’t seriously dating..... a new poison was injected that erodes on your self-esteem. Your buds, who honestly would stick it in anything, could ridicule your non-existent sex life (friend zoned often) and how girls sort of pick up on this ‘he’s a nice guy’ vibe and avoid you like the plague when it comes to selecting someone to ‘mate with’. They pity you, friend you, and you do begin to feel pathetic and the erosion goes on. You get used to the shame, the ridicule, and the sexless nature of relationships with women who’d just rather be your friend. And you hate it... a deep seeded regret and despair of how your sex life has become.

Essentially, being the guy society says it wants is just the sort they want to be only friends with and is written off sexually... That’s a Nice Guy issue. Most of us end up so desperate to feel loved (versus just liked as a friend) that we tend to marry the sexually aggressive messed up women of the world because they seem to be the only ones who can blow past the ‘always a gentleman/ treat you with respect/ no sexual pressure’ thing Nice Guys do. And we get lots of carnal adventures we’ve wanted for so long, so it feels like being this nice finally paid off... All that happened is we married a crazy woman who likes to screw and party. Not shocking they make horrible wives. 

Should I have just screwed these girls for the fun of it? There were multiple opportunities early on... I honestly think I would have been better off in the long run.

That also loops back into the NMMNG “What do *I want*?” Nice Guys like me spent a large chunk of our lives trying to be what ‘they’ want; Respectful, sweet, kind, good listeners, gentleman, not pressuring for sex, never using women for sex, and on and on... And we got thoroughly bent over for it. We need some ‘selfish’ thinking added because so much has been more about how others might see us than it has been about how we see ourselves.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> I think we have mistakenly sought to squash aggression in boys in the attempt to root out violence.


I agree with this, and it strikes me as applying to more than just violence but a general disdain of masculinity with similar motivation to end loosely related social ills. This is one of the reasons there are so many "nice guys" imo.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree with this, and it strikes me as applying to more than just violence but a general disdain of masculinity with similar motivation to end loosely related social ills. This is one of the reasons there are so many "nice guys" imo.


Maybe. We squish it out of them, then they come on here to have relearn it?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Racer said:


> That also loops back into the NMMNG “What do *I want*?” Nice Guys like me spent a large chunk of our lives trying to be what ‘they’ want; Respectful, sweet, kind, good listeners, gentleman, not pressuring for sex, never using women for sex, and on and on... And we got thoroughly bent over for it. We need some ‘selfish’ thinking added because so much has been more about how others might see us than it has been about how we see ourselves.


Excellent post Racer.


----------



## Conrad

I'm still curious what instincts females have to overcome to become mature women and good partners in relationships.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Conrad said:


> I'm still curious what instincts females have to overcome to become mature women and good partners in relationships.


Finding a nice guy vs their instinct to want the bad boy? lol

But meanwhile, most of the nice guys became "Nice Guys". Might explain complaints of how hard it is to find a nice guy. haha


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> But we are taught just to * accept it and move on *, " _better luck next time_", " _get over it ,you're supposed to be a man_" , blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Lol, doesn't quite fit into your stereotype / rhetoric of men having it easy, does it?
> 
> Welcome to ground zero AA, and it's the year 2014.


Well, wait a minute CM. Yes we live in a world where people treat each other horribly. 

Are you saying you see MMSL as some kind of antidote to the gold-digger's manifesto? Cuz what I see is encouragement of it. That is, by encouraging men to think poorly of women, we are encouraging women to retaliate. And by encouraging women to think poorly of men, we are encouraging men to retaliate.

And an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

That has been my entire point throughout this thread: why do we encourage people to demean each other? Wouldn't we be better off if we discouraged bad behaviour, and encouraged good behaviour?

It wouldn't solve everything of course, but wouldn't it be a step in the right direction?

But your defense of MMSL and the Gold-Digger's Manifesto reads to me like you rather prefer things to be at ground zero. 

I can't imagine why.:scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> Yes, yes, males instinctively think monogamy is grand.
> 
> LOL


Yikes! Well if that's true, why would you get married or care about it? Just stay single and save yourself a lot of grief.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Wouldn't we be better off if we discouraged bad behaviour, and encouraged good behaviour?


Cool, we can start with women wanting to have sex with their husbands because he's being so nice to them. That would be nice and idealistic like your perfectly rational question there. The real world doesn't appear to work that way.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Cool, we can start with women wanting to have sex with their husbands because he's being so nice to them. That would be nice and idealistic like your perfectly rational question there. The real world doesn't appear to work that way.


Wait. You want your wife to have sex with you as a reward for good behavior? That would make my husband nuts. He wants me to have sex with him because he makes me crazy hot.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yikes! Well if that's true, why would you get married or care about it? Just stay single and save yourself a lot of grief.


For the same reason that some men will lie to get sex or be in a relationship when they don't really want a relationship. Because those are the conditions under which he can actually get laid.

At least among people younger than myself, generally speaking, I get the impression that the guys want sex more than the relationship and the women want the relationship more than the sex. My observation is that guys getting laid left and right tend to be choosier and take longer to settle down into LTRs, while guys getting little tend to get into LTRs with anyone and quickly.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Wait. You want your wife to have sex with you as a reward for good behavior? That would make my husband nuts. He wants me to have sex with him because he makes me crazy hot.


I'm not married. I was being sarcastic. The whole point is that being really "nice" to each other isn't what gets us hot for each other. Desire isn't rational.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> I'm still curious what instincts females have to overcome to become mature women and good partners in relationships.


Instincts? Not sure. One thing I have wondered is whether or not the baby nurture instinct renders us a touch more uptight than strictly necessary. From a partnership (and parenting) perspective learning from my husband to lighten up and roll with things was HUGE. Everything from how clean something is, how a chore got done, to getting excited and upset because he occasionally masturbates to porn or looks at pretty women.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Cool, we can start with women wanting to have sex with their husbands because he's being so nice to them. That would be nice and idealistic like your perfectly rational question there. The real world doesn't appear to work that way.


Plenty of women love to have sex with their perfectly nice husbands. And plenty of men respect women, treat them well, and care about them. That too is real world.

But because there are bunch of misogynistic alpha wannabees and a bunch of narcissistic gold-digging princesses, you want to be sure the rest of the world is dragged down to their level?


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not married. I was being sarcastic. The whole point is that being really "nice" to each other isn't what gets us hot for each other. Desire isn't rational.


Woooosh! Flew right over my head! Thanks for straightening me out. I agree with you completely.


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> Instincts? Not sure. One thing I have wondered is whether or not the baby nurture instinct renders us a touch more uptight than strictly necessary. From a partnership (and parenting) perspective learning from my husband to lighten up and roll with things was HUGE. Everything from how clean something is, how a chore got done, to getting excited and upset because he occasionally masturbates to porn or looks at pretty women.


Sounds like letting go of situations you shouldn't try to control is something most women need to learn.

Do you ever wonder why these sorts of issues aren't discussed?


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> Instincts? Not sure. One thing I have wondered is whether or not the baby nurture instinct renders us a touch more uptight than strictly necessary. From a partnership (and parenting) perspective learning from my husband to lighten up and roll with things was HUGE. Everything from how clean something is, how a chore got done, to getting excited and upset because he occasionally masturbates to porn or looks at pretty women.


Sounds like letting go of situations you shouldn't try to control is something most women need to learn.

And, if she doesn't, I'd imagine she has the urge to nag.

Would you agree?


----------



## WyshIknew

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not married. I was being sarcastic. The whole point is that being really "nice" to each other isn't what gets us hot for each other. Desire isn't rational.


Well Mrs Wysh are often nice to each other.

When we are nice to each other we tend to have nice, loving, gaze into each others eyes sex.

When we get the randies we tend to have rampant rumpy pumpy.

Both are nice in their own way.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> Sounds like letting go of situations you shouldn't try to control is something most women need to learn.


But is it instinctual? I can't say I really know.



> Do you ever wonder why these sorts of issues aren't discussed?


Among whom are they not discussed? On boards such as these? I have told many a girlfriend who sighs at how happy we are to STFU and lighten up. I suspect that I am going to find out exactly how many people I have offended shortly. That might be why!

But in seriousness, men fight the Man Up concept very hard before and IF they finally really considered. Women too resist the idea that they have control over only themselves and cannot MAKE someone else "respect" them. Whatever that means.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> Sounds like letting go of situations you shouldn't try to control is something most women need to learn.
> 
> And, if she doesn't, I'd imagine she has the urge to nag.
> 
> Would you agree?


Right fighting! That was what I was trying to think of. She thinks she is RIGHT. Like the one true right. She doesn't see it as nagging. She sees it as educating you to the error of your ways. It is less important to be an effective partner, instead needs to demonstrate right. The toilet needs to be cleaned the RIGHT way. The kid needs to be dressed the RIGHT way. Chica, your husband just cleaned the damned toilet. STFU.

That is a common thing that I see in women that are not found in happily married women.


----------



## always_alone

Sandfly said:


> I see you are working on publishing the antidote to misogynistic moronity, but... I have the antidote already for you: "don't go out with a guy with tattoos, nor gamblers". No exceptions! No, not even david beckham!
> 
> There, done!


It's nowhere near that simple. There are plenty of guys with tattoos or who occasionally play a game of poker (or whatever) that have utter respect for women, and feel no need for alpha dominance pseudo science.

And there are plenty of guys without tattoos or who don't gamble that are just as obnoxious and unappealing as David Beckham.



Sandfly said:


> So now that I've completed that all you need to know when picking men guide-book for you, you ladies could work on this title for us ^^^ .
> 
> "How to get a nice woman, who wants the same things you do."
> 
> So far, I've come up with "give up on England". Not a promising start


I'm reluctant to give advice on this, but if pressed, I'd suggest that you start by opening your eyes. In my experience, people are a bit like crows, and immediately drawn towards bright and shiny and overlook the fact that pewter, eg, is much more valuable than tin.

I see so many guys complain about gold-diggers, and no doubt they exist. But because they excel at being bright and shiny, people believe they're a lot more common than they really are.


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> Right fighting! That was what I was trying to think of. She thinks she is RIGHT. Like the one true right. She doesn't see it as nagging. She sees it as educating you to the error of your ways. It is less important to be an effective partner, instead needs to demonstrate right. The toilet needs to be cleaned the RIGHT way. The kid needs to be dressed the RIGHT way. Chica, your husband just cleaned the damned toilet. STFU.
> 
> That is a common thing that I see in women that are not found in happily married women.


Where are the self-help books and the cottage industries that would teach a woman that "getting her way" is not the one true way?

If we believe our popular culture, we hear much about demeaning of women, etc. In fact, in this thread we're hearing how women don't approve of the book.

Seems like a different side of the same coin.

Much more difficult to look within and own your own stuff than to point fingers at how wrong others are.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> Where are the self-help books and the cottage industries that would teach a woman that "getting her way" is not the one true way?


No idea. I learned it it by getting my head handed to me in usenet group. (Dating myself)



> If we believe our popular culture, we hear much about demeaning of women, etc. In fact, in this thread we're hearing how women don't approve of the book.


I thought we had a few vocal dissenters with the majority not objecting. But my recall is not great. I don't know anything about the book. My only response was to the use of the word "****" which I have to say I think is a good example of really? lighten the heck up.



> Seems like a different side of the same coin.
> 
> Much more difficult to look within and own your own stuff than to point fingers at how wrong others are.


That works super well too! Very effective.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My observation is that guys getting laid left and right tend to be choosier and take longer to settle down into LTRs, while guys getting little tend to get into LTRs with anyone and quickly.


Yabbut, it's not like there's a shortage of women that will give them however much and whatever kind of sex they want, whenever they want it. All they need to do is hand over the fee.

So again, if they don't want LTR's, why bother? It's a lot of work for what sounds like zero gain.

Assuming, of course, the pseudo-science stereotypes about men are remotely accurate.


----------



## NobodySpecial

For my part, I have sent more than one Nice Guy over to the Men's Clubhouse for advice.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Caribbean Man said:


> Some *PEOPLE* are deeply offended by the idea of *ANOTHER PERSON* thinking for *THEMSELF*, independently of their input and taking matters into *THEIR* own hands.
> They absolutely love the idea of having *PEOPLE* under their control.





Blonde said:


> fixed that for ya


Just wanted to jump in on the editing game.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Plenty of women love to have sex with their perfectly nice husbands. And plenty of men respect women, treat them well, and care about them. That too is real world.
> 
> But because there are bunch of misogynistic alpha wannabees and a bunch of narcissistic gold-digging princesses, you want to be sure the rest of the world is dragged down to their level?


Firstly, I don't really consider the comparison particularly valid. The point of these sorts of "man-up" books is to say "Hey, genius, being her puppy doesn't turn her on." She's not wronging you, you're wronging her. Be a more independent agent, more selfish (because they have so little self), less concerned with pleasing and the perceptions of others. Do what you want and you will get what you want. You will be a healthier more confident, more assertive, value-holding present man - to which women tend to be sexually attracted. You will be happier and your wife will be happier with you.

Re gold-digging, does it make the man happier that a woman knows how to play him for only his money? There is a huge difference in intended outcome between these books. The former does in fact care about the woman's happiness with the relationship - the relationship is real. The gold-digger only cares about the money. The relationship is fake.

As far as I'm concerned, you're comparing apples and oranges. The nice guy loves his wife and wants a real, passionate, relationship. Even if sex weren't a motivation in the case of "nice guys" (analogous to money for gold-diggers), the relationship is still likely to fail or be miserably dispassionate if he doesn't "man-up" if you will. Take the money out of the gold digger scenario, and there's nothing at all. Sex is only the most prescient concern to the nice guy, it is not his sole concern, as money is to the gold-digger.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Desire isn't rational.


And affection isn't any more rational than aggression. None of the emotions are particularly rational.

Desire doesn't have to be a contemptuous *******.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Firstly, I don't really consider the comparison particularly valid. The point of these sorts of "man-up" books is to say "Hey, genius, being her puppy doesn't turn her on." She's not wronging you, you're wronging her. Be a more independent agent, more selfish (because they have so little self), less concerned with pleasing and the perceptions of others. Do what you want and you will get what you want. You will be a healthier more confident, more assertive, value-holding present man - to which women tend to be sexually attracted. You will be happier and your wife will be happier with you.
> 
> Re gold-digging, does it make the man happier that a woman knows how to play him for only his money? There is a huge difference in intended outcome between these books. The former does in fact care about the woman's happiness with the relationship - the relationship is real. The gold-digger only cares about the money. The relationship is fake.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, you're comparing apples and oranges. Even if sex weren't a motivation in the case of "nice guys" (the parallel to money for gold-diggers), the relationship is still likely to fail or be miserably dispassionate.


Add to this that the goal is not just sex but GOOD sex between two enthused partners, NOT a quid pro quo.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Re gold-digging, does it make the man happier that a woman knows how to play him for only his money? There is a huge difference in intended outcome between these books. The former does in fact care about the woman's happiness with the relationship - the relationship is real. The gold-digger only cares about the money. The relationship is fake.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, you're comparing apples and oranges. Even if sex weren't a motivation in the case of "nice guys" (the parallel to money for gold-diggers), the relationship is still likely to fail or be miserably dispassionate.


I disagree. If the books/advice in question were only about self improvement and relationship improvement, this conversation would never have started, let alone carried on the way it has. Again, no one is objecting to advice that helps people look after and improves themselves.

The books/advice that generate criticism are not about the woman's happiness at all; they are contemptuous of her, and only want her to hand over the sex - in much the same way as gold-diggers want into the wallet.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> The books/advice that generate criticism are not about the woman's happiness at all; they are contemptuous of her, and only want her to hand over the sex - in much the same way as gold-diggers want into the wallet.


I reject the notion of _only_ seeking sex. If I understand DH properly, those things are very intertwined when its the real thing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> All they need to do is hand over the fee.


Hmm... I wouldn't know where to find a prostitute in my town and I'm pretty sure its illegal.



always_alone said:


> So again, if they don't want LTR's, why bother? It's a lot of work for what sounds like zero gain.


If you think men aren't willing to jump through hoops for sex, you don't know men. Some men get sex easily, but most men do not... and if intent to stay single, they can go many months sometimes even years without.

One reason the player stereotype is semi-praised among men, is that men know its not the easiest thing. Someone says, "He gets more @ss than a toilet seat", and other men are quietly envious or even outright ask "what's your secret?"



always_alone said:


> Assuming, of course, the pseudo-science stereotypes about men are remotely accurate.


I'm not making a scientific argument. Just speaking from my own general observations that men seem to prioritize sex and women prioritize relationships.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not making a scientific argument. Just speaking from my own general observations that men seem to prioritize sex and women prioritize relationships.


I don't even agree with this. I think men value relationships highly. Maybe even MORE highly because they require it be the RIGHT relationship. It is not a thing to just acquire.


----------



## jld

Dad&Hubby said:


> Just wanted to jump in on the editing game.


You are too funny, D&H.


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> Where are the self-help books and the cottage industries that would teach a woman that "getting her way" is not the one true way?


There are probably a zillion such books. The Surrendered Wife is one.

But this particular thread asks what women think about how we're depicted in the man-up books. And so that's what we're responding to.

And for the record, some women may be control-freaking nags, but I wouldn't say it's our instinct. More likely how we were taught as kids. Me? I never nag because I learned at a very young age that it's both counter-productive and tiresome.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> I reject the notion of _only_ seeking sex. If I understand DH properly, those things are very intertwined when its the real thing.


Just to be clear, I'm not actually saying that men only want sex, or that men don't value relationships. Just that the books/advice we're discussing here are really about how men can get sex from women (and are quite demeaning about women in the process).


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Just to be clear, I'm not actually saying that men only want sex, or that men don't value relationships. Just that the books/advice we're discussing here are really about how men can get sex from women (and are quite demeaning about women in the process).


Ok, I readily confess that I have not read the books. But I have read a LOT of similar information on the internet. (Can't bring myself to actually pay for a book I don't really need.) But the MMSL website gives an overview. What is it you think is so demeaning? Actually wanted a sex life with your spouse?


----------



## jld

Maricha75 said:


> jld, you said your husband "mostly follows your vegan diet"...that means he is not vegan... which means he consumes some sort of animal product, be it cheese, eggs, or milk. How does that make you feel? Hi, Maricha. At home in the US, he eats vegan. When he is travelling, or at business dinners, sometimes he eats dairy or flesh. I am disappointed, because I think staying pure vegan would be showing leadership and integrity. But I am not the one earning the living for the family, so I just look aside, I guess.
> 
> I want the best for him. I love him. When I love someone, I speak up. Otherwise, I just keep quiet.
> 
> Also, I was wondering something else. How do you get b12? Every pro-vegan site I have seen says that b12 is LOW in vegetables/fruits/grains... In fact, the one that they say has the most is spinach, but you would have to eat a TON of that everyday to get enough b12. Eating that much spinach can throw other nutrients off balance. So, logically, you would have to supplement, somehow, correct? What do you use/take? We have a liquid B12 supplement, and I get shots. My grandmother was a meateater and had pernicious anemia. Actually, a lot of people are short on B12 in the US; it is not just a vegan thing. But it is important; vegans need a source of B12.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Blonde said:


> I disagree with this.
> 
> Daughters are the ones who have to deal with rape and abortions not to mention that the fallout of STD's is often way more serious for a woman than a man d/t anatomical differences. HPV KILLS women (by causing cervical cancer).
> 
> As I mentioned above, my (now 16yo) daughter had a 13 yo classmate and friend who had an abortion.* thirteen*!!! My 18yod has a friend (a neighbor and dd's best friend) who got pregnant at age 16 and dropped out. *My school district (small, white, rural) is in one of the poorest counties in my state (big northeast state) and has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy.*
> 
> My teaching to my son was to treat girls with respect, not to use them sexually, to save sex for M. My daughters OTH, their bf's did not grow up with my teachings.... so they got "the talk" and "rules for dating my daughter".


Now you have me curious Blonde, because my wife comes from a BIG northeast state, in a geographically HUGE county (largest in the northeast anyway) that is "economically" challenged. Not important to say anything...It's just interesting.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If you think men aren't willing to jump through hoops for sex, you don't know men. Some men get sex easily, but most men do not... and if intent to stay single, they can go many months sometimes even years without.
> 
> One reason the player stereotype is semi-praised among men, is that men know its not the easiest thing. Someone says, "He gets more @ss than a toilet seat", and other men are quietly envious or even outright ask "what's your secret?"
> 
> I'm not making a scientific argument. Just speaking from my own general observations that men seem to prioritize sex and women prioritize relationships.



All I'm suggesting is that there are many easier paths to regular non-monogamous sex than a relationship. If you can't find a prostitute or sugar baby, then you're not trying very hard. They will give you the full girlfriend experience-but without any nagging, or grief or needs of their own (unless that turns you on of course).

And I wasn't accusing yoj of pseudoscience--I was referring to the MMSL/PUA pseudoscience.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> And I wasn't accusing yoj of pseudoscience--I was referring to the MMSL/PUA pseudoscience.


According to the website, the MMSL author offered material to the PUA croud specially so as to repudiate the more repugnant of it for those who DID want a relationship.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I disagree. If the books/advice in question were only about self improvement and relationship improvement, this conversation would never have started, let alone carried on the way it has. Again, no one is objecting to advice that helps people look after and improves themselves.
> 
> The books/advice that generate criticism are not about the woman's happiness at all; they are contemptuous of her, and only want her to hand over the sex - in much the same way as gold-diggers want into the wallet.


Nah, the disagreement is over your offense to the language in that you claim it doing something that, to nice guy men - the intended audience - it is not. Which is also to say - you missed the point of the book: telling men to stop being so nice, cautious and obsessively unoffending. Such a catering, eggshell walking p*ss is sexually unattractive to most women. Again, a proverbial 2x4 to the head.

These are "nice guys" remember? These ARE the sweet guys who mostly want lovey dovey caring relationships and can't grasp in the slightest why their wives aren't sexually interested. "What gives!? I'm so sweet to her! I give her all the affection and love she could want. I work hard to lighten her burden!"

Its you who think they're only about sex. Sex is just the radioactive element - the big red flag to the man that something is wrong. Even if sex was completely irrelevant, a relationship with a doormat is likely to end with her disinterest. Its not about being contemptuous of her, but breaking free from worship of her. Women generally don't want eggshell walking, passive, subservient worshippers (its only cute in jest), they want STRONG value-holding partners. No suck-ups allowed. The harsh language in the book is absolutely purposeful. It drives home the point that she's NOT an angel. He should not worship her. She's a regular dirty human being with all of a human being's sl*tty desires, and its his own lack of confident manhood that is driving her away.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> Ok, I readily confess that I have not read the books. But I have read a LOT of similar information on the internet. (Can't bring myself to actually pay for a book I don't really need.) But the MMSL website gives an overview. What is it you think is so demeaning? Actually wanted a sex life with your spouse?


Errr, no. It's all in the way women are depicted, and the types of strategies men are advised to do, such as keep her off balance, flirt with others, do whatever you want without any regard to her, and so on. All necessitated by the fact that she is a cheating wh0re, who should be evaluated primarily by how many times she gave you sex compared to the cost of keeping her.

See the OP and various other posts for more details. Or look through the forums and website.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> All I'm suggesting is that there are many easier paths to regular non-monogamous sex than a relationship. If you can't find a prostitute or sugar baby, then you're not trying very hard.


I completely disagree. The easiest path to a consistent sex life and MORE sex is via relationship, and sexual statistics bear this out. I think my sex life when single is above average, and this is still true for me. If what you say were so, then there would be no "players". They wouldn't have to deceive or play anyone to get what they want. They'd simply take their date money and get prostitutes (if there were any actual attractive prostitutes - which is a dubious proposition I'd think), and save a lot of time in the process.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> According to the website, the MMSL author offered material to the PUA croud specially so as to repudiate the more repugnant of it for those who DID want a relationship.


Well, the PUA stuff is *really* repugnant. Cruel, rapey, usurious. So it is, I suppose, a step up. But he relies heavily on the PUA ethos.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nah, the disagreement is over your offense to the language in that you claim it doing something that, to nice guy men - the intended audience - it is not. Which is also to say - you missed the point of the book: telling men to stop being so nice, cautious and obsessively unoffending. Such a catering, eggshell walking p*ss is sexually unattractive to most women. Again, a proverbial 2x4 to the head.


We've danced this dance before, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it.

You're absolutely fine with demeaning women because it suits your purposes. I get it. 

Like I said before, I find it sad how prevalent this attitude is.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't even agree with this. I think men value relationships highly. Maybe even MORE highly because they require it be the RIGHT relationship. It is not a thing to just acquire.


Given a choice between only sex, or a sexless relationship, which do you think men would choose? 

I think men absolutely value relationships... only they value sex even more, particularly when young. Thus, toilet seat guy doesn't settle down till later, while nice guy marries the first woman who showed him sexual interest.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I completely disagree. The easiest path to a consistent sex life and MORE sex is via relationship, and sexual statistics bear this out. I think my sex life when single is above average, and this is still true for me. If what you say were so, then there would be no "players". They wouldn't have to deceive or play anyone to get what they want. They'd simply take their date money and get prostitutes (if there were any actual attractive prostitutes - which is a dubious proposition I'd think), and save a lot of time in the process.


Oh, right. I forgot. Men *do* want relationships, but it's only for the sex. Got it.


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> Well, the PUA stuff is *really* repugnant. Cruel, rapey, usurious. So it is, I suppose, a step up. But he relies heavily on the PUA ethos.


And no matter how many tattered marriages it improves and sustains over the long term, you don't approve.

Ok

We were discussing "my way" vs. the "only right way" just a few pages ago.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Errr, no. It's all in the way women are depicted, and the types of strategies men are advised to do, such as keep her off balance, flirt with others, do whatever you want without any regard to her, and so on. All necessitated by the fact that she is a cheating wh0re, who should be evaluated primarily by how many times she gave you sex compared to the cost of keeping her.
> 
> See the OP and various other posts for more details. *Or look through the forums and website*.


I did. I don't see it.


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> We've danced this dance before, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it.
> 
> You're absolutely fine with demeaning women because it suits your purposes. I get it.
> 
> Like I said before, I find it sad how prevalent this attitude is.


I so realize this!

Discussing men's immature attributes and ripping into them for it is aok, but women's immature attributes and quest for control is beyond reproach.

Can't talk about that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> We've danced this dance before, so I'm not going to argue with you anymore about it.
> 
> You're absolutely fine with demeaning women because it suits your purposes. I get it.
> 
> Like I said before, I find it sad how prevalent this attitude is.


That this post is so blindly contradictory to my actual position depresses me. My attempts to reach you continually fail. You can not actually hear me.

In the context of MMSL, the use of sl*t is in defense of female sexuality, addressing men who wrongly believe their wives have no interest in sex. Its just as sad that we can get so caught up in a word that we can't see the forest for the trees. Replace every use of the word sl*t with a sentence exactly conveying the meaning behind that particular word choice, and you'd have no problem with it. It blows my mind. Its purpose is not to demean women, nor do men come away thinking less of women. It describes vividly that WOMEN WANT SEX TOO in a manner that hardens and desensitizes a soft overly sensitive man. It is purposefully abrasive. Again, 2x4 => head.

Words are just words AA. Its the meaning used and for what purpose that matter. MMSL practically uses sl*t to celebrate female sexuality. It is not the dictionary definition of a woman of low moral standing.

We will never see eye to eye on this... but how you can't accept this proposition, while being able to accept positive associations with sl*t in private sexual dirty talk is an inconsistency I just can't reconcile.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> Ok, I readily confess that I have not read the books. But I have read a LOT of similar information on the internet. (Can't bring myself to actually pay for a book I don't really need.) But the MMSL website gives an overview. What is it you think is so demeaning? Actually wanted a sex life with your spouse?


As the OP, I can explain what I had in mind. When a relationship has reached an impasse, you can go on pretty much for the rest of your lives in an endless Hatfield vs. McCoys type of standoff.

*Or*, one of you can swallow their pride, suck it up, be the better person and do what's best for the both of you in the long term. This can be double tough if you are the person who feels they were wronged in the first place. 

The message I got two years ago when I was reading this stuff is that it falls upon the man to be the better person here, because women are biologically incapable of it. --Not so much in MMSLP, although I think the message is there if you look for it. Some of the other stuff I read came right out and blurted it out. It reads like anti-suffrage arguments of the 19th century.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> As the OP, I can explain what I had in mind. When a relationship has reached an impasse, you can go on pretty much for the rest of your lives in an endless Hatfield vs. McCoys type of standoff.
> 
> *Or*, one of you can swallow their pride, suck it up, be the better person and do what's best for the both of you in the long term. This can be double tough if you are the person who feels they were wronged in the first place.
> 
> The message I got two years ago when I was reading this stuff is that it falls upon the man to be the better person here, because women are biologically incapable of it.


Biologically incapable of it? What a load of horse ****. Every grown person in the world eventually needs to come to the realization that the only person that they have control over is themselves. They change their actions and their actions alone. The people in their lives react to the change well, or they don't.

This biologically incapable woman was the one who did the 180 that saved this marriage. So color me more than a little skeptical.

But it does not matter. The advice is aimed at a group of people who find themselves in an apparently common situation. And they only have control of themselves. The opposite is whining about things being unfair, which is not attractive in either gender.


----------



## Conrad

ocotillo said:


> As the OP, I can explain what I had in mind. When a relationship has reached an impasse, you can go on pretty much for the rest of your lives in an endless Hatfield vs. McCoys type of standoff.
> 
> *Or*, one of you can swallow their pride, suck it up, be the better person and do what's best for the both of you in the long term. This can be double tough if you are the person who feels they were wronged in the first place.
> 
> The message I got two years ago when I was reading this stuff is that it falls upon the man to be the better person here, because women are biologically incapable of it. --Not so much in MMSLP, although I think the message is there if you look for it. Some of the other stuff I read came right out and blurted it out. It reads like anti-suffrage arguments of the 19th century.


Ocotillo,

I'm not so certain that "better person" is the term I'd use. I'd call it leadership.

And, while the anti-suffrage arguments are one thing, it's still forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry an infidel man.

But, Muslim men can marry whomever they like.

Is this a reflection of their misogynist bigotry?

Or is it actually a common sense rule formulated in a social grouping that realizes how these things often play out?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> Ocotillo,
> 
> I'm not so certain that "better person" is the term I'd use. I'd call it leadership.
> 
> And, while the anti-suffrage arguments are one thing, it's still forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry an infidel man.
> 
> But, Muslim men can marry whomever they like.
> 
> Is this a reflection of their misogynist bigotry?
> 
> Or is it actually a common sense rule formulated in a social grouping that realizes how these things often play out?


Woa. You lost me there. What are you suggesting?


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> Woa. You lost me there. What are you suggesting?


Safety in a relationship is very valuable to the female, as she is wired for her survival and the survival of offspring.

If a man submits to his woman with no reciprocal submission, she will not feel safe.

Her prescriptions for the "only way is my way" are quick to follow.

These are called fitness tests - as she searches for his masculine mettle.

Life will be hell for him if he doesn't display it.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> But it does not matter. The advice is aimed at a group of people who find themselves in an apparently common situation. And they only have control of themselves. The opposite is whining about things being unfair, which is not attractive in either gender.


Yes. I'm sure the books are helpful for the demographic they're written for.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> Safety in a relationship is very valuable to the female, as she is wired for her survival and the survival of offspring.
> 
> If a man submits to his woman with no reciprocal submission, she will not feel safe.
> 
> Her prescriptions for the "only way is my way" are quick to follow.
> 
> These are called fitness tests - as she searches for his masculine mettle.
> 
> Life will be hell for him if he doesn't display it.


So yes perhaps I am just slow to pick up. What does that have to do with Muslim marriage law?


----------



## Blonde

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Men generally don't want eggshell walking, passive, subservient worshippers (its only cute in jest), they want STRONG value-holding partners. No suck-ups allowed.


fixed another one 

IME doormatting enables bad behavior. Assertive, strong, value-holding works far better for a wife IME.


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> So yes perhaps I am just slow to pick up. What does that have to do with Muslim marriage law?


Those that make others feel safe by their courage and strength are natural leaders.

Muslims acknowledge that through their laws regarding marriage.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> Those that make others feel safe by their courage and strength are natural leaders.
> 
> Muslims acknowledge that through their laws regarding marriage.


Oh natural leaders. Well I don't agree with you when you go there. Cheers.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Female Sex Rank Calibration | Married Man Sex Life

Married Man Sex Life | Krauser's PUA Adventure

Dating Market Value Test For Women | Chateau Heartiste

The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon | Chateau Heartiste

Here you go, Nobody Special. These are some of the "rules" behind MMSL (but not NMMNG).


----------



## ocotillo

Conrad said:


> Ocotillo,
> I'm not so certain that "better person" is the term I'd use. I'd call it leadership.


I'm a big advocate of leading by example, so wouldn't disagree with your word choice. The person who does not respond to a hurt in kind (Evil for evil in Christianity) is still the better person in my book.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's another good one for you:

It’s Easy To Identify A **** | Chateau Heartiste

(the **** word is sl*t)

But oh yeah, the guys around here will say this particular blog isn't something they identify with...yet the same "science" is behind all of it, MMSL included.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Female Sex Rank Calibration | Married Man Sex Life


I'm sorry. What is WRONG with this? Do you want to be married to a fat out of shape person? Have sex with them? I don't.

Gave a pass to someone writing ABOUT what he says since that has clearly already been done here.


----------



## Conrad

ocotillo said:


> I'm a big advocate of leading by example, so wouldn't disagree with your word choice. The person who does not respond to a hurt in kind (Evil for evil in Christianity) is still the better person in my book.


Seriously... I think many confuse the idea that the one who "makes peace" and gets walked on is the "better person"

What actually happens is you develop one fine deep form of codependent rage.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Oh, right. I forgot. Men *do* want relationships, but it's only for the sex. Got it.


No, many men don't want relationships. But virtually all men want sex. The men who don't really want relationships, but can't get sex without them, will still pursue relationships in their pursuit of sex - because it is the easiest path.

I'm open to hearing other explanations for why guys who get no action seem to fall for the first woman who shows them a hint of sexual attention - and marry young, while the guys who get plenty of sexual attention tend to not fall for anyone - and marries older. Do you perceive this differently than I do? If not, do you have a better explanation?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde said:


> fixed another one
> 
> IME doormatting enables bad behavior. Assertive, strong, value-holding works far better for a wife IME.


I completely agree.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Like I said NS...if you read the "dating market value test" link, it is all the same. MMSL just markets it "cuter".

And sorry but, I actually think people who are not in perfect shape can still be attractive and have sex partners and still have value.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No, many men don't want relationships. But virtually all men want sex. The men who don't really want relationships, but can't get sex without them, will still pursue relationships in their pursuit of sex - because it is the easiest path.
> 
> I'm open to hearing other explanations for why guys who get no action seem to fall for the first woman who shows them a hint of sexual attention - and marry young, while the *guys who get plenty of sexual attention tend to not fall for anyone - and marries older*. _Do you perceive this differently than I do_? If not, do you have a better explanation?


Yes. My experience from back in the day is that men and women date and have sex serially until they wind up with someone they really want. Geographical?


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Female Sex Rank Calibration | Married Man Sex Life
> 
> Married Man Sex Life | Krauser's PUA Adventure
> 
> Dating Market Value Test For Women | Chateau Heartiste
> 
> The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon | Chateau Heartiste
> 
> Here you go, Nobody Special. These are some of the "rules" behind MMSL (but not NMMNG).


OMG, did I really read that on the Krauser PUA adventure under the Captain/First Officer section?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Like I said NS...if you read the "dating market value test" link, it is all the same. MMSL just markets it "cuter".
> 
> And sorry but, I actually think people who are not in perfect shape can still be attractive and have sex partners and still have value.


Maybe. But their "value", particularly from an attraction standpoint, is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> The message I got two years ago when I was reading this stuff is that it falls upon the man to be the better person here, because women are biologically incapable of it. --Not so much in MMSLP, although I think the message is there if you look for it. Some of the other stuff I read came right out and blurted it out. It reads like anti-suffrage arguments of the 19th century.


Curious where you were reading this? On their forums?

Sounds like Mark Driscoll or Doug Wilson. Substitute "marriage" for "church":


----------



## WyshIknew

^^^^


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> Maybe. But their "value", particularly from an attraction standpoint, is in the eye of the beholder.


That is not what they say though. They say they will tell all of us what our rank is. Please read all of the links.

Or not. If you want to know why some truly have a problem with these books, read them. If not, don't bother. But you are making an opinion without having all the facts behind why some of us have a problem.


----------



## ocotillo

Conrad said:


> Seriously... I think many confuse the idea that the one who "makes peace" and gets walked on is the "better person"
> 
> What actually happens is you develop one fine deep form of codependent rage.


I didn't have being walked on in mind at all. Do you think the man who runs the MAP is being walked on?


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> Curious where you were reading this? On their forums?


A lot of it came from a source who calls himself 'Calle Zorro.' But I do think the same message is there in more mainstream sources if you read it carefully.


----------



## Blonde

WyshIknew said:


> ^^^^


LOL.

Note to self- hit "preview" first b4 posting an image


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But oh yeah, the guys around here will say this particular blog isn't something they identify with...yet the same "science" is behind all of it, MMSL included.


I claim no scientific basis, nor do any of these pickup guys. There's no real relation to science. Its all just intuitive reasoning - seeking rational explanations for readily apparent experience that otherwise doesn't make much sense. 

I readily admit some/many/most PUA sites are demeaning to women. Most of the forums are downright atrocious. That does not mean that MMSL is demeaning women.


----------



## Racer

How I sort of see the hypocracy of it all.
Look at dating site profile advice: A do’er. Active, out there, lots of friends, social, etc. This attracts, generates interest, etc. I raced cars, white water rafted, rock-climbed, was always out doing stuff with the guys. <== Attractive stuff; Hot.

Once “Husband”: Those things are now a argument. “Time for you to grow up!” You find yourself no longer buying racing slicks, but lawnmowers. You take walks pushing a stoller down a park pathway instead of climbing a shear cliff. You have ‘responsibility’. You sacrifice your single selfish life and think of the marriage. This is what your spouse keeps telling you she wants from you and she will argue like hell if you try to say something different. So, you work, you come home, do your chores, go to bed. Weekends are projects around the house. Twice a year you do something special like a vacation with the family in tow. Places like Disneyworld or some mega-tourist trap. This is how it’s ‘supposed to be’; Family stuff. <=== Unattractive, secure, predictable.

And years start passing. True Nice Guys are very prone into buying the bull of ‘what women want’ is what they ask for. It isn’t even gender specific; If you were to listen to a man, what he most wants to date is a total sl*t. But wants Betty Crocker if he marries her. Anway... One day, she tells you she feels ripped off. This marshmallow sitting in his study playing computer games is NOT the man she married..... Well duh... She made me give up everything ‘mine’ that attracted her to me and I was dumb enough to listen.

So, it’s better to think a bit selfishly. NMMNG teaches you to listen to yourself. Assuming he’s not an ass, that doesn’t mean he’ll abandon the marriage; He wants that and you too! It just means he’ll fit in enough of things he likes to do to restore a balance in his life and begins to understand that what people say they want isn't often what they'd really like the most. 

Typically, guys who go through the program does make him fit closer to the ‘dating profile’ than Ward Cleaver. Whether the marriage survives or not seems to depend on whether or not their wives pay attention to themselves and their own reactions to these changes instead of latching onto 'selfish bastard' grudges.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Yes. My experience from back in the day is that men and women date and have sex serially until they wind up with someone they really want. Geographical?


Ah... well, if "marriage" indicates who they "really want", my experience is that guys who aren't getting any seem to find what they really want a hell of a lot quicker than guys getting a lot.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...the entire first chapter of MMSL is explaining the SCIENCE (evo-psych) behind the whole deal.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo,

love your signature line! priceless!
Had to do some homework to figure it out, though.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Like I said NS...if you read the "dating market value test" link, it is all the same. MMSL just markets it "cuter".
> 
> And sorry but, I actually think people who are not in perfect shape can still be attractive and have sex partners and still have value.


Jack Nicolson at his charismatic best was never a looker. But I bet you wouldn't find him trying to be super nice and careful to avoid offending.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That this post is so blindly contradictory to my actual position depresses me.* My attempts to reach you continually fail. You can not actually hear me.*


Welcome to the group.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...the entire first chapter of MMSL is explaining the SCIENCE (evo-psych) behind the whole deal.


Well the book would lose me right there unless it had plenty of cites to support that claim. Lots of people make pretty wacky claims about what biology supposedly hard wires us for. I am all kinds of down with the notion that different hormones will produce different brain behavior. The notion of men as natural leaders brought up on this thread is unsupportable, for example. If they were such natural leaders then how could they be lead, en masse, by their d**** by all these women?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...the entire first chapter of MMSL is explaining the SCIENCE (evo-psych) behind the whole deal.


I seem to recall quite a bit of qualifying text, because I never took any of it as claiming scientific authority. I'll have another look tonight.


----------



## WyshIknew

Blonde said:


> LOL.
> 
> Note to self- hit "preview" first b4 posting an image


And viewing the picture you actually meant to post I think I'll leave my 'eek' there!


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ah... well, if "marriage" indicates who they "really want", my experience is that guys who aren't getting any seem to find what they really want a hell of a lot quicker than guys getting a lot.


My assertion was to disagree with the notion that men who are getting it don't have a desire to marry or commit.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nobody...Do you know what evo-psyche is?

All of these books are based on it, and all of them claim "science".

ALL OF THEM.

Except NMMNG, and that one isn't really like these others.

Did you read any of the other links?

Please note that the worst ones all have MMSL on their blog roll, because he is one of them. He just dresses things up differently so he can try to escape the association, but he is one of them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *That this post is so blindly contradictory to my actual position depresses me. My attempts to reach you continually fail. You can not actually hear me.*
> 
> In the context of MMSL, the use of sl*t is in defense of female sexuality, addressing men who wrongly believe their wives have no interest in sex. Its just as sad that we can get so caught up in a word that we can't see the forest for the trees. Replace every use of the word sl*t with a sentence exactly conveying the meaning behind that particular word choice, and you'd have no problem with it. It blows my mind. Its purpose is not to demean women, nor do men come away thinking less of women. It describes vividly that WOMEN WANT SEX TOO in a manner that hardens and desensitizes a soft overly sensitive man. It is purposefully abrasive. Again, 2x4 => head.
> 
> Words are just words AA. Its the meaning used and for what purpose that matter. MMSL practically uses sl*t to celebrate female sexuality. It is not the dictionary definition of a woman of low moral standing.
> 
> We will never see eye to eye on this... but how you can't accept this proposition, while being able to accept positive associations with sl*t in private sexual dirty talk is an inconsistency I just can't reconcile.



I just read the rest of your entire post.
Lol.

Nevertheless ,welcome to the group.

Are you familiar with Boolean logic , Quantum Mechanics and so forth ?


----------



## WyshIknew

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That this post is so blindly contradictory to my actual position depresses me. My attempts to reach you continually fail. You can not actually hear me.
> 
> In the context of MMSL, the use of sl*t is in defense of female sexuality, addressing men who wrongly believe their wives have no interest in sex. Its just as sad that we can get so caught up in a word that we can't see the forest for the trees. Replace every use of the word sl*t with a sentence exactly conveying the meaning behind that particular word choice, and you'd have no problem with it. It blows my mind. Its purpose is not to demean women, nor do men come away thinking less of women. It describes vividly that WOMEN WANT SEX TOO in a manner that hardens and desensitizes a soft overly sensitive man. It is purposefully abrasive. Again, 2x4 => head.
> 
> Words are just words AA. Its the meaning used and for what purpose that matter. MMSL practically uses sl*t to celebrate female sexuality. It is not the dictionary definition of a woman of low moral standing.
> 
> We will never see eye to eye on this... but how you can't accept this proposition, while being able to accept positive associations with sl*t in private sexual dirty talk is an inconsistency I just can't reconcile.


However you can see that we move from the word slvt to what this Krauser guy posted on his blog (I presume) I didn't read any further because my head is still shaking.

A Femoc**t. Really? Really? Or did he actually mean something else that I'm missing?


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> ocotillo,
> 
> love your signature line! priceless!
> Had to do some homework to figure it out, though.


I really do feel that way about Ane.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Nobody...Do you know what evo-psyche is?
> 
> All of these books are based on it, and all of them claim "science".
> 
> ALL OF THEM.
> 
> Except NMMNG, and that one isn't really like these others.
> 
> Did you read any of the other links?


No. I told you. I am not going to read a bunch of links that say what the book supposedly says because I don't trust them a great deal more than I trust your interpretation. I have no dog in the fight of this one book. If the book sucks, it sucks. But as of yet no one can explain why. When I go to his website, I see not one shred of offensive material. You post a link that basically says that shaping up yourself is more likely to cause the same reaction in your wife vs please dear can you lose some weight. And this is somehow offensive. 

The only other reason is the use of the word sl**. But over in the long term sub forum is a reference to a poster's blog in which she spends nearly a page talking about the various sl** wear in her closet. Nowhere do I see anyone clucking about her offensive demeaning of women.




> Please note that the worst ones all have MMSL on their blog roll, because he is one of them. He just dresses things up differently so he can try to escape the association, but he is one of them.


If you say so.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> My assertion was to disagree with the notion that men who are getting it don't have a desire to marry or commit.


I'm not in anyone else's head, I don't know anyone else's desires. I only observe that those getting a lot of action appear to take a lot longer time to decide to marry/commit, while those who get little to none, marry/commit quickly. Do you disagree?


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not in anyone else's head, I don't know anyone else's desires. I only observe that those getting a lot of action appear to take a lot longer time to decide to marry/commit, while those who get little to none, marry/commit quickly. Do you disagree?


I totally agree.

A healthy emotional detachment from the weeds of codependent behavior is ABSOLUTELY essential for wisdom.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NS...I'm pretty sure the blog you're talking about is mine.

And I am a self-proclaimed sl*t, which I say so all the time here and elsewhere.

I just don't call all women sl*ts, because all of them are not sl*ts. But I am.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not in anyone else's head, I don't know anyone else's desires. I only observe that those getting a lot of action appear to take a lot longer time to decide to marry/commit, while those who get little to none, marry/commit quickly. Do you disagree?


You know, I had to think about that. I am not young. I was dating a LONG time ago. So it is all thinking back stuff. I am thinking back to my marriage. I was quite young, my husband younger. Neither one of us had any trouble in the dating or sex department. Yet we married very young because we were in love. I am thinking through my friends. The ones who had no girl friends were the ones not getting sex. And they tended to marry later when they finally found SOMEONE.

That is my recollection though I know longer remember the point.


----------



## WyshIknew

NobodySpecial said:


> You know, I had to think about that. I am not young. I was dating a LONG time ago. So it is all thinking back stuff. I am thinking back to my marriage. I was quite young, my husband younger. Neither one of us had any trouble in the dating or sex department. Yet we married very young because we were in love. I am thinking through my friends. The ones who had no girl friends were the ones not getting sex. And they tended to marry later when they finally found SOMEONE.
> 
> That is my recollection though I know longer remember the point.


Well this is what happened to me, I wondered if I was an outlier.

I found my someone.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> NS...I'm pretty sure the blog you're talking about is mine.
> 
> And I am a self-proclaimed sl*t, which I say so all the time here and elsewhere.
> 
> I just don't call all women sl*ts, because all of them are not sl*ts. But I am.


Oh. So you are really offended because he applies your badge of honor to all women? Or do I still not get it? I am pretty sure that is not what AA is on about.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Also NS, I just wanted to point out that the links I provided were by authors who support and like MMSL, not nay sayers. 

But I get why you don't want to bother with it. It really isn't that big of a deal (the book or this thread).


----------



## Faithful Wife

NS...you still don't get it...but no problem. There is a lot more to it, as I said.

I'm a very happy and proud sl*t, and so are most of my friends.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> fixed another one
> 
> IME doormatting enables bad behavior. Assertive, strong, value-holding works far better for a wife IME.


:iagree:
Small wonder why some people seem to have this irrational, rabid hatred and fear for people who want to better themselves.

It places the " doormat" outside of their control.


It makes _them_ feel powerless.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm a very happy and proud sl*t, and so are most of my friends.


And I will assert that the majority of women who finds a man who helps brings that out in them will likewise be happy. That most animals, including human animals, are sexual beings. And that is a Good Thing.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> I really do feel that way about Ane.


On occasion I have been known to point out 31:11 to an H as the "cause" for the "effect" of the rest of the passage. The entire passage is after all, a mother's advice *to her son*...

You sir, are a 31:11 H (which is high praise in case I am being too obtuse )


----------



## Caribbean Man

Conrad said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> *A healthy emotional detachment from the weeds of codependent behavior is ABSOLUTELY essential for wisdom.*


EXACTLY!

Now why would anyone not want that for someone who's a doormat?:scratchhead:


----------



## Caribbean Man

NobodySpecial said:


> *And I will assert that the majority of women who finds a man who helps brings that out in them will likewise be happy. That most animals, including human animals, are sexual beings. And that is a Good Thing.*


I basically told her that^^^ same thing on Saturday evening , on this same thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NobodySpecial said:


> And I will assert that the majority of women who finds a man who helps brings that out in them will likewise be happy. That most animals, including human animals, are sexual beings. And that is a Good Thing.


Thanks for schooling me on that. I clearly have no ideas about sex that are relevant.


----------



## NobodySpecial

caribbean man said:


> i basically told her that^^^ same thing on saturday evening , on this same thread.


gmta... Asdw


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Thanks for schooling me on that. I clearly have no ideas about sex that are relevant.


You don' think that what I wrote tends to reason away the offense at the use of the word ****?


----------



## Caribbean Man

NobodySpecial said:


> gmta... Asdw



Lol,

Yes , they do!


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> CM...is calling women ****s not being a doormat?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Hope you're not "_mansplaning_" me there..

Because I never said so.
What I clearly stated on Saturday evening was that people who are doormats are actually codependents in dysfunctional relationships with abusive people, and they need to work on themselves BY THEMSELVES , or at least WITHOUT the input of the abusive spouse or partner.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> OMG, did I really read that on the Krauser PUA adventure under the Captain/First Officer section?


Yeah, appealing, ain't it? Something every boy should aspire to?


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> Yeah, appealing, ain't it? Something every boy should aspire to?


Well we are probably being silly and he actually meant something else entirely.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> A lot of it came from a source who calls himself 'Calle Zorro.' But I do think the same message is there in more mainstream sources if you read it carefully.


skimmed @ some over there and he's a bible thumper. Not the same "shock value" kinda stuff as Kay but more triggering for ME as its the kind of stuff which necessitated "recovery" for me.

Kay says somewhere on his site that he was raised evangelical. 

Wonder if that is where he got his "men are the leaders" schtick?

I take it from your posts that you are egalitarian, ocotillo.


----------



## Conrad

Faithful Wife said:


> NS...you still don't get it...but no problem. There is a lot more to it, as I said.
> 
> I'm a very happy and proud sl*t, and so are most of my friends.


Thanks for making me smile.

I've had my irony supplements today.

I think back to Animal House...

"They can't do that to our pledges, only WE can do that to our pledges"


----------



## Faithful Wife

You're welcome, Conrad.

Please note, I would never dare call any woman a sl*t unless she is a self-proclaimed one. Unlike the authors of these books.


----------



## Conrad

Faithful Wife said:


> You're welcome, Conrad.
> 
> Please note, I would never dare call any woman a sl*t unless she is a self-proclaimed one. Unlike the authors of these books.


I think a point is being missed here.

Any man that uses a pedestal for his woman... thinking of her as something akin to the blessed virgin, etc. is going to turn her off.

Sex is hot, sweaty, and can feel pretty damned dirty. It's about lust.

It's much more a a sl*t kind of thing than the blessed virgin would engage in.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Conrad said:


> Thanks for making me smile.
> 
> *I've had my irony supplements today.*


:iagree:
I too have had my fill of irony today.
Socratic irony at it's best.
I haven't laughed this much since I last read Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you for that perfect example of mansplaining, Conrad. Since I clearly do not understand these matters.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> I think a point is being missed here.
> 
> Any man that uses a pedestal for his woman... thinking of her as something akin to the blessed virgin, etc. is going to turn her off.
> 
> Sex is hot, sweaty, and can feel pretty damned dirty. It's about lust.
> 
> It's much more a a sl*t kind of thing than the blessed virgin would engage in.


Here we go 'round the mulberry bush. Again.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> Well we are probably being silly and he actually meant something else entirely.


No doubt! 

Not to mention terrible abusive people trying to control how others self-actualize.


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> Here we go 'round the mulberry bush. Again.


I'm sorry you feel that way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> However you can see that we move from the word slvt to what this Krauser guy posted on his blog (I presume) I didn't read any further because my head is still shaking.
> 
> A Femoc**t. Really? Really? Or did he actually mean something else that I'm missing?



This is going to be a long post, because I'm trying to explain why I take the perspective I do.

As for femo... I have no idea, I'm not interested in defending every site out there - a lot of them are crap. The entire subject very easily lends itself to misogyny. Some are merely seeking self-improvement so as to be more attractive men. Others have converted their bitterness over rejection into outright disdain for women (You don't care about me??? I don't care about YOU). Still others don't care about any of that, and if this helps them get laid, yay. Motives and maturity levels vary DRAMATICALLY.

There are a handful of writers who I think "get it", and they say what they say because that's what guys with poor social skills need to hear to get over their perfectionist approval seeking. Purposeful abrasiveness - say what you want to say and dgaf. While imprecise, there's an element of "confidence is not caring what other people think."

Of course these sites are a mess - its mostly young people figuring out what's what and crossing their fingers that this will help them get laid in a world where they perceive girls to be a veritable Fort Knox. I even think some of the writers are just opportunists capitalizing on an area of interest - pure entertainment.

One of the things that hooked me way back is that its one of extremely few satisfying explanations for seemingly contradictory verbalized wants vs demonstrated actions that I saw in females as a teenager. The other major factor for me was that a lot of the advice was specifically aimed at opening up socially. Pickup books were only a fraction of what I read, but immediate parallels to more "legitimate" books on improving confidence and social skills were readily apparent. There's a ton of overlap. As a teenager, I was shy and lacked confidence for no objective reason whatsoever. I was fairly good looking, smart, performed well in sports, well liked... but I was inexplicably shy and cautious. I took no chances socially. The girlfriends I had early, I didn't even ask out. Those relationships just sort of happened. I was never rejected, I self-rejected. MMSL, NMMNG, and all these websites didn't exist. I had a couple pickup books, a couple social skill books, very early internet relay chat with some pua channels, and a desire to get out of my shell that helped me change my mindset. Then it was all about getting out and talking, taking chances even if it meant being thought an @sshole. Trying different things and having fun with it. I came to enjoy quick wit, clever interactions and the playful side of it a lot.

I do not hate women, nor do I run around calling them sl*ts. I get exactly what Athol is doing, even if MMSL didn't really apply to me. I went through the "maybe if I help with more" cycle briefly, but that's about all that applied.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way.


Huh? I was joking around.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I do not hate women, nor do I run around calling them sl*ts. I get exactly what Athol is doing, even if MMSL didn't really apply to me. I went through the "maybe if I help with more" cycle briefly, but that's about all that applied.


Just imagine the poor saps that finally end something that's been dead for years and decide the answer "next time" is to be more attentive and more "niceguy".

You're talking to one.

Talk about the road to hell.

I ended up in exactly the same place, but at warp speed.

When I saw that, I realized who the problem was - with a swift kick in the derriere from the good men here.

I'm done "fixing that", but the road I'm on now seems more like Sherman's march to the sea. It is rewarding to make progress.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> Hi, Maricha. At home in the US, he eats vegan. When he is travelling, or at business dinners, sometimes he eats dairy or flesh. I am disappointed, because I think staying pure vegan would be showing leadership and integrity. But I am not the one earning the living for the family, so I just look aside, I guess.
> 
> I want the best for him. I love him. When I love someone, I speak up. Otherwise, I just keep quiet.
> 
> We have a liquid B12 supplement, and I get shots. My grandmother was a meateater and had pernicious anemia. Actually, a lot of people are short on B12 in the US; it is not just a vegan thing. But it is important; vegans need a source of B12.


I guess I'm not understanding how him not being vegan is him not showing leadership and integrity. I would think that him choosing to eat dairy, or even meat, shows the kids that it's ok to make your own choices...just be careful about those choices. Is he not the head of your household? Does he not lead by example? I'm sorry, but suggesting that he has no, or at least less, integrity because he is not vegan? That makes no sense to me.

My husband is not even vegetarian. I do not cook meat, but if he wants a sandwich from the deli, I buy it for him. He makes the choice about what foods he puts into his body. I choose what goes into my own body. It doesn't lessen my husband's integrity or leadership at all! As I said above, it shows the kids that they are free to choose what they wish to eat... but watch what those things are. It doesn't mean I don't care, or love him. What it means is that I do my best to be sure that whatever it is htat he eats, whether meat or vegetable, it is the best quality I can find in any venue. For instance, given the choice of McDonald's or Subway, I go to Subway. As for cooking at home... that is vegetarian. Yes, we eat eggs, cheese, yogurt, etc. and drink milk. BUt I do not cook meat. My kids began life as meat eaters and I will not make such a sudden change for them. Their schools serve meat at lunch, and they make their choices according to our over all dietary restrictions (no pork, shellfish, ec.)...

Anyway, I just don't see how someone choosing to eat meat rather than be vegan because the spouse says so means they lack integrity. That really blows my mind.

As for the b12... my husband NOW has low b12. This, after dropping how much meat he eats.He has begun a supplement, at his doctor's insistence. And, yes, his doctor was actually GLAD when my husband started eating more of a vegetarian diet, rather than more meat. So, yes, doctors absolutely DO approve of vegetarian, even vegan... if they do it right. UNfortunately, too many go into eating a vegan diet without knowing the first thing about having to tsake supplements for certain nutrients and making sure they eat the right portions of each type (much like any diet, really)... And if they do vegan the wrong way, then I'd say they'd be better off eating meat if they do THAT the right way. But, everywhere I have read, most, if not all, supplements of different vitamins are derived from animals.... including b12. So, I would think that would mean one is not vegan if taking those supplements, wouldn't you? Many vegans don't know that, either.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> On occasion I have been known to point out 31:11 to an H as the "cause" for the "effect" of the rest of the passage. The entire passage is after all, a mother's advice *to her son*...
> 
> You sir, are a 31:11 H (which is high praise in case I am being too obtuse )


That is very, very kind of you. Thank you so much. I'd say your H is blessed indeed.


----------



## jld

Maricha75 said:


> I guess I'm not understanding how him not being vegan is him not showing leadership and integrity. Hi, Maricha. If this diet is what we believe is the most helpful for the human body, then persevering with it even under challenging conditions, to me at least, shows alignment between our values and our actions (integrity) and doing what we believe is the right thing, though not the easy or convenient thing (leadership is required). I would think that him choosing to eat dairy, or even meat, shows the kids that it's ok to make your own choices...just be careful about those choices. Is he not the head of your household? Does he not lead by example? I'm sorry, but suggesting that he has no, or at least less, integrity because he is not vegan? That makes no sense to me. I guess, for us, we feel it is our responsibility to set the best possible example we can for our kids, to take the wisest decisions we can for our family as a whole. The "make your own choice" argument just seems weak to me. We want to set the best, most helpful example we can, and then, of course, the kids will make their own decisions when they are older.
> 
> My husband is not even vegetarian. I do not cook meat, but if he wants a sandwich from the deli, I buy it for him. He makes the choice about what foods he puts into his body. I choose what goes into my own body. It doesn't lessen my husband's integrity or leadership at all! As I said above, it shows the kids that they are free to choose what they wish to eat... but watch what those things are. It doesn't mean I don't care, or love him. What it means is that I do my best to be sure that whatever it is htat he eats, whether meat or vegetable, it is the best quality I can find in any venue. For instance, given the choice of McDonald's or Subway, I go to Subway. As for cooking at home... that is vegetarian. Yes, we eat eggs, cheese, yogurt, etc. and drink milk. BUt I do not cook meat. My kids began life as meat eaters and I will not make such a sudden change for them. Their schools serve meat at lunch, and they make their choices according to our over all dietary restrictions (no pork, shellfish, ec.)...
> 
> Anyway, I just don't see how someone choosing to eat meat rather than be vegan because the spouse says so means they lack integrity. Because that is how we do it in our family. I did a lot of research before taking this step. Dh was willing, but not really convinced at the beginning. But six weeks into it, he read a book called Food for Life by Neal Barnard, M.D., and read that heart disease could be reversed by a vegan diet. He was sold.
> 
> For us, we cannot turn our backs on what we know. Even when we fall short, we know what we believe we should do. It is a dietary framework for us.That really blows my mind.
> 
> As for the b12... my husband NOW has low b12. This, after dropping how much meat he eats.He has begun a supplement, at his doctor's insistence. Yes, I have read that many Americans are short on B12. This article talks about it: The McDougall Newsletter - Vitamin B12 Deficiency, The Meat Eaters' Last Stand And, yes, his doctor was actually GLAD when my husband started eating more of a vegetarian diet, rather than more meat. So, yes, doctors absolutely DO approve of vegetarian, even vegan... if they do it right. UNfortunately, too many go into eating a vegan diet without knowing the first thing about having to tsake supplements for certain nutrients and making sure they eat the right portions of each type (much like any diet, really)... That is not how Dr. McDougall recommends anyone do it. We just eat a starch-based diet with the addition of fruits and vegetables. We do supplement with B12 and Vit D, but not anything else.And if they do vegan the wrong way, then I'd say they'd be better off eating meat if they do THAT the right way. But, everywhere I have read, most, if not all, supplements of different vitamins are derived from animals.... including b12. So, I would think that would mean one is not vegan if taking those supplements, wouldn't you? Many vegans don't know that, either. B12 supplements are animal-based? I just did some research and that is not what I found.
> 
> I should probably start a thread in health on the vegan diet if you want to discuss it more. It really is outside this thread. Let me know if you want me to do it.


----------



## Maricha75

I guess, jld, my real point is that if HE were truly sold on it, he would continue with the diet even when away from the home. If he truly felt it was best, he wouldn't be eating meat and animal products when out of the house. It really does seem he is just going through the motions because you insist on it. Perhaps he does see himself setting the best example HE can... by keeping the peace at home, even when he disagrees. Sorry, but if he did fully agree with you, he wouldn't eat it outside the home.

I also wonder how he would feel if he read that you believe he lacks integrity because of this. :scratchhead:

When I said for the kids to make their own choices, I didn't mean to just let them choose candy and soda and chips to eat all day, everyday. What I meant by that is that you are showing them that vegan food is good for you. Dad is showing them that meat and dairy can be ok, too... if that is what you choose later. Of COURSE we make the choices for our kids when they are younger. We ALL try to give them the best choices WE believe. I just don't appreciate the implication that one doesn't care for his or her family if he or she chooses not to eat a vegan diet. I'm pretty sure your husband wouldn't appreciate that idea either.


----------



## Maricha75

As far as a vegan diet thread is concerned, you can start one if you wish, but I have plenty of vegan friends IRL to discuss this with, should I ever decide to go that route (which is VERY unlikely). Thanks anyway.


----------



## jld

He just said the reason he does not eat exclusively vegan away from home is because it is not always readily available, esp. in Europe and China. He said it makes his co-workers uncomfortable if he refuses meat and dairy. One time he went to a restaurant and just ordered a baked potato. The other people seemed very concerned that he was not getting enough to eat, though he assured them it was fine.

He is an international businessman, Maricha. He has to make people feel comfortable, as well as care for his health.

He also said he has shared his dietary beliefs with his co-workers.

He just said I should not be using the word vegan. He said I should say low-fat, plant-based diet.

He said he feels bad about not always following the diet. He said that when you travel, it takes a strict will to be a vegan. He has worked with Jains, and it has been very difficult to find food for them. He said that when you work with people and say you are a vegan, people don't know what it means and they get stressed.

When he goes to a restaurant, he tries to get the thing closest to vegan.

Dh just said that this is how we view things, and other people don't have to agree.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> He just said the reason he does not eat exclusively vegan away from home is because it is not always readily available, esp. in Europe and China. He said it makes his co-workers uncomfortable if he refuses meat and dairy. One time he went to a restaurant and just ordered a baked potato. The other people seemed very concerned that he was not getting enough to eat, though he assured them it was fine.
> 
> He is an international businessman, Maricha. He has to make people feel comfortable, as well as care for his health.
> 
> He also said he has shared his dietary beliefs with his co-workers.
> 
> He just said I should not be using the word vegan. He said I should say low-fat, plant-based diet.
> 
> He said he feels bad about not always following the diet. He said that when you travel, it takes a strict will to be a vegan. He has worked with Jains, and it has been very difficult to find food for them. He said that when you work with people and say you are a vegan, people don't know what it means and they get stressed.
> 
> When he goes to a restaurant, he tries to get the thing closest to vegan.
> 
> Dh just said that this is how we view things, and other people don't have to agree.


And if eating these things caused severe stomach/intestinal distress? Would he be expected to eat them then? Sorry, I don't buy it. Not even an international businessman would be expected to eat something that would harm his body. That's like saying someone who does not drink alcohol because of moral principals would be expected to drink when on a business trip. No, that is untrue. If you have a moral conviction not to do something, then you don't do it... whether at home or on a business trip. Same if you are doing it for health reasons. A vegetarian will not eat meat. A vegan will not eat animal products... no matter what the circumstances.


----------



## U.E. McGill

Maricha75 said:


> And if eating these things caused severe stomach/intestinal distress? Would he be expected to eat them then? Sorry, I don't buy it. Not even an international businessman would be expected to eat something that would harm his body. That's like saying someone who does not drink alcohol because of moral principals would be expected to drink when on a business trip. No, that is untrue. If you have a moral conviction not to do something, then you don't do it... whether at home or on a business trip. Same if you are doing it for health reasons. A vegetarian will not eat meat. A vegan will not eat animal products... no matter what the circumstances.



International business man here. I travel to Europe extensively. There's always a veg option and vegans are easily accommodated. I've traveled with strict Hindu's. 

I've been to Asia, but not in awhile. I do know there's a lot of cultural things going on that might support him. 

Personally I do think he's got a little integrity problem. His vegan wife is right to call him out. 

My bet is he doesn't have the heart to go all in so he tells his wife what she wants to hear and then does what's easy when she's not around.


----------



## Mr The Other

U.E. McGill said:


> International business man here. I travel to Europe extensively. There's always a veg option and vegans are easily accommodated. I've traveled with strict Hindu's.
> 
> I've been to Asia, but not in awhile. I do know there's a lot of cultural things going on that might support him.
> 
> Personally I do think he's got a little integrity problem. His vegan wife is right to call him out.
> 
> My bet is he doesn't have the heart to go all in so he tells his wife what she wants to hear and then does what's easy when she's not around.


Europe is a rather diverse place. Being a veggie in the UK is entirely mainstream, in the Med, many dishes happen not to have meat. In France or Germany you would just confuse people.


----------



## Maricha75

U.E. McGill said:


> International business man here. I travel to Europe extensively. There's always a veg option and vegans are easily accommodated. I've traveled with strict Hindu's.
> 
> I've been to Asia, but not in awhile. I do know there's a lot of cultural things going on that might support him.
> 
> *Personally I do think he's got a little integrity problem. His vegan wife is right to call him out.
> 
> My bet is he doesn't have the heart to go all in so he tells his wife what she wants to hear and then does what's easy when she's not around.*


You could very well be right about integrity on that front. I think that if he doesn't want to be vegan he shouldn't pretend to be. JMO. And I really do believe he is doing it at home... what is it, 2 weeks at a time then away 4-6 weeks?... just to placate her. If he were fully all in, he would do it everywhere. Yea, he might get some quizzical looks in some countries, but if he were really into the vegan diet, he'd eat that way everywhere.


----------



## Hope1964

Does anyone know if vegans eat honey?


----------



## WyshIknew

Hope1964 said:


> Does anyone know if vegans eat honey?


Good question.


It could be argued that honey is exploiting bees.

Vegans can be a nightmare (I mean that nicely) as everything they eat they examine the ingredients to make sure there are no animal by products.

I remember really disappointing one girl when I pointed out that her favourite tipple was probably clarified with isinglass.


----------



## U.E. McGill

WyshIknew said:


> Good question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could be argued that honey is exploiting bees.
> 
> 
> 
> Vegans can be a nightmare (I mean that nicely) as everything they eat they examine the ingredients to make sure there are no animal by products.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember really disappointing one girl when I pointed out that her favourite tipple was probably clarified with isinglass.



I used to work in consumer products, you'd be surprised how many things have animal derivatives in them. We had a whole group replacing cow derived stuff because of mad cow.


----------



## jld

U.E. McGill said:


> International business man here. I travel to Europe extensively. There's always a veg option and vegans are easily accommodated. I've traveled with strict Hindu's.
> 
> I've been to Asia, but not in awhile. I do know there's a lot of cultural things going on that might support him.
> 
> Personally I do think he's got a little integrity problem. His vegan wife is right to call him out.
> 
> My bet is he doesn't have the heart to go all in so he tells his wife what she wants to hear and then does what's easy when she's not around.


Where are you travelling in Europe, UE? Dh is usually in Germany and Eastern Europe. He orders vegetarian food, but vegan food, other than a salad, is hard to come by.

He is from France, and it is very difficult to find vegan food in France, other than in ethnic restaurants. We don't like vegan restaurants. We love ethnic food.

We used to live in India, and not all the veg food was vegan. Dh often asks for Indian food on the plane.

Dh said the vegan diet is for health for him. It is not a religion for him. He does the best he can and is satisfied with that.

I eat a vegan diet for health reasons. I don't like flesh or eggs, and while I love dairy, it gives me diarrhea. I think it may also trigger bladder infections in me. So it is not worth it to me to eat it.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> Nobody...Do you know what evo-psyche is?
> 
> All of these books are based on it, and all of them claim "science".
> 
> ALL OF THEM.
> 
> Except NMMNG, and that one isn't really like these others.
> 
> Did you read any of the other links?
> 
> Please note that the worst ones all have MMSL on their blog roll, because he is one of them. He just dresses things up differently so he can try to escape the association, but he is one of them.


And this is what rubs me the wrong way about yours, and more specifically always alone's posts.

I don't believe that the man up 'books' that you and she have firmly entrenched in your mind as a foundation of your argument are the books that Ocotillo is referring to, (I'll let him chime in on that) and they are certainly not the books I am referring to.

I believe Oco as well as myself are talking more about authors like Harley, Levine, Deida, and Glover.

While it seems like you and AA are talking about Hartiste, Strauss, Mystery and Kay.

So there is a fundamental to this entire thread of either simple miscommunication, or abject 'right fighting' about a topic that wasn't actually the intended topic.

None of those secondary authors are writing about being a better man. They are writing about how to get laid. 

I do appreciate that you consciously excluded Glovers book in your comments.

Certainly some of the aspects about being a better man revolve around the opposite sex and attraction.

But getting laid isn't the goal. Attracting a woman isnt the goal.

Its a side effect of having done the work.

We may have each chosen our hill to die on, in this discussion.

The unfortunate thing to me is that we are arguing with one another from different hills.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> And this is what rubs me the wrong way about yours, and more specifically always alone's posts.
> 
> I don't believe that the man up 'books' that you and she have firmly entrenched in your mind as a foundation of your argument are the books that Ocotillo is referring to, (I'll let him chime in on that) and they are certainly not the books I am referring to.


Ocotillo's OP specifically mentioned the undercurrent that posits women as slaves to their biology and men as the rational creatures that can rise above it all, and shape circumstances such that their women respond appropriately.

And I would take it one step further and point to the related gender stereotypes that would assume all women are inherently and biologically thrilled by chest thumping and incapable of appreciating anything but being dominated.

It is this widespread sexist pseudo-science undercurrent that I am rejecting. I don't know if it is in all the books, but it is definitely in MMSL, and definitely in the man-up advice offered in these threads.

What rubs me the wrong way about your posts is that you seem to think that these books are some sort of sacred cow. Because some people have extracted some sort of value out of them, no one should be allowed to criticize anything about them.

No one has ever said that men shouldn't strive to be the best they can be, but it seems that any criticism whatsoever of the man-up ideology is interpreted as trying to keep men down.

Rather, it is the underlying philosophy and assumptions about men and women that are being criticized.


----------



## jld

Maybe I am reading Deejo wrong, but I don't think he is saying these books are a sacred cow. I think he is saying that some guys start out with them because they don't know where else to go.

I think Superior Man is a great book.

I am not impressed by chest-thumping. I am not overly concerned by looks. Intelligence and good character are very attractive, imo.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> *1]* What rubs me the wrong way about your posts is that you seem to think that these books are some sort of sacred cow. Because some people have extracted some sort of value out of them, no one should be allowed to criticize anything about them.
> 
> *2]* No one has ever said that men shouldn't strive to be the best they can be, but it seems that any criticism whatsoever of the man-up ideology is interpreted as trying to keep men down.


*1]* And I think than anyone has the God given right to decide exactly what are their sacred cows. That is what rubs me the wrong way in your posts.
I don't think it's anyone's business to criticize or attempt to shame a person for placing sacred value to an object, animal or person they see fit.
IMO, this comes across like Atheist who attack Christians because they believe in God or Muslims who attack Hindus because they believe in a _different_ God.

The term for that is called intolerance.


*2]*No one has ever said that men shouldn't strive to be the best they can be, *HOWEVER* it should be left up to them *ALONE* to decide exactly how they're going to do it.
Simply because they are the one it's going to affect most.
In the final analysis ,what you or me think about their efforts has absolutely no bearing on the outcome .
Although we all live in the same world, our individual consciousness makes our perception of the environment, subjective

Every person , whether male or female has the right to determine how they see themselves and their role in society.
I think that's called the right to self determination and agency.

Ironically, it is the lack of that right , when pointed out by counselors to abused women in abusive relationships, helps them identify that they're in an abusive relationships.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> The term for that is called intolerance.


You're right, I'm very intolerant. I accept all religions, races, sexual orientations, and am vocal about human and equal rights.

I am very intolerant of injustice, bigotry, discrimination, cruelty, slavery.

If someone really wishes to "improve" themselves by employing the above tactics, I surely can't stop them. But I will still want to call a bigot a bigot, and a sexist a$$ a sexist a$$.

Moral relativism has its merits, but there really is a limit, I think, to how terribly we can treat each other before we really do cross over to the evil side.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Ocotillo's OP specifically mentioned the undercurrent that posits women as slaves to their biology and men as the rational creatures that can rise above it all, and shape circumstances such that their women respond appropriately.


Oco referenced two authors. One appears to be Harley, the other, Kay. 

He indicated that none of the women he knows, would condone, agree with, or think there is any benefit to be had by following the male specific tenets of either authors content.

And surprise, surprise, most men here already knew that most women think that the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, totally disrespectful and completely useless.

Hell, we've known that bit since before the thread was opened three years ago. And is evidenced by our picking it up again, nothing has changed.

And that is STILL just fine.





always_alone said:


> What rubs me the wrong way about your posts is that you seem to think that these books are some sort of sacred cow. Because some people have extracted some sort of value out of them, no one should be allowed to criticize anything about them.


It's not the books I care about. It's the work, and the results. The books are utterly irrelevant without actually resolving to take some kind of action towards achieving results. Results I've seen and experienced. Results other men here have seen. Results, you reject.



always_alone said:


> No one has ever said that men shouldn't strive to be the best they can be, but it seems that any criticism whatsoever of the man-up ideology is interpreted as trying to keep men down.
> 
> Rather, it is the underlying philosophy and assumptions about men and women that are being criticized.


Sure they have. You have stated it in this thread. That if you don't like the methodology of the message, even if it yields good outcomes for both genders, you reject it. You don't like the misogyny. You don't like the disrespect, I get it. 

Do you know why I continue to engage and argue with you? It's my inner Nice Guy who occasionally comes gasping up for a breath. For reasons I don't fully understand myself, I care what you think. I've stated on numerous occasions, that I respect how you think.

I believe I am finally resolved with what you think. That isn't a put-down or a knock. I'm just going to accept it.

And I'm going to quietly put my boot back on my Nice Guy's windpipe, and grind it a little bit.


----------



## Deejo

Basically, Always ... it's like your in here calling dudes, "Chubby Screetchtards."

All the while decrying that it isn't ok to call someone a Chubby Screetchtard.

Think about it. Or not.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> It's not the books I care about. It's the work, and the results. The books are utterly irrelevant without actually resolving to take some kind of action towards achieving results. Results I've seen and experienced. Results other men here have seen. Results, you reject.


Results I question. What about those whose relationships were harmed by adoption of the ideology? Do they not count?

What about those where it ends in utter failure because the assumptions were entirely mistaken?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Results I question. What about those whose relationships were harmed by adoption of the ideology? Do they not count?
> 
> What about those where it ends in utter failure because the assumptions were entirely mistaken?


And what about the " doormat" type relationship dynamic _before_ he read any of the books?

Seems to me that his suffering isn't paramount or even central to the discussions of " political correctness" of these books at all.
And I seriously wonder why.

Wasn't he also a victim who was " harmed" too?
Shouldn't some consideration be given to _that_ part of the problem?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Basically, Always ... it's like your in here calling dudes, "Chubby Screetchtards."
> 
> All the while decrying that it isn't ok to call someone a Chubby Screetchtard.
> 
> Think about it. Or not.


Here's the difference as I see it: The MMSL ideology is basically that all women are chubby screechtatrds, and are so because their men don't dominate them enough. It is up to men to keep them in their place.

I don't believe all men are chubby screechtatrds, not by a long shot. I believe that some are sexist a$$es and should be called on it when they are.

I also think some women act like narcissistic, entitled controlling b*tches, and should be called on it when they do. 

It's the blanket claims about our biological wiring and what we have to do about this that I object to. And I can guarantee you that the MMSL approach would definitely have a seriously negative impact on my relationship.

Am I alone on this? I don't think so. Yet man-up is held out to be the guaranteed solution to all relationship problems, and any woman who objects just doesn't know what she wants or is a hypocritical control freak.

These are not necessarily hills to die on. There is middle ground.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Wasn't he also a victim who was " harmed" too?
> Shouldn't some consideration be given to _that_ part of the problem?


And so we come full circle:. Of course consideration should go to those who were harmed. It's still fair to ask why the solution has to be promoting sexist ideology against women.

Or men for that matter. While I know you favoured my rather repugnant characterization of men as easily manipulated by their little heads, and basically thoughtless cheaters, there are actually plenty of thoughtful men who fulfill themselves through looking out for others and are in touch with their emotional selves.. Some even write love poems, and yet still magically manage to have meaningful relationships, despite the common wisdom here on TAM that such men are useless wusses virtually guaranteed a life of sexlessness.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> I don't believe that the man up 'books' that you and she have firmly entrenched in your mind as a foundation of your argument are the books that Ocotillo is referring to, (I'll let him chime in on that) and they are certainly not the books I am referring to.


I primarily had in mind those authors attempting to throw the weight of Divine authority behind the idea that women are 'wired' to act in a fundamentally irrational, egocentric way. I've seen uber-intelligent women (Like my wife) struggle with this negative label pretty much my entire adult life. 'Blonde' on this thread is another good example. 

I think that same basic message is in some of the more mainstream stuff (Albeit in a more secularized form) if you read it carefully, but plenty of other people either don't pick up on that idea at all or they approach this material in an _à la carte_ fashion right out of the gate. 

To be fair, if this genre of advice stabs a person's sense of right and wrong, than I doubt very much if it was written either for or about them to begin with. There are lots of personality types in this world and no matter how negative a stereotype may be, there are going to be those people who fit it to a tee.


----------



## jld

CM, why do you see men as victims?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> And so we come full circle:. Of course consideration *should* go to those who were harmed. It's still fair to ask why the solution has to be promoting sexist ideology against women.


Right there ^^ AA , is where you miss the point, and what most on this thread are trying to say.

This isn't about political correctness or your interpretation of how a self help book should read.

It's about the person, or in this case , the MAN who's the doormat.

So its not that consideration _should_ be given to his suffering, as if he's begging for it .


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> CM, why do you see men as victims?


Any man who is in an abusive relationship is a victim, just like any woman who's in an abusive relationship, _is_ a victim.

The dynamics are the same, control.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Any man who is in an abusive relationship is a victim, just like any woman who's in an abusive relationship, _is_ a victim.
> 
> The dynamics are the same, control.


I guess I just don't see men as victims.


----------



## WyshIknew

Deejo said:


> Oco referenced two authors. One appears to be Harley, the other, Kay.
> 
> He indicated that none of the women he knows, would condone, agree with, or think there is any benefit to be had by following the male specific tenets of either authors content.
> 
> And surprise, surprise, most men here already knew that most women think that the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, totally disrespectful and completely useless.
> 
> Hell, we've known that bit since before the thread was opened three years ago. And is evidenced by our picking it up again, nothing has changed.
> 
> And that is STILL just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the books I care about. It's the work, and the results. The books are utterly irrelevant without actually resolving to take some kind of action towards achieving results. Results I've seen and experienced. Results other men here have seen. Results, you reject.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they have. You have stated it in this thread. That if you don't like the methodology of the message, even if it yields good outcomes for both genders, you reject it. You don't like the misogyny. You don't like the disrespect, I get it.
> 
> Do you know why I continue to engage and argue with you? It's my inner Nice Guy who occasionally comes gasping up for a breath. For reasons I don't fully understand myself, I care what you think. I've stated on numerous occasions, that I respect how you think.
> 
> I believe I am finally resolved with what you think. That isn't a put-down or a knock. I'm just going to accept it.
> 
> And I'm going to quietly put my boot back on my Nice Guy's windpipe, and grind it a little bit.


Is there a point where you would say that the end does not justify the means?

If for instance, purely hypothetically, the book used descriptions such as that Krauser guy uses, 'Femo*****' surely that would trigger some sort of reaction from you even if it worked?


----------



## Faithful Wife

always alone...I hear your real words and message, and mine is the same.

I do not read books or material that is hateful about men or about how to go about duping them. When they are victimized, I know it and see it. All victims of any and all types of hatefulness have my sympathy and I don't place an overall "blame" on any group. The world is full of hateful people who hurt each other, both genders are guilty of it...because it is a human problem not a gender specific problem.

But in this *specific issue* this thread it about..of these evo-psyche based books and websites that promote a hateful message (my opinion) about not only women but also men and sex itself...I can't believe it is acceptable.

But clearly it is. We've been mocked enough about it, so it must be accepted. I do not understand why we will be personally attacked for trying to point out just the *hateful* parts of MMSL specifically.

Deejo...I do not think men are chubby screechtards. I love men. I love masculinity. My man is very much the type of dude the MMSL crowd wants to emulate, which you know. So I don't really get why you keep not getting me. But I am done being piled on for this issue. I would have thought you actually DO see my point by now? That it is only the hate speech I have a problem with. But it is ok, it just isn't going to happen. I do get your points though...I have never been against self-improvement.

I loved Oco's original post and all his subsequent posts on this issue. I am sorry that me screeching about what seems like hateful speech to me, is somehow not accepted here, or at least, the way I am doing it isn't coming across the way I really mean it.

Both AA and I are wishing to promote just a bit more humanity.


----------



## jld

I'm all in favor of human rights, FW. How do you think men are victims in abusive relationships?


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> always alone...I hear your real words and message, and mine is the same.
> 
> I do not read books or material that is hateful about men or about how to go about duping them. When they are victimized, I know it and see it. All victims of any and all types of hatefulness have my sympathy and I don't place an overall "blame" on any group. The world is full of hateful people who hurt each other, both genders are guilty of it...because it is a human problem not a gender specific problem.
> 
> But in this *specific issue* this thread it about..of these evo-psyche based books and websites that promote a hateful message (my opinion) about not only women but also men and sex itself...I can't believe it is acceptable.
> 
> But clearly it is. We've been mocked enough about it, so it must be accepted. I do not understand why we will be personally attacked for trying to point out just the *hateful* parts of MMSL specifically.
> 
> Deejo...I do not think men are chubby screechtards. I love men. I love masculinity. My man is very much the type of dude the MMSL crowd wants to emulate, which you know. So I don't really get why you keep not getting me. But I am done being piled on for this issue. I would have thought you actually DO see my point by now? That it is only the hate speech I have a problem with. But it is ok, it just isn't going to happen. I do get your points though...I have never been against self-improvement.
> 
> I loved Oco's original post and all his subsequent posts on this issue. I am sorry that me screeching about what seems like hateful speech to me, is somehow not accepted here, or at least, the way I am doing it isn't coming across the way I really mean it.
> 
> Both AA and I are wishing to promote just a bit more humanity.


FW, I feel torn between two camps on this subject. I think I understand where you, AA and the other (mostly it seems) lady posters have problems with this material. But also being a man I will never truly understand the way you ladies do. Being a man I can identify with much of Athol's work. I just don't like the way the message is delivered.

I think, ultimately, my perception of my manliness, my masculinity is that I am always open to improve myself, build myself up but not at the expense of tearing down somebody else.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld said:


> I'm all in favor of human rights, FW. How do you think men are victims in abusive relationships?


Men can be emotionally, mentally, physically and sexually abused in relationships, and I'm sure it happens as frequently as it happens to women. We are all prone to being abusive, somehow by nature, this is within human behavior. There is no one who is "above it". And we are all potentially subject to it. And I have sympathy for both sides of it and have tried to understand the abusive mindset because I know people of both genders who are abusive...and even love them!

I have never called myself a victim of abuse though, here or anywhere.


----------



## jld

I am trying to understand about men being victims in abusive relationships. I guess I have only seen women abused, not men. I have heard that men are beaten up by women, but I have just never seen it.

Do you mean men whose feelings are hurt by women who talk sharply to them? Or men whose wives refuse sex but the men stay for the sake of the kids? Is that the kind of abusive relationship we are talking about?

I believe in human rights, too, and I truly appreciate the focus turning to it, away from victimization of one sex or the other. Everyone wants to feel respected.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> I guess I just don't see men as victims.


Neither does CM. Notice he said it in specific context of abusive relationships. Your having immediately applied it to the general "men", belies intent to insult. Maybe some people only recognize when a dirty word is used to do it? And in fact, if a dirty word is used, all context gets erased.

Context is everything.


----------



## jld

Intent to insult? Please help me understand.


----------



## Blonde

In my recovery, I was challenged by this:










As a free adult living in the US, there is really no excuse for me to remain a victim. If I am being victimized, I have the power to change my situation.

NMMNG and MMSL attempt to move men away from "victim mentality" and empower them to change. Hopefully the changes are for the better, but testimony on this thread and examples on TAM threads here and there demonstrate that it does not always change them for the better. 

Changes for the worse: a lurch toward self-centeredness and/or misogyny (contempt toward woman as an inferior being). The latter is what concerns FW, AA, right? 
....Those results concern me too (although as I mentioned, my 27yos has used concepts from MMSL effectively so I am willing to acknowledge that it can be helpful though I wouldn't want my *husband* anywhere near it!)

Ocotillo mentioned Calle Zorro. I looked him up and his misogyny appears to be very much of the Bible thumper brand. Kay mentions on his site being raised evangelical though FW says he bases his stuff heavily on evo/psych. 

As for me, I don't need a man to be my leader or captain of the ship, whether his reason for wanting to do so is *evo/psych* or *religious*. CM's post mentioning *agency* is apropos. I am an adult and I control myself and make my own decisions.


----------



## Sandfly

I like the picture, Blonde, I see an element of volunteering in both the 'white knight' syndrome as well as the "I can change him" girl.


On the subject of people getting offended, and how offensive things shouldn't be allowed... It occured to me today how _disrespectful _our post-war generations have been to _our _parents.

We criticised the church, the family, we flaunted our sexuality in our elder's faces, experimented with drugs and dropping out... we stuck up two fingers to posterity, and offended a lot of people.

Did any of our post-war generations care? Did they stop to 'rephrase' their self-expression? Not at all.

Now the people between the ages of 30 and 60 - including me (just) are constantly "offended" by '-ism's, and many demand people lose their jobs, clamour for apologies and compensation, and bully people into recanting and promises to behave.

Aren't we just the height of hypocrisy?

We really are a bunch of spoilt selfish little tyrants. How hard really have our lives been? We've had electricity, food every day, educational opportunity and few of us have been to Korea or some far flung jungle. Even the soldiers of our generation, when it boils down to it - have it very good, comparatively. No chance of trenchfoot or dengue fever or death camps for them. 

Our elderly (and our kids BTW) have to endure horrific amounts of swearing, violence and pornography on TV, and even on the street.

Think for a moment, how "offended" they must feel about the society we have created. But they indulge us. Perhaps they shouldn't have.

Let's all stop being so "offended". We 30-60 year olds just don't have the moral high ground when it comes to "not being offensive".
We who demanded complete freedom from the mores of older generations, now demand self-censorship from them and the generations coming up.

What utter hypocrisy!


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> always alone...I hear your real words and message, and mine is the same.


Thanks FW. Your summary is nail on head as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> As for me, I don't need a man to be my leader or captain of the ship, whether his reason for wanting to do so is *evo/psych* or *religious*. CM's post mentioning *agency* is apropos. I am an adult and I control myself and make my own decisions.


:iagree:

And that's my point all along this thread.

I am a fiercely independent free thinker.
I am instantly suspicious of people who want to tell me or anybody how to think.

I worked as a political activist for the youth arm of one of our major parties in our country for quite a few years so I fully understand the dynamics of propaganda and control.
I understand how to use buzz words, and hot topics to create hysteria , suspicion and cause panic.

I understand exactly how someone else might feel aout a book or movie. What i don't get is why they insist that if a person reads such a book or look at such a movie it would make them into a 
"bad person".
Stop.
Just stop with that rubbish!

so it didn't work for you?
And how exactly does that automatically make it unsuitable for my consumption?
So you're offended by it?
Ok, I understand. But please allow me the freedom of reading it and coming to my OWN DECISION just like how you did in the first place.
Ok,so you love men , and you're really concerned ?
Well ok, I love HUMAN BEINGS and think we all function best when we are allowed room to think and make decisions FOR OURSELVES , irregardless of your biases, without any threats , whether veiled or open.
Everyone has the right to their own preferences and biases.


Today it's NNMG and MMSL, tomorrow it's gonna be whatever other publication they see as "_ politically incorrect_" and pretty soon men would be publicly shamed for even _thinking _of bettering himself without the consent of a "_ politically correct_ " censorship group.

No thank you.
I can think for myself.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> We are all prone to being abusive, somehow by nature, this is within human behavior. There is no one who is "above it".


Indeed, there is a really interesting, albeit ethically dubious, experiment that demonstrates this to a tee.

Subjects were put in the role of either prisoner or warden, and those who were "warden" were quick to become abusive and cruel regardless of prior disposition, and "prisoners" became passive to it. Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Along similar lines was an exercise, equally ethically problematic, that divided school kids into two groups based on eye colour. One which was treated better, and given privileges, while the other disparaged. Participants with prilieges were very quick to decide they "deserved" the better treatment, and soon started discriminating against the other group. 
Jane Elliott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We do what we're taught we should do, which is why we need to pay close attention to what we are teaching.

It's not just words.


----------



## Deejo

WyshIknew said:


> Is there a point where you would say that the end does not justify the means?
> 
> If for instance, purely hypothetically, the book used descriptions such as that Krauser guy uses, 'Femo*****' surely that would trigger some sort of reaction from you even if it worked?


Harm.

I don't want anyone to be harmed Wysh, on either side of the relationship equation.

I think my good friends Faithful Wife and Always Alone want the same things. 

We just approach it very differently.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> But in this *specific issue* this thread it about..of these evo-psyche based books and websites that promote a hateful message (my opinion) about not only women but also men and sex itself...I can't believe it is acceptable.
> 
> But clearly it is. We've been mocked enough about it, so it must be accepted. I do not understand why we will be personally attacked for trying to point out just the *hateful* parts of MMSL specifically.


I actually pulled out my hard-copy and did some reading. How much would you say is hateful? All of it? 80%, 20%? Do you think there is anything that would benefit men or women in that particular book?



Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...I do not think men are chubby screechtards. I love men. I love masculinity. My man is very much the type of dude the MMSL crowd wants to emulate, which you know. So I don't really get why you keep not getting me. But I am done being piled on for this issue. I would have thought you actually DO see my point by now? That it is only the hate speech I have a problem with. But it is ok, it just isn't going to happen. I do get your points though...I have never been against self-improvement.
> 
> I loved Oco's original post and all his subsequent posts on this issue. I am sorry that me screeching about what seems like hateful speech to me, is somehow not accepted here, or at least, the way I am doing it isn't coming across the way I really mean it.


I do like you, you know. Even when you're being hyperbolic. I didn't say either you or Always were 'screeching'. No where. If I didn't find you thoughtful and engaging, I'd just dismiss you and not interact at all. I have always appreciated both of your tenacity, but still, I don't want you to feel 'attacked'.

But here's the thing. That middle piece about your husband? It made me wince. It's clear that you love the man. But you also insinuate that somehow, he's genuine ... all natural ... and that is somehow preferable, or more valid than a guy that can only try to emulate a man like your husband, because in that man's case, naturally, he isn't anything like your husband ... who has a wife that adores him. And he wants that too.

I liked Ocotillo's post too, and as I said in my original response; women love the idea ... unless they don't.



Faithful Wife said:


> Both AA and I are wishing to promote just a bit more humanity.


Good. Me too.


----------



## U.E. McGill

jld said:


> Where are you travelling in Europe, UE? Dh is usually in Germany and Eastern Europe. He orders vegetarian food, but vegan food, other than a salad, is hard to come by.
> 
> 
> 
> He is from France, and it is very difficult to find vegan food in France, other than in ethnic restaurants. We don't like vegan restaurants. We love ethnic food.
> 
> 
> 
> We used to live in India, and not all the veg food was vegan. Dh often asks for Indian food on the plane.
> 
> 
> 
> Dh said the vegan diet is for health for him. It is not a religion for him. He does the best he can and is satisfied with that.
> 
> 
> 
> I eat a vegan diet for health reasons. I don't like flesh or eggs, and while I love dairy, it gives me diarrhea. I think it may also trigger bladder infections in me. So it is not worth it to me to eat it.



I travel to France Switzerland Italy and Germany. Frankly, I've never attempted to even look for vegan in France. Most of the restaurants I've frequented in Germany and Switzerland (German speaking) have some basic veggie patty option and always fries, and rösti. I go to Rome in Italy, so it's pretty diverse. 

My opinion, it's not any easier or harder than here in the states.


----------



## Deejo

Red pill or not ... hopefully we all want more of this;

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/174153-wow-i-feel-like-i-just-took-red-pill.html


----------



## Blonde

Deejo said:


> Red pill or not ... hopefully we all want more of this;
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/174153-wow-i-feel-like-i-just-took-red-pill.html


Well I'm pleased that FF gave the official thumbs down on Heartiste. 

I would be less wary of Kay if he disentangled himself from the PUA element.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I do like you, you know. Even when you're being hyperbolic. I didn't say either you or Always were 'screeching'. No where. If I didn't find you thoughtful and engaging, I'd just dismiss you and not interact at all. I have always appreciated both of your tenacity, but still, I don't want you to feel 'attacked'.
> 
> But here's the thing. That middle piece about your husband? It made me wince. It's clear that you love the man. But you also insinuate that somehow, he's genuine ... all natural ... and that is somehow preferable, or more valid than a guy that can only try to emulate a man like your husband, because in that man's case, naturally, he isn't anything like your husband ... who has a wife that adores him. And he wants that too.


In response to the top paragraph...you said it was "as if" I am doing the equivalent of calling men chubby screechtards...which I think is hyperbole...and then I used the term "screeching" myself, I did not say you said it, but you are calling me hyperbole for that. I never laid the word "screeching" on you, I was just pulling it from what insinuated about me and calling men chubby screechtards.

To the second paragraph...You are totally projecting. Dude - I have my own blog, for all people who are interested, to help spread some thoughts on good sex and faithfulness. How do you take me and my entire message, and insinuate that what I meant by my sentence about my H being "like the guys they want to emulate" and turn that around into "so FW doesn't want men to be in happy marriages because she doesn't like MMSL". While it is true I do not specialize in the particular type of man MMSL does, how in the world does that mean I don't want husbands to be happy?

Geez.

ETA: Deejo, I still don't see why you keep trying to nail me. Don't you know and feel that I have goodwill in general? I don't know how you twist me to mean stuff I don't mean. I - like others - am still learning about and expanding my own sexual life. It is something of very high importance to me. I know that's true of others, too. I know that the husbands who find MMSL are very much awesome men on their own mission and many of them succeed in exactly what they set out for. Why do you keep coming back to making it about those men? I'm not saying anything about them specifically. IMO, there are much better and even more strict programs that will also yield awesome results if applied properly. So if I really just wanted to hold men down in bad marriages, I would be against all marriage programs, right?

Harley

Gottman

Schnarch

One last time: my problem doesn't lie with the fact that there are men in need of good advice.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*

I didn't invoke your name in the contrast I made at all. I referred specifically to Always Alone. Nor was the reference directed at her. I was pretty clear.

Neither was I referring to your entire message in the second paragraph. Just that singular statement. 

My posts immediately preceding this one stated my belief that you want good outcomes for men.

I'm not trying to nail you, using hyperbole or any other kind of language. 







Faithful Wife said:


> In response to the top paragraph...you said it was "as if" I am doing the equivalent of calling men chubby screechtards...which I think is hyperbole...and then I used the term "screeching" myself, I did not say you said it, but you are calling me hyperbole for that. I never laid the word "screeching" on you, I was just pulling it from what insinuated about me and calling men chubby screechtards.
> 
> To the second paragraph...You are totally projecting. Dude - I have my own blog, for all people who are interested, to help spread some thoughts on good sex and faithfulness. How do you take me and my entire message, and insinuate that what I meant by my sentence about my H being "like the guys they want to emulate" and turn that around into "so FW doesn't want men to be in happy marriages because she doesn't like MMSL". While it is true I do not specialize in the particular type of man MMSL does, how in the world does that mean I don't want husbands to be happy?
> 
> Geez.
> 
> ETA: Deejo, I still don't see why you keep trying to nail me. Don't you know and feel that I have goodwill in general? I don't know how you twist me to mean stuff I don't mean. I - like others - am still learning about and expanding my own sexual life. It is something of very high importance to me. I know that's true of others, too. I know that the husbands who find MMSL are very much awesome men on their own mission and many of them succeed in exactly what they set out for. Why do you keep coming back to making it about those men? I'm not saying anything about them specifically. IMO, there are much better and even more strict programs that will also yield awesome results if applied properly. So if I really just wanted to hold men down in bad marriages, I would be against all marriage programs, right?
> 
> Harley
> 
> Gottman
> 
> Schnarch
> 
> One last time: my problem doesn't lie with the fact that there are men in need of good advice.


----------



## U.E. McGill

Btw Althol Kay did a lot of his research on this board.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Then please explain the "cringe" comment. Why did I make you cringe, if you know that whatever made you cringe isn't what I meant?

When I said "my husband is like the guys who..." what I meant to do with that statement was open the understanding that I "get it" how it feels to be sexually hot for this type of man. He is no better than any other man Deejo, and I have never said he was...so I am honestly perplexed about the cringe statement. Because I thought you get that.

YOU ARE ALSO A SEX GOD, Deejo. So is samyeager...SA's husband....Lyris's husband...many other guys around here...and others I could name of people I know in person (there are just as many goddesses, too...like FF and anon pink). So how did I make you cringe?


----------



## jld

U.E. McGill said:


> I travel to France Switzerland Italy and Germany. Frankly, I've never attempted to even look for vegan in France. Most of the restaurants I've frequented in Germany and Switzerland (German speaking) have some basic veggie patty option and always fries, and rösti. I go to Rome in Italy, so it's pretty diverse.
> 
> My opinion, it's not any easier or harder than here in the states.


Vegan in France is tough. We used to live there, and we looked for North African or Ethiopian or Indian restaurants. Dh mostly goes to Germany and Eastern Europe and vegan is hard to find, other than salads. He usually opts for potato or pasta dishes.

Here in America we go to Ethiopian restaurants when we want to eat out. 

Tonight, though, we went for Vietnamese food. We love ethnic food.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> And so we come full circle:. Of course consideration should go to those who were harmed. It's still fair to ask why the solution has to be promoting sexist ideology against women.
> 
> Or men for that matter. While I know you favoured my rather repugnant characterization of men as easily manipulated by their little heads, and basically thoughtless cheaters, there are actually plenty of thoughtful men who fulfill themselves through looking out for others and are in touch with their emotional selves.. Some even write love poems, and yet still magically manage to have meaningful relationships, despite the common wisdom here on TAM that such men are useless wusses virtually guaranteed a life of sexlessness.


I got taken to task by Mrs Wysh this morning.

Last night my youngest son was boo hooing about his girlfriend 'cheating' on him. I was sympathetic until he carried on and on and on about it.

Unfortunately I called him a "Bloody wuss." and told him that he needs to sack up a bit.

Mrs Wysh pulled me aside this morning and said that some men, especially younger men are more sensitive. And one of the reasons she married me was because of my sensitive side.

She also pointed out some of the things I'd done that would leave many of the uber alphas here laughing their heads off.


----------



## jld

I wish we could get away from this whole "alpha" idea.

There are not any perfect men. There just are not.

Be yourself, be kind to other people, be responsible. Try to improve yourself.

The kid was sad. How about some empathy? And then tell him, yes, life is hard. You have to face reality; she cheated on you. Is this really the girl you want to be with? 

But that can all be done with love, with compassion, with understanding. He has feelings, just like you do. How would you feel if your wife cheated on you?

Yes, I know it is not the same. But it might feel a bit like it to your son.


----------



## jld

And what is this "uber alpha" idea anyway? Who is this? An extreme playboy? A barbarian? Is either appealing?

How about men forgetting these labels and just trying to improve themselves as men? Just being more responsible, more considerate, more willing to be leaders. 

Women can do this, too. But men do it in their own special way. And that is _very _appealing.


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> I wish we could get away from this whole "alpha" idea.
> 
> There are not any perfect men. There just are not.
> 
> Be yourself, be kind to other people, be responsible. Try to improve yourself.
> 
> The kid was sad. How about some empathy? And then tell him, yes, life is hard. You have to face reality; she cheated on you. Is this really the girl you want to be with?
> 
> But that can all be done with love, with compassion, with understanding. He has feelings, just like you do. How would you feel if your wife cheated on you?
> 
> Yes, I know it is not the same. But it might feel a bit like it to your son.


I'd done that jld, for hours. We had also warned him about this girl but he wouldn't listen. He had taken a sleeping tablet and wouldn't go to bed, was playing for sympathy and effect. I just ran out of patience.

See my screen name? I wish I knew what happened 20+ years ago. I don't know how much was truth, how much my imaginings and how much was down to somebody trying to drive a wedge between my wife and I.


----------



## jld

WyshIknew said:


> I'd done that jld, for hours. We had also warned him about this girl but he wouldn't listen. He had taken a sleeping tablet and wouldn't go to bed, was playing for sympathy and effect. I just ran out of patience.
> 
> See my screen name? I wish I knew what happened 20+ years ago. I don't know how much was truth, how much my imaginings and how much was down to somebody trying to drive a wedge between my wife and I.


Sorry, Wysh. I did not know the background.

Did you try active listening? Rather than talking to people, when they are too upset to listen anyway, it seems to be better just to listen and repeat back to them what they said. It seems to calm and soothe them.

Then, when they are calm enough, they can actually listen, because they feel understood and respected. That is when you can share your concerns about the girl.

I would apologize to your son today, and try the active listening approach, if he is willing to open up to you. If not, just apologize and try to put yourself in his shoes. How would you ideally want your dad to treat you?

I did not know your wife had an affair. It sounds like whatever happened is unclear. She will not open up to you?

Please don't blame the other person. Your wife is the one who made vows to you. She is the one you need to talk with.

And I wish we could all just throw this "alpha" ******** in the trash where it belongs. Let's just be _ourselves_.


----------



## Duguesclin

jld said:


> And what is this "uber alpha" idea anyway? Who is this? An extreme playboy? A barbarian? Is either appealing?
> 
> How about men forgetting these labels and just trying to improve themselves as men? Just being more responsible, more considerate, more willing to be leaders.
> 
> Women can do this, too. But men do it in their own special way. And that is _very _appealing.


This Alpha behavior is just a bunch of BS. I know it is promoted everywhere as a way for success. Being Alpha is the only way to win.

I see Alpha behavior as an excuse to not listen and shield behind your pride. Lance Amstrong may have been more honest if he would have listened and not just hide behind the tough guy. Because, deep inside, he was just scared, scared to fail!


----------



## Deejo

Wince. I said wince, not cringe. 

I do get it.

And that's all I was indicating. I know what it's like to be both guys. 
. 
For the last 5 years, I have been attracting and become involved with a type of woman that I didn't previously believe existed.

These women are HIGHLY sexual. In the scheme of things it's probably best that I didn't have this knowledge in my 20's.

There are 'naturals'. I don't need to use terms like alpha, or dominant. There are simply men who are innately attractive to women, and they KNOW this, and know what behaviors and actions will inherently continue to foster attraction. And importantly, all while being true to who they are. 

Your husband sounds like one of those guys.

Very deep down, maybe every guy has this wiring, I don't know. What I do know is that I needed material to reset my wiring. I was most definitely not a natural. Despite being considered relatively good looking, I thought girls and women were delicate things to be cherished and respected. I thought that they were emotionally more intelligent, and fundamentally better communicators. I thought women were better at being in love than men were. I thought men hurt women, never the other way around ... and I knew I didn't want to be one of THOSE men. I thought if you gave a woman everything she wanted or could ask for in a partner, that she would love you forever.

I have no idea how or where I came up with this stuff.

But that was my mindset. That was 'who I am'. And it was very flawed.

You have said previously that you thought deep down, I was always pretty much the man I am now, and I agree with that. I just had to peel back a bunch of layers like old wallpaper to find him.

My point is, there are guys who fundamentally 'get' this stuff. Regardless of the language or themes around it, they understand it. Some use it for good, others, not so much.

But there is a huge swath of guys that haven't a clue. Maybe they aren't meant to ... again, I don't know. 

My 'wince', dealt with the fact that quite often, and I'm not saying you specifically, but we've seen it here before; that if a man needs to learn how to be a man, or how to be attractive to a woman from a book, he can't possibly be much of a man.

In other words, despite you chiming in saying that you support the notion of men wanting to be better men, I can tell you there are lots of people, of both genders that most certainly do not.

If it's something you need to implement, practice, study, or learn, somehow it's false, and inauthentic. It isn't real. You aren't being yourself. You're pretending to be something and someone you're not.

I wasn't disparaging you. The way the words were written reminded me of posts I've seen in the past is all, not your posts.

I could have written it better. I was relating, not accusing, and it doesn't actually bother me, because it doesn't really apply to me. Not any more. But I do remember being the guy it did.

Sex Gods do not concern themselves with such things.








Faithful Wife said:


> Then please explain the "cringe" comment. Why did I make you cringe, if you know that whatever made you cringe isn't what I meant?
> 
> When I said "my husband is like the guys who..." what I meant to do with that statement was open the understanding that I "get it" how it feels to be sexually hot for this type of man. He is no better than any other man Deejo, and I have never said he was...so I am honestly perplexed about the cringe statement. Because I thought you get that.
> 
> YOU ARE ALSO A SEX GOD, Deejo. So is samyeager...SA's husband....Lyris's husband...many other guys around here...and others I could name of people I know in person (there are just as many goddesses, too...like FF and anon pink). So how did I make you cringe?


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> There are 'naturals'. I don't need to use terms like alpha, or dominant. There are simply men who are innately attractive to women, and they KNOW this, and know what behaviors and actions will inherently continue to foster attraction. And importantly, all while being true to who they are.


And then there are men who don't worry about being attractive to women, and don't worry about what will foster attraction. They are just themselves, and they do not doubt that is enough.

And they don't worry about labels. They really are just true to themselves.


----------



## Deejo

jld said:


> And then there are men who don't worry about being attractive to women, and don't worry about what will foster attraction. They are just themselves, and they do not doubt that is enough.
> 
> And they don't worry about labels. They really are just true to themselves.


Thank you jld, for succinctly providing an example of what I was talking about.

Those men you refer to, they aren't on these boards looking for help over the fact that their wife is keeping company with a male friend after hours, or is being openly disrespectful, or doesn't want to be intimate, or is having an affair under his nose, or simply doesn't love him anymore and wants out.

The guys I just outlined above? Just being themselves and not caring whether or not their wives are attracted to them, telling those guys to 'just be themselves' and not worry about it being enough ... isn't.


----------



## jld

Deejo said:


> Thank you jld, for succinctly providing an example of what I was talking about.
> 
> *Those men you refer to, they aren't on these boards looking for help over the fact that their wife is keeping company with a male friend after hours, or is being openly disrespectful, or doesn't want to be intimate, or is having an affair under his nose, or simply doesn't love him anymore and wants out.*
> 
> The guys I just outlined above? Just being themselves and not caring whether or not their wives are attracted to them, telling those guys to 'just be themselves' and not worry about it being enough ... isn't.


No, they're not. Their wives are here, Deejo.

And they are saying, "Why doesn't he listen to me? Why doesn't he notice me? Why doesn't he care about me? Why am I not a priority?"

And these wives wouldn't think of denying sex, because good grief, then they would not get any affection at all.

It is amazing how different our individual marriages can be. And how completely different from what we read on these boards.

Okay, this kind of seems like a threadjack. Sorry. I'll stop. Back to the "Nice Guy" discussion.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> But that was my mindset. That was 'who I am'. And it was very flawed.


Deejo, I think you are one awesome dude. For the record.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> There are 'naturals'. I don't need to use terms like alpha, or dominant. There are simply men who are innately attractive to women, and they KNOW this, and know what behaviors and actions will inherently continue to foster attraction. And importantly, all while being true to who they are.
> 
> Your husband sounds like one of those guys.
> 
> Very deep down, maybe every guy has this wiring, I don't know. What I do know is that I needed material to reset my wiring. I was most definitely not a natural. Despite being considered relatively good looking, I thought girls and women were delicate things to be cherished and respected. I thought that they were emotionally more intelligent, and fundamentally better communicators. I thought women were better at being in love than men were. I thought men hurt women, never the other way around ... and I knew I didn't want to be one of THOSE men. I thought if you gave a woman everything she wanted or could ask for in a partner, that she would love you forever.
> 
> I have no idea how or where I came up with this stuff.


Some of these so-called "naturals", though, are really just pr!cks. But because "he's getting laid more than I am", we conclude that "women love jerks", and pr!ckdom becomes the aspiration.

IMHO, pr!ck really should only be an aspiration for a man who cares only about sex, and not so much about the person who is attached. Only certain types of women will go after pr!ck, after all. So if that's the type of woman you want, then great, but if it isn't, then this assumption that "all woman love to be dominated" or "love alpha bad boys" is just as misguided and likely to lead to undesirable consequences as the assumption that "women are all good at taking care of relationships."

Let me be clear: I am not accusing you of being a pr!ck, or aspiring to be one. I'm just trying to point out that the antidote is as toxic as the poison in some ways.

Clearly, if you think all women are good, and would never hurt a man, you are likely in for a rude awakening. And I could get behind any man-up advice that encourages men to take care of themselves, their health, their needs, and to not put up with abuse or poor treatment. Having boundaries about what you will and will not put up with is always a good thing.

When you take it one step further, and decide what all women think, do, act, well, at least know that the tactics will only appeal to a certain sector. If you're seeking a woman who wants an alpha bad boy, then I'm sure you'll meet with all sorts of success. Other women, though, will likely be totally turned off.

Up to you if you care.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> The guys I just outlined above? Just being themselves and not caring whether or not their wives are attracted to them, telling those guys to 'just be themselves' and not worry about it being enough ... isn't.


It occurs to me that if you've already married someone who digs pr!cks, or is selfish and entitled, it's most certainly true that you would have to either act more like one, or draw your lines in the sand and be willing to let her go.

I still think a lot of the ideas about women and how to treat them would be more likely to blow up a relationship than help one. Which becomes more of a problem if you actually want meaningful LTR.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



NobodySpecial said:


> Deejo, I think you are one awesome dude. For the record.


Thank you. And I agree.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



jld said:


> No, they're not. Their wives are here, Deejo.
> 
> And they are saying, "Why doesn't he listen to me? Why doesn't he notice me? Why doesn't he care about me? Why am I not a priority?"
> 
> And these wives wouldn't think of denying sex, because good grief, then they would not get any affection at all.
> 
> It is amazing how different our individual marriages can be. And how completely different from what we read on these boards.
> 
> Okay, this kind of seems like a threadjack. Sorry. I'll stop. Back to the "Nice Guy" discussion.


Nobody can afford to just mail it in and take for granted that once they are partnered they dont have to work at staying partnered.

Whether I'm a passive, oblivious, milquetoast, or a balls and bluster selfish pr!ck, the outcome is the same ... we alienate and lose our partner.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> It occurs to me that if you've already married someone who digs pr!cks, or is selfish and entitled, it's most certainly true that you would have to either act more like one, or draw your lines in the sand and be willing to let her go.
> 
> I still think a lot of the ideas about women and how to treat them would be more likely to blow up a relationship than help one. Which becomes more of a problem if you actually want meaningful LTR.


I have seen threads/posts on TAM where guys have said that books like MMSLP have helped them enormously.

Some where it has apparently made no difference.

And some where it helped initially then 'blew up' due to the wife becoming irritated at her once overly 'beta' husband becoming overly 'alpha'

I have no idea as to the long term ratio of success to failure so can't comment.

Every woman has her own (even if subconscious) view of her ideal blend of 'alpha' and 'beta' man which varies from situation to situation, as does every man with regards to his wife.

The trick is being that man or woman.


----------



## WyshIknew

Deejo said:


> Thank you. And I agree.


:lol:

Pride cometh before a fall!


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



always_alone said:


> Some of these so-called "naturals", though, are really just pr!cks. But because "he's getting laid more than I am", we conclude that "women love jerks", and pr!ckdom becomes the aspiration.
> 
> IMHO, pr!ck really should only be an aspiration for a man who cares only about sex, and not so much about the person who is attached. Only certain types of women will go after pr!ck, after all. So if that's the type of woman you want, then great, but if it isn't, then this assumption that "all woman love to be dominated" or "love alpha bad boys" is just as misguided and likely to lead to undesirable consequences as the assumption that "women are all good at taking care of relationships."
> 
> Let me be clear: I am not accusing you of being a pr!ck, or aspiring to be one. I'm just trying to point out that the antidote is as toxic as the poison in some ways.
> 
> Clearly, if you think all women are good, and would never hurt a man, you are likely in for a rude awakening. And I could get behind any man-up advice that encourages men to take care of themselves, their health, their needs, and to not put up with abuse or poor treatment. Having boundaries about what you will and will not put up with is always a good thing.
> 
> When you take it one step further, and decide what all women think, do, act, well, at least know that the tactics will only appeal to a certain sector. If you're seeking a woman who wants an alpha bad boy, then I'm sure you'll meet with all sorts of success. Other women, though, will likely be totally turned off.
> 
> Up to you if you care.


Care about what?

I've dated both.

And this how I see our disconnect.

You seem to see all of this as binary. 

I don't. And it isn't.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Care about what?
> 
> I've dated both.
> 
> And this how I see our disconnect.
> 
> You seem to see all of this as binary.
> 
> I don't. And it isn't.


?? I'm confused.

I meant care about turning someone off. You've dated people that you were happy to turn off? Why bother dating them?


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> ?? I'm confused.
> 
> I meant care about turning someone off. You've dated people that you were happy to turn off? Why bother dating them?


Using binary logic? Well to get laid of course.

Using a scale? The only way to let someone know who you are is to spend time with them and let them see. And sometimes when we do that, the other person decides they aren't all that interested, despite sure thinking they were out of the gate.

Do you know what the antidote is when you are envenomed?

A modified version of the same venom.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> And then there are men who don't worry about being attractive to women, and don't worry about what will foster attraction. They are just themselves, and they do not doubt that is enough. And they don't worry about labels. They really are just true to themselves.


I would say that doesn't make for a happy marriage either. (Maybe that's your point?) When my wife lost all interest in marital intimacy, it was hard at first, but after a couple of years, it became easy for me to say, "I don't care" and go off and do my own thing. There is no shortage of things I'm interested in and passionate about, so there was always something else to learn or do. 

It was easy to be philosophical about it too and take a pretty cynical view of the realities vs. the promises of marriage. But all that got us was a lot of wasted years.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo thank you for your last post to me. I have been reading boards long before this one and yes it is true...there are so many people in pain, looking for help, etc. I have never disagreed, and I have actually helped hundreds of people in that position...and literally hundreds of people, including yourself, have helped me.

In all my reading, I have never encountered any other marriage book that used such hateful speech toward anyone. When I read MMSL, and then read the evo-psyche stuff behind it...and then finally read it all tying itself back to MRA/PUA stuff...I was shocked. Truly shocked that so many would just accept something with roots like that.

I am still shocked.

I have never known or associated with anyone who would say some of these things...and I had heard a lot of stuff, a LOT! The things I had heard and read, if they were "off color" or even straight up mean, they were simply someone's opinion. But I had never heard anyone hold up a (fake, evo-psyche) biology book as if it were the bible, and hold it out as proof that in fact, all women *are* this way, and then spew forth hateful speech. Then knowing there is a much darker, deeper agenda behind it all.

So this really shocked me, Deejo. Can you at least understand that? I have been around relationship boards and books for well over a decade, and have seen nothing like this and I honestly can't understand why it is defended.

When you offer me "but...these people are hurting and needed advice"...and then you say that others have scoffed at those people...that means nothing to me because I have never scoffed anyone for that, ever. I found boards and books because I needed advice, and met dozens of great men along the way, some of whom have become people I consider friends, you included.

So...I have no response to the scoffing you "hear" when I say these things, because I've never, ever thought that.

And at the same time, I find you so logical and kind and awesome...that when you said you brushed up on MMSL and then you asked me what percentage of it should we call ok? Why is any hate speech (especially when presented in the name of science!) ever ok, for any reason?

Can you at least see why I'm shocked and confused by this book and the strong defense of it, if you remove me completely away from the "scoffing men for seeking help" category?

I'm not asking you to debate the contents of the book - - I am just asking, do you see why it confuses me, since it is nothing like any other marriage book or message? (I'm only talking about the evo-psyche behind MMSL, not NMMNG).


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not asking you to debate the contents of the book - - I am just asking, do you see why it confuses me, since it is nothing like any other marriage book or message? (I'm only talking about the evo-psyche behind MMSL, not NMMNG).


Yes, I understand.

I think the fact that it is like no other marriage book, is what made it palatable to a lot more men.

And it focused on an outcome that men want ... sex with their wife.

I recognize that you give no credence to evolutionary psychology.
It's certainly not that I do, I just find the sheer predictability of most of the scenarios surrounding attraction, rejection, sex and infidelity too overwhelming to dismiss. We see that predictability play out, all of the time right here on the boards. Frankly, I don't care about the science. I care about the results.

Game works. You say so too. Sex rank is real. We don't need science to tell us this. I don't care if it's derived from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard ... the sh!t works.

But yes, I understand why women would hate this book in particular.


----------



## ReformedHubby

When I think of this thread in many ways its an illustration of how the advice I give my sons will be dramatically different than the advice I give my daughter. It would be nice if I could give them the same advice, but the reality is I can't. The world is still very much a different place for men and women.


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> Sorry, Wysh. I did not know the background.
> 
> Did you try active listening? Rather than talking to people, when they are too upset to listen anyway, it seems to be better just to listen and repeat back to them what they said. It seems to calm and soothe them.
> 
> Then, when they are calm enough, they can actually listen, because they feel understood and respected. That is when you can share your concerns about the girl.
> 
> I would apologize to your son today, and try the active listening approach, if he is willing to open up to you. If not, just apologize and try to put yourself in his shoes. How would you ideally want your dad to treat you?
> 
> I did not know your wife had an affair. It sounds like whatever happened is unclear. She will not open up to you?
> 
> Please don't blame the other person. Your wife is the one who made vows to you. She is the one you need to talk with.
> And I wish we could all just throw this "alpha" ******** in the trash where it belongs. Let's just be _ourselves_.


I don't want to jack this thread, I only mentioned what happened to highlight Always's point about sensitive men.

However, in answer. I did all that for hours, bloody hours with him attention seeking on the stairs, sprawled out on the floor outside his bedroom trying to get sympathy. He loves drama. My wife and I know his games well. He is fine today.

I only apologise if I think I'm in the wrong so not happening, he does need to toughen up.

I don't know that she did. I did think so after I started on TAM, but now? Been over the story before, not doing it again. Good enough that I know she adores me.

A bit late. I told the guy that was sniffing around that I would hurt him if he had tried it on with my wife. I didn't handle it very well.


----------



## ReformedHubby

WyshIknew said:


> I got taken to task by Mrs Wysh this morning.
> 
> Last night my youngest son was boo hooing about his girlfriend 'cheating' on him. I was sympathetic until he carried on and on and on about it.
> 
> Unfortunately I called him a "Bloody wuss." and told him that he needs to sack up a bit.
> 
> Mrs Wysh pulled me aside this morning and said that some men, especially younger men are more sensitive. And one of the reasons she married me was because of my sensitive side.
> 
> She also pointed out some of the things I'd done that would leave many of the uber alphas here laughing their heads off.


I can certainly understand why a mother wouldn't always like the advice that comes from father to son when it comes to matters of the heart. But the reality is there are some things as a father that your wife can't teach your son. Your advice to him to sack up was the correct course of action. I was sensitive when I was young too but that doesn't mean that I didn't need a swift kick in the pants every now and then.

Your initial guidance to your son was appropriate. My wife actually defers to me when it comes to my sons. She recognizes that there are some things she can't teach them. Everybody who dates plays the the fool at some point. Even the most so called alpha male. However, as a father you did the right thing. Your son should not be shedding tears over someone that cheated on him. The men who don't need NMMNG and MMSL are the ones whose father's taught them how to appropriately react to relationship challenges.


----------



## jld

Ocotillo, my husband is not a Nice Guy. He is a loner. And it has left me feeling alone.

He loves me, and I know that, but I want more attention and affection. And the problem with a guy like my dh, who is indeed secure, is that he has felt like since he does not need attention and affection (outside of sex), he doesn't think I really need it, either. 

And there are never any consequences for his actions, other than my occasional temper tantrums and just general frustration (both of which just rolls off his back -- because he is secure and truly not shaken by little things like his wife's emotions).

I guess the point is that there are no perfect men.

It doesn't matter the label. There just are no perfect men. Or women.

I think we just have to be honest with ourselves, and our partners, and try to be clear about our needs, and how we want them met. And then hope the other person is willing to put some structure around meeting our needs.

I think some MMSL techniques like make her jealous and sex rank each other are unhealthy. They may be motivating, but they are unhealthy. They just will not hold things together in the long term like being transparent and solving problems together.

Dh was pretty good today about just holding me and affirming me. I felt like a dry sponge soaking up moisture. He was just so tender. He told me I have needed this for 20 years and he was so sorry he did not provide it earlier.

It is a good start, but we have a lot of work to do. He is not very expressive, but those walls are starting to come down. He is working on tearing down the pride that keeps him from expressing his emotions and being transparent with me. I need that transparency.

Every man is a little different, and I hope each will find his way to a healthy self. I try not to be judgmental about the path each one takes, but I hope what is healthy and what is not will eventually be apparent, and that the healthy path to a satisfying LTR will be chosen.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> ...So this really shocked me, Deejo. Can you at least understand that? I have been around relationship boards and books for well over a decade, and have seen nothing like this and I honestly can't understand why it is defended.


I know you have already expressed that you will not tolerate explainisms, in which case just pretend I did not write this comment... But, and I won't speak for any other guys on this board, I hear this kind of talk among guys very very frequently. I have not always heard this kind of talk, growing up my father did not use that language, but as I found out later from him that his male piers all talked in such a way about women, other men, and subjects in general. I wasn't on any sports teams but I am athletic. I always rejected that kind of manspeak.

What is hard to understand as a man, that rejecting these ideas of twisted misogynistic masculinity, was I rejecting sexuality? It seems like it all too often because those guys that could openly express such disrespect to women all had the confidence and never had difficulty attracting beautiful women with alluring characteristic that any warm blooded male would desire, while almost universally those of us that would refrain from such disrespectful ideas all didn't draw the attraction of the girls we liked. Of those guys that spoke openly with other guys, some were arrogant a holes that have always had a stream of pretty girls they treat like sh!t but have no problem replacing, but most in the company of women act respectfully, do not maintain their locker room speak in the presence of women and are otherwise genuinely good men that own their own stuff and treat their families well while maintaining the attraction of their wives and loyalty to them.

I don't know if our society is messed up or if that is just hard wired into our dna. If it is messed up do we blame men? Media? Books like mmsl? Women that hold men to behave as such? Maybe it is just a matter of finding balance, being able to hold an edge while also treating others with basic human respect. When I tune my guitar I can't just hear the bad note and make the correct adjustment on the first try, first I tune the string sharp, then drop it flat then can easily find the perfect middle.

Maybe when men talk so "hateful" it is to swing the pendulum far to one side in order to strike the right balance we seek. For me I still don't personally speak that way towards anyone but I do know that I struggle to find my edge, without the range of extremes to help me find center. Having material available to me to help understand the other end of the spectrum helps me find the balance I want, what I need to be able to set my boundaries, which is all too clear the way I am when I have the respect of others and the attraction of those I'm attracted to.

I don't know if I'm breaking some sort of man code, but I'm just saying this in response to you being "shocked" FW, this language is all around you, and more importantly your H, and even if he doesn't partake in it, he undoubtedly has experienced it 100x more than you have, and is not shocked by it, may not even like it or tolerate it, but probably understands it for what it is... The ugly side of male camaraderie, that many including myself believe needs to exist so that the goodness of a man can be distinguished from evil, right from wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...because you do think sex rank works the way it is lined out in MMSL, and because you think you see evidence of it, I understand why you believe it.

I see it differently, but I have already said my reasons and they don't really matter. Point being, I understand that since you do believe it works that way, and you see evidence of it, you are behind "what works". I get ya.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon...It is not the "language" I am against, at least not in the way you probably think (based on what you wrote above). I understand that I am not going to make myself clear, and I also understand you do want me to understand (in good will). Thanks for making conversation with me, I honestly accept it in those terms.

I also really do understand...it is *my* point(s) that I'm not able to make clear here. But that's ok. Thanks for bearing with me.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> Lon...It is not the "language" I am against, at least not in the way you probably think (based on what you wrote above). I understand that I am not going to make myself clear, and I also understand you do want me to understand (in good will). Thanks for making conversation with me, I honestly accept it in those terms.
> 
> I also really do understand...it is *my* point(s) that I'm not able to make clear here. But that's ok. Thanks for bearing with me.


As I understand it, it's not the "language" that is the problem for you it's that the ideas are hateful. But as I understand it, it's not hateful because the ideas are metaphor for the opposite and really only a way to generate a language that is unique among men. Again, I am mansplaining, and I do agree that many guys are closed off to the self-improvement principles to the ideas which you think are hateful and which I think are useful. Those guys may attach the obvious meaning of the language because that is what they choose to hear. The rest of us realize that another man bragging it up and speaking disrespectfully about the women we love, is doing it to invoke the protective emotions we have, to help us reinforce our principles and keep us aware. If he really were telling us our wives were replaceable, disposable or worthless we would beat the living [email protected] out of him and would certainly not pay him money for his writings... And that is the response he would want his audience to have.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> As I understand it, it's not the "language" that is the problem for you it's that the ideas are hateful. But as I understand it, it's not hateful because the ideas are metaphor for the opposite and really only a way to generate a language that is unique among men.


My SO once said to me that he prefers mixed groups of women and men, and doesn't like the vibe of an all male group.

"Why?" I asked him, curious, of course.

Turns out he really doesn't like the hateful and disrespectful way men will talk about women.

"Dude", he said, "you're heterosexual. You're supposed to like women. Why would you talk about them like that?"

This is why I love my SO, and want to work on our issues rather than leaving him in the dust.

Personally, I'm skeptical that men who talk hatefully about women really do love them and want to protect them. I think they just want to bang hot chicks.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I also really do understand...it is *my* point(s) that I'm not able to make clear here. But that's ok. Thanks for bearing with me.


I often feel like that around here. I can't tell if I'm really hat piss-poor at communication, or if it's just that the demographic is so different from my usual stomping grounds.

But at least I've picked the right user name for myself!


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> My SO once said to me that he prefers mixed groups of women and men, and doesn't like the vibe of an all male group.
> 
> "Why?" I asked him, curious, of course.
> 
> Turns out he really doesn't like the hateful and disrespectful way men will talk about women.
> 
> "Dude", he said, "you're heterosexual. You're supposed to like women. Why would you talk about them like that?"
> 
> This is why I love my SO, and want to work on our issues rather than leaving him in the dust.
> 
> Personally, I'm skeptical that men who talk hatefully about women really do love them and want to protect them. I think they just want to bang hot chicks.


Does the same rule apply to women, or do women get a free pass?




You should probably hear how some of my clients, especially the wealthy ones and some of the women I hang around talk about men...

All of my clients and the friends I hang out with are female.
What do you think?
These women hate men and just want their money?

I think they are just expressing themselves in ways only women can understand, and none of it is intended to hurt men. 
I think that's called freedom of expression.
These women are married with kids.

Maybe I should start hanging out with more men?











B


----------



## Blonde

WyshIknew said:


> Unfortunately I called him a "Bloody wuss." and told him that he needs to sack up a bit.


If my H read this thread (or MMSL) I'm afraid he might take something like the above and use it to justify his mouth.

I understand in the context you describe, Wysh.

OTH, some people are just brutal with their character assassinating mouths. And Lon thinks these are the ones who "get laid" (<--hate that terminology BTW!) If that's the takeaway, 

My oldest daughter did not date for a very very long time... I really think it is BECAUSE of her dad, not wanting to fall for someone like that. Before she dated her now H she watched him for a long time at church, serving quietly behind the scenes with things like a used furniture ministry for needy people. 

When she went home with him and met his parents for the first time at TG, she called me up all excited because of how his dad treated his mom. His dad, though is the primary wage-earner, actually *helped* his mom in the kitchen!!! In my H's family all the men watch football while all the women serve, and H (at that time) would not touch women's work (contemptuous spit!) with a 10 foot pole.

My daughters are beautiful and intelligent. And they don't want alpha a$$H

Here and there, I've heard men whining @ feminism and the fact that females file 2/3 of divorces. I agree with this analysis of the reason: Men's Issues - What has Happened to Men?


----------



## Conrad

jld said:


> I guess I just don't see men as victims.


Thank you for your honesty.

You may want to think about this one a bit more.

No one is saying "men are victims" as a blanket statement.

But, there is a virtual epidemic of emotional spousal abuse of men by women in the west. And, yes, men permit it.

And, if you don't believe women are capable of being abusive, we have thousands of cases of child abuse by women, don't we?

Are all those abusive mothers simply wonderful wives?


----------



## ConanHub

Hey Blonde. Not all of us alphas are a abusive. Some of us kick the worlds ass for our families. I am tender with my wife and a terror to anything detrimental to my family.

I don't even know if I would call a man alpha that is harsh on his family.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr The Other

starslight said:


> all self-improvement books are humbug! only fools pay for them, they are in the same series of books with losing weight!


Most art is useless, but the classics survive. So it is with self-help books. The general problem is that many are blame shifting, or cop out books teaching you some hocus-pocus proving why other people are at fault.

Oddly there are scientists in the field who can give very pragmatic advice. However, it has the feeling of practical commonsense rather than anything mystical (http://www.amazon.co.uk/59-Seconds-Think-little-change/dp/0330511602)


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Maybe I should start hanging out with more men?


Hang out with whomever you want. If women who disrespect men while emptying their pockets turn your crank, then by all means, enjoy their company.

I have no double standard on this issue. No women I know ever sit around disrespecting men. We all have better things to do.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> I also really do understand...it is *my* point(s) that I'm not able to make clear here. But that's ok. Thanks for bearing with me.


Based on your moniker alone, I would suppose that an explanation for sexlessness in marriage that categorically portrays the woman as having one foot down the road to infidelity and the other foot on a banana peel would be offensive.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No oco...I actually know a lot about sexless marriages and why they happen.

Again, I'm apparently not able to make myself clear, and it will just be assumed that I'm somehow trying to "protect women" from some mean men or something. Not the case at all. But since you are not the only one who keeps thinking something like that, I have to accept that no matter what I say, no one (who doesn't get me) is going to move off that position of thinking that is what I mean.

But what I think about MMSL has literally nothing to do with what I think about women, men, sex, marriages, or "whose fault" these things are when things go wrong.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



always_alone said:


> My SO once said to me that he prefers mixed groups of women and men, and doesn't like the vibe of an all male group.
> 
> "Why?" I asked him, curious, of course.
> 
> Turns out he really doesn't like the hateful and disrespectful way men will talk about women.
> 
> "Dude", he said, "you're heterosexual. You're supposed to like women. Why would you talk about them like that?"
> 
> This is why I love my SO, and want to work on our issues rather than leaving him in the dust.
> 
> Personally, I'm skeptical that men who talk hatefully about women really do love them and want to protect them. I think they just want to bang hot chicks.


I always rejected disrespectful women bashing talk as well, which is why 90% off my friends have always been women, some of whom I wanted to be out of the friend zone with quite badly, the men that I was close friends with were as kind, and desperately sexless like I was. As a result I tend to take a feminine approach to solving my problems, and I rarely ever could relate to the men I admire. I have never had difficulty garnering respect from managers, relatives, customers but when it comes to male piers I am generally dismissed and been called "spineless" on more than one occasion (and it really hurt, even though I know I am not spineless at all).

When myself or my beta male friends did get any attention from women it was ones that we had to look deeper to find beauty, beauty in their personality that we respected but which wasn't necessarily sexually stimulating. When we found someone that was into us we latched on and made into LTRs, despite not being totally physically attracted to. I settled for ones that were pretty enough to be around and still treat well without feeling like I made a wrong choice, my ex W and my HSS before that were women that had no trouble eliciting compliments but which just didn't match my own top preferences, yet ones I did genuinely feel a special connection with.

This is the deceitful core of the nice guy, and I was one of them, up until my divorce and I came to TAM and starting understanding the perspective of Kay, Glover and the successful male piers I have always rejected due to the harsh sounding language.

Since my divorce, and opening my mind to the perspective of the man up threads, I have found myself to be more genuine, a little less needy, I feel a little wiser and I've had a little less self doubt in my ability to attract attractive women. I have spent more time with my male acquaintances that I previously rejected and while I'm still generally uncomfortable with the harsh language about women they speak, I just realize that their pendulum is merely on the opposite side as mine, and by making an effort to accept their variety of wisdom my presence will bring help bring their own views into balance and vice versa.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> But since you are not the only one who keeps thinking something like that, I have to accept that no matter what I say, no one (who doesn't get me) is going to move off that position of thinking that is what I mean.


I'm lost...:scratchhead:

That's not the direction I was headed at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok I will be more specific...I know a lot about infidelity and why it happens, too. Both men and women do it in alarming numbers.

I chose my screen name in a quick moment of decision to sign up here and there are not a lot of names available anymore...it just came to me and I went with it. In my marriage, we play kinky sex games related to faithfulness, so that is basically what it really means.

Does that help?


----------



## FrenchFry

always_alone said:


> Personally, I'm skeptical that men who talk hatefully about women really do love them and want to protect them. I think they just want to bang hot chicks.


I was watching Couples Therapy. Jen Berman said the same thing to Ghostface Killah and Kelsey.


----------



## Conrad

Caribbean Man said:


> Does the same rule apply to women, or do women get a free pass?


Free pass


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Does that help?


It helps insofar as the meaning behind your cognomen is concerned. 

If it helps clarify where I'm coming from, I disagree with the notion that female disinterest in marital sex is primarily rooted in a secret tendency towards promiscuity. So I *do not *think you are reflexively defending your gender if that idea offends you. (And it certainly seemed to on page 22 of this thread.)

I think there are plenty of other reasons why couples lapse into sexlessness.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I totally ramble in this post. If you don't like rambles, don't read it. I'm just wasting time before I have to go to a meeting.

Anyhow, I see a lot of speaking past each other here. Can we accept that men and women often communicate very differently? Can we accept that how a person communicates often betrays their mental state? Can we accept that language can be used to encourage a given mental state? ie - someone willing to tease or even be mildly offensive is signaling their self-assuredness and comfort. Someone being pleasing and timid, likely signals their lack of assurance and comfort. 

Its my understanding that women read between the lines better than men do - a lot can be left unsaid and the mentality or emotional state message is still received. This isn't really so for most men. In describing good masculine men, women substantially soften the description and elements of him are just presumed or understood - some of them critical. The hard edges that men will refer to in such descriptions receive a sort of vague treatment by females - the guy has "it". Which is to say, he has presence, confidence and isn't hung up worrying about what someone will think about whatever he says. When these hard edges are verbalized, they aren't well received by women - the words do no justice or fail to capture their mind's representation of a desirable man, even though they describe the man well to other secure men.

"Nice guys" see such descriptions/men and think "what a jerk". Unless the guy is surrealistically exaggerating, women tend to just see a confident man. "Nice Guys" and women read material that is intended to get a man to stop worrying so much what everyone else thinks and interpret it as teaching men to be jerks.

But the crux of the matter is that these men signaling their self-assurance, comfort and confidence ARE the men that women are drawn to. Otherwise the so-careful-to-avoid-offending-a-woman Nice Guys wouldn't be so desperately sexless. They're desperate because they're signaling - "I'm not going to act like a guy. I'm not going to be my secure self. I'm going to be whatever you want me to be. I need your acceptance." -which no woman actually wants from a man.

Most guys use crude language and I think there's a reason. We say "stop being a p*ssy", "sack up", "reach down and grab a pair". It doesn't seem this way to women, but this is how we *encourage* each other. We even show camaraderie and acceptance by calling each other names and picking. Its how we show that we're comfortable and secure with one another. It makes no sense to women, but its how secure men relate. Every now and then a new guy enters my social circle and actually gets defensive about such treatment and its just weird. This sort of ritual is about being secure - and here's someone being insecure and defensive. As a result, they're not accepted by the group, and coincidentally they're not popular with women. They are small, very insecure people. Just as women aren't into them romantically, men aren't very into them socially. Both are recognizing a problem in that persons core of self.

This crude way men often talk around each other is a bit of a bravado show. It says "I'm secure. I don't get offended. I don't need to be defensive. I don't hang on every word you say and what you think isn't better than what I think. I know who/what I am and I don't need your approval." It is somewhat desensitizing, but it is ritual that encourages confidence and boldness.

AK and others use the language they do in order to say, "look, you've got to be more of a guy's guy and act less like a woman. You don't want to be her friend. She has girlfriends for that. You want to be her man." Those of us who have experienced this transition KNOW that this is required to go from being every woman's friend, to being a guy that women are drawn to for sexual relationships. Men who can handle being with a woman and keeping their secure identity, rather than being doting and pleasing puppies. Not being so worried about offending, and not treating her like she's made of porcelain are a big part of this, and neither means actually being an @sshole. Its unsurprising, yet telling, that sweet sensitive feminine men interpret all of this the same way as most women do.

Its hard to express properly, but in all my going out, if I don't get the right balance, I'd rather come off a bit harsh, even arrogant than have come off sweet. She'll enjoy talking to me all d*mn night if I'm really nice, and a nice guy will think he's getting somewhere but no; she isn't going to *want* me. Coming off edgy however, is intrinsically interesting and attractive - even if she's initially irritated by it. For one, I'm different from all the nice guy suck ups. Two, I'm clearly confident and not sweating whether she responds to me or not. I have more room to make jokes and can more easily/comfortably be myself without censoring myself for fear of offending her. She may not like me right off, but its my impression she subconsciously respects the ability to do and say as you please. She's off balance. Taking this self-assured edginess and slowly revealing a good man, not a nice guy, is the best route to picking up women I've found. At first they're flustered, even frustrated... sometimes even bothered, but they keep on pursuing the conversation. Nice Guys are caught up in needing to make good first impressions so she'll like them... but the message she reads between the lines is that this guy lacks value, lacks secure self, and is catering. In truth, the only first impression one needs to make is confidence.

IMO, the way men interact with each other is a ritual that sets us up for confident, self-assured behavior. Be your confident self and don't sell out to impress her. Stop caring so much about what she thinks. Stop trying to get her to like you and she's more likely to like you. There's a lot of literature that puts it in much sweeter or more clinical PC ways... but this crude way is one that most men will "get", and one that "Nice Guys" probably need to hear if they want to stop being every woman's listener and instead be their lover. I KNOW from experience that this change in attitude is the most important thing a Nice Guy can do to change his relationships with women. As to whether it applies to an existing marriage is probably hit or miss - probably only if her self-assured man became a submissive Nice Guy. I don't know... to be honest, I'm not aware of a case where MMSL advice convincingly improved a marriage. A couple guys I know who have read it still have the same old problems.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> Then please explain the "cringe" comment. Why did I make you cringe, if you know that whatever made you cringe isn't what I meant?
> ...
> So how did I make you cringe?


I’ll be honest, it made me wince too. Why? You are familiar with my story and my thoughts. I am unlike your husband. And you know I struggle with feeling like less of a man for a lot of reasons. NMMNG, “The Game”, “Living with the liar” were my goto books where I learned to peel back the layers.

Deijo nailed it. At my core there is this man. But due to influences and experiences throughout my life, new layers of wallpaper had been applied. “You should be ‘this way’, see women ‘that way’, how you are by default is ‘wrong’.”

These books, whether you agree with them or not, strikes a cord with that core man inside hiding behind all these ‘safety layers’. So you begin to peel back those false layers you’d use to insulate and protect yourself from being seen “that way”. The books don’t create these false wanna be monsters; At my core I am a good man. Core changes aren’t so easily manipulated or changed. What it did was strip away the layers and thoughts that I should mold myself into what I believe ‘they’ wanted me to be so I could just be me and deal with the fact that not everyone is going to like that man.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ocotillo...I think I understand your position. I feel like you expressed it very well in your first post and all the ones on this thread. I could be wrong but I think I get you.

I still am not able to make myself clear, however. But that is ok. The stuff I copied onto page 22 does not reflect anything at all about how I feel about women's faithfulness/promiscuity, the word sl*t, women's sexuality, or any other marriage dynamic. As I said...I understand that I can't seem to make myself clear, so I guess I would just ask you to not make any assumptions about what I am trying to say. At the same time, I will stop trying on this thread. If you'd like to PM I would be happy to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer...I totally get why these books helped you. I'm sorry I can't explain what my issue is clearly, but I am definitely not against men "manning up".


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Hang out with whomever you want. If women who disrespect men while emptying their pockets turn your crank, then by all means, enjoy their company.
> 
> I have no double standard on this issue. *No women I know ever sit around disrespecting men. We all have better things to do.*


_Voooosh!_

I guess that one passed a bit too fast.


But may I remind you that quite a few men find your views about men here on TAM very disrespectful and they have said it to you on the forums for everyone to see.

So lemme explain what I meant in my last post.

My wife also trash talk men sometimes whilst we're lying on the couch looking at a movie or in bed .
You see, he best fried's husband is a real a$$ hole , and a pain in the butt, so her best friend usually confides in her about her husband's and other women's husband problems.

And guess what?

Sometimes in frustration, she asks me, 
"_ Hun, why are you men like that?_"
To which I answer
"_ Not all men are like that dear , and sometimes you women like us like that..._" 
And then she throws an object like a cushion at me and we start a friendly playfight.


The point being that I don't think it makes sense divorcing my wife because she sometimes vents her frustrations at some men on me. I can understand her frustrations given her friends marriage problems.
She's only human and I'm only human.

When she says stuff about men, I understand perfectly well exactly where she' coming from.
I don't think that she hates men , that's why we're still happily married, neither any of my female friends , simply because the rant and give their tongues privilege 
A person isn't defined simply by what they say ,but by their _actions._
What matters is how they treat their men, and as far as I know , they treat them like kings.
Therein lies the irony in your post.

Like I mentioned to you before on that penis thread where you were poking fun at men's penis insecurity, agreeableness goes a long way if we want people to understand , or even accept our views.


----------



## Conrad

Racer said:


> I’ll be honest, it made me wince too. Why? You are familiar with my story and my thoughts. I am unlike your husband. And you know I struggle with feeling like less of a man for a lot of reasons. NMMNG, “The Game”, “Living with the liar” were my goto books where I learned to peel back the layers.
> 
> Deijo nailed it. At my core there is this man. But due to influences and experiences throughout my life, new layers of wallpaper had been applied. “You should be ‘this way’, see women ‘that way’, how you are by default is ‘wrong’.”
> 
> These books, whether you agree with them or not, strikes a cord with that core man inside hiding behind all these ‘safety layers’. So you begin to peel back those false layers you’d use to insulate and protect yourself from being seen “that way”. The books don’t create these false wanna be monsters; At my core I am a good man. Core changes aren’t so easily manipulated or changed. What it did was strip away the layers and thoughts that I should mold myself into what I believe ‘they’ wanted me to be so I could just be me and deal with the fact that not everyone is going to like that man.


Racer,

I've enjoyed your and FW's banter in your thread. In fact, in many ways, I thought she was your muse.

To see her in this thread is a real disconnect for me.

I see where you're coming from.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> Be yourself, be kind to other people, be responsible. Try to improve yourself.


Many men don't know how to be themselves. They've grown up to believe that they need to be nice to women for women to like them. Who they are today is a deeply integrated mesh of who they are and who they are told to be for women. So they can't even properly "be themselves"... because they don't know who that is. There has ALWAYS been a layer in their being dedicated to acting in a way that they think women accept. Many of the softer, sensitive, unoffending qualities in these men are products of trying to be pleasing to women... so much so that they often can't separate these things out from their actual self. It often causes them difficulty in having friendships with other men as well. They often report having mostly female friends. Why? Because they've basically been taught to behave as a female. Go figure its not very attractive.

I know this describes some men on this forum, and it perfectly describes me in High school. I was the nicest guy there could be. The girls LOVED to talk to me but none of them wanted to date me.

Back then when I decided to work on myself, my mantra of sorts was to not care. I don't care. Women hear it and think "uh... no, of course I want a guy who cares". But that's not the proper interpretation. I said I don't care to myself, its what *I* needed to hear... in order to break the pattern of caring so much about what they thought of me - or whether they liked me and to stop trying to be what they said they wanted and instead pay attention to what gets me results. Not caring got the results I was looking for. I didn't want to be the sexless best friend anymore. All the explanations of why this way of being works, evo-psych, whatever... are only thought food; they don't really matter. I only know that it works. The moment you stop caring so much about what they think, stop censoring yourself because they might not like what you say etc etc.... that's the moment you start to become more attractive. That's the moment you start being yourself.

The "naturals" don't possess some special skill or attribute. In actuality, their life experience simply didn't include many of the reasons why a boy would seek approval from girls.


----------



## Sandfly

DvlsAdvc8's last post sums it up nicely. It's about de-programming the lies, not re-programming with new ones.

Not about going from nice to nasty - though that is a possible side-effect for some men who were only pretending to be nice in the first place, but rather moving away from approval-seeking.

I tried approval seeking behaviour for about a year when I started a new job... for some reason people kept nutting out on me and criticising... what a weird experience... then I started being rude, sarcastic, or friendly when _appropriate_ and suddenly I was super-popular... because I had stopped caring. This is very confusing, but that's how it works.

So learnt that lesson. I only had this trouble for a year out of my life, not bad when you consider some men have had this problem since childhood.


----------



## Blonde

I don't think that "people pleasing" is gender specific. IME, if anything, *females/wives* do it more. I spent many years turning myself into a pretzel trying to please my H.

Now I don't. I am free to be myself.

And I am free to stand up for myself and the kids (confront bad behavior assertively and immediately).

You men who have decided "edge" is good. Do you want your wife/SO to have "edge"? Do you want your teenage daughter to have "edge"?


----------



## jld

DA8, I really appreciate your latest posts. Actually, I have appreciated many of your posts in the few months I have been here. I am glad to be able to talk to you more.

I have to run some errands and do some stuff with my kids right now, and hope to reply in more depth later, but I would just like to say that I think many of the things you have said are appealing about women as well as men. Women who just say what they think, but are open to changing their minds if they are proved wrong, get respect from other women as well as men. Open minds are always appreciated.

The people I like best on these forums, and trust the most, are the people who are just open and honest and speak from the heart. We don't have to agree. But I learn from their sincerity. 

And we have to accept ourselves to be openminded. This acceptance is the basis of true self-confidence.

Sandfly, if you are reading, I would like to see you talk more about single mother culture, because my daughter brought it up this weekend. She said the young men in her college are not like her dad and brothers. She said she definitely sees the feminization of young men. She told me that her dad and I live in a bubble. 

I would like to break out of the bubble and understand this better. She won't go out with any of the young men who are asking her. They just do not appeal to her at all. She is actually the leader in many of her lab groups. She wants to be with someone smarter than herself, someone she can rely on.

Okay, this ended up being kind of long. DA8, again, nice to talk with you. Glad you are just being yourself and not worrying about what people think. I worry what people think. It is not healthy.

ETA: Dd specifically mentioned *affluent* single mother culture.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> I don't think that "people pleasing" is gender specific. IME, if anything, *females/wives* do it more. I spent many years turning myself into a pretzel trying to please my H.
> 
> Now I don't. I am free to be myself.
> 
> And I am free to stand up for myself and the kids (confront bad behavior assertively and immediately).
> 
> You men who have decided "edge" is good. Do you want your wife/SO to have "edge"? Do you want your teenage daughter to have "edge"?


Oh,

My wife DEFINITELY has edge!

She does her stuff without even seeking my approval.

She always puts up a good fight before she either concedes or call for a timeout.


Lol, that's what attracted me to her in the first place.
I've always been attracted to women who could do more than just talk.
I love fighters.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde, I don't know that its gender specific, but I do think its expressed by each gender a bit differently. Excessive pleasing is probably just a symptom of low self-esteem; at some base level believing the other person is above you in some way and you should defer.

I absolutely want a woman who has (and want my daughter to have) a strong sense of independent identity, independent tastes, and willingness to call out with total honesty and fight when she has to. No one enjoys fights, but if you never fight, I think you lack either backbone or passion - bad signs. People will disagree and I think there's a healthy way to fight that gets it out without being hurtful.

I think that women tend to be a little selfless in nature though. They more commonly convey the pleasure they get from doing something for someone - taking care of someone or something (husband, children, pets).

But there's a line somewhere between this fulfilling behavior and being someone's doormat with no sense of self. Its okay to take care of people, but I think its important to not sell yourself out in the process.


----------



## Racer

Conrad said:


> Racer,
> 
> I've enjoyed your and FW's banter in your thread. In fact, in many ways, I thought she was your muse.
> 
> To see her in this thread is a real disconnect for me.
> 
> I see where you're coming from.


It’s not at all a disconnect I see with FW. Muse... We make each other ‘think’. I have not read MMSL (just heard stuff), but have read pua books.

Some of these books really are demeaning perceptions of women using a language that supports it. It isn’t ‘right’. That is NOT how you should think about women and obviously not at all how they’d perceive themselves. 

There is a purpose. At the extreme is Trying2Figureitout and ‘the plan’. He is stuck believing the ‘best in his wife’ and all those things we aspire to believe in. Imagine the changes and what he might do if he could be convinced she was a nasty, cum encrusted, entitled princess who’s out to get him. Would his approach change? You bet. But as long as he is stuck thinking ‘the best’ about her, he will plod forward treating her with the utmost respect and dignity trying to empathize with her feelings and thoughts...

The rest of us; We needed monsters to fight. Real or imagined doesn’t matter... the result will be change from the status quo as we wage this war. Feelings get hurt; That’s the point. In the end, I like to believe most of us do ‘get it’ that our war was really that demon inside keeping us from getting what we want out of life. Whether that’s a pua learning he can attract women and won’t be alone unless he wants to, or a sexless spouse who learns what he will accept is the bar he set for his wife... they all change, grow, and learn something new. And our ‘victims’; They also learn and self-reflect. Who really cares how that change starts; It’s how you end that matters.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> I worry what people think. It is not healthy.


Thank you jld. A little concern for what others think is probably perfectly normal. So much worry about what others think that it changes who you actually are - in fact making you fearful of being yourself - is probably unhealthy.

The funny thing is, other people naturally pick up on these characteristics of personality and will either abuse it or feel a little awkward. It turns out they'd probably like you more for being your genuine self, warts and all. Then you hold real value.

The hyperbole really is about breaking out of being so constrained by how others will perceive you. Once you can do that, its pretty easy to be yourself and actually know what that is.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Racer said:


> In the end, I like to believe most of us do ‘get it’ that our war was really that demon inside keeping us from getting what we want out of life. Whether that’s a pua learning he can attract women and won’t be alone unless he wants to, or a sexless spouse who learns what he will accept is the bar he set for his wife...


Or even if what we want out of life is to feel worthy enough to apply for those job promotions that we are qualified for but reluctant to express interest in, to choose those cool clothes that look good on us but we decide are too flashy and would bring attention, or to not feel so guilty about defeating our recreational sports competitors so we let points slip away in order to even up the match and often give away the match entirely so as to not make an enemy.

These things are all tied together with our approach to sex.


----------



## ocotillo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I totally ramble in this post. If you don't like rambles, don't read it. I'm just wasting time before I have to go to a meeting.


I enjoy reading your ramblings, DvlsAdvc8. 

I didn't have MMSLP specifically in mind when I started this thread. (Two+ years later, I'm not even sure how I wound up on Calle Zorro's page at all.) 

If I were going to criticize MMSLP from a man's perspective, it would mostly be in the implication of universal applicability. (i.e. It's not entitled, _The Nice Guy's Sex Life Primer_ or _The Doormat's Sex Life Primer_ or _The Sex Life Primer for the Man Who's Married Out Of His League,_ etc.)

I've used my late FIL more than once as a case in point. He was from Norway and if you're familiar with Norwegian culture, you know they are pretty thick skinned as a group. They actually laugh at us here in America and say our favorite pass-time is being offended. His Uncle had been one of the snipers dropped near Rjukan during the Gunnerside operation and he was an officer in SAC at the height of the Cold War himself. At six foot eight, he was one of the last men on earth anybody would have told to, "Man up." 

Yet he was stuck in a sexless marriage for decades. The consensus among his sons is that he probably approached his wife for sex in too forceful a manner at least once. I've got a mental picture of John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in _The Quiet Man_, but I really don't know the details. I do know that she didn't sleep in the same room with him for the rest of his life. Their brand of Christianity forbade divorce for any reason other than actual infidelity, so I guess she was as trapped in an unhappy marriage as he was.

It's hard not to observe that people are all different and good advice for one man would be a disaster for another. But maybe the, "Nice Guy" phenomenon in marriage is much more widespread than I realize.


----------



## Conrad

Racer said:


> It’s not at all a disconnect I see with FW. Muse... We make each other ‘think’. I have not read MMSL (just heard stuff), but have read pua books.
> 
> Some of these books really are demeaning perceptions of women using a language that supports it. It isn’t ‘right’. That is NOT how you should think about women and obviously not at all how they’d perceive themselves.
> 
> There is a purpose. At the extreme is Trying2Figureitout and ‘the plan’. He is stuck believing the ‘best in his wife’ and all those things we aspire to believe in. Imagine the changes and what he might do if he could be convinced she was a nasty, cum encrusted, entitled princess who’s out to get him. Would his approach change? You bet. But as long as he is stuck thinking ‘the best’ about her, he will plod forward treating her with the utmost respect and dignity trying to empathize with her feelings and thoughts...
> 
> The rest of us; We needed monsters to fight. Real or imagined doesn’t matter... the result will be change from the status quo as we wage this war. Feelings get hurt; That’s the point. In the end, I like to believe most of us do ‘get it’ that our war was really that demon inside keeping us from getting what we want out of life. Whether that’s a pua learning he can attract women and won’t be alone unless he wants to, or a sexless spouse who learns what he will accept is the bar he set for his wife... they all change, grow, and learn something new. And our ‘victims’; They also learn and self-reflect. Who really cares how that change starts; It’s how you end that matters.


That said, the point was made literally hundreds of posts ago. I don't know how refusing to discuss the mendacity of women in relationships serves anyone.

Or is it only "other" women that have the capability to be mendacious?


----------



## Blonde

Racer said:


> Imagine the changes and what she might do if he could be convinced she was a nasty, cum encrusted, entitled king who’s out to get him. Would his approach change? You bet. But as long as she is stuck thinking ‘the best’ about her, he will plod forward treating her with the utmost respect and dignity trying to empathize with his feelings and thoughts...


Fixed that to reflect my experience.

But do you really think this is necessary in ALL marriages? I don't think so. IMO it is essential for the BS in a M where there is a WS.

How would you fellas feel if your SO thinks of you as a nasty, cum encrusted, entitled king?

One of my recovery books is Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men - Lundy Bancroft - Google Books

The short answer to the question of the book title is "he does it because he *feels entitled* to do it".


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Oh,
> 
> She always puts up a good fight before *she* either concedes or call for a timeout.


Do *you* ever concede?

Honest question.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> _Voooosh!_
> 
> I guess that one passed a bit too fast.
> 
> 
> But may I remind you that quite a few men find your views about men here on TAM very disrespectful and they have said it to you on the forums for everyone to see.


You accuse me of not being able to hear you, but you have never once actually listened to what I've said.

Patronize me all you want. It still won't change my view that too much of man-up and TAM threads are about perpetuating awful gender stereotypes that I'm not interested in playing along with. 

If they make you happy, so be it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Conrad said:


> I don't know how refusing to discuss the mendacity of women in relationships serves anyone.
> 
> Or is it only "other" women that have the capability to be mendacious?


So Conrad...if I talked about how dishonest and unfaithful some women are, you would then feel I "get it"?

In case you haven't noticed, I don't discuss the mendacity of men in relationships either. The things I have said specifically about evo-psyche, PUA/MRA and MMSL have nothing to do with what I think of men.

I love men. I don't blame everything on men and I never have.

I am well aware that both men and women can act in truly evil ways.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> When myself or my beta male friends did get any attention from women it was ones that we had to look deeper to find beauty, beauty in their personality that we respected but which wasn't necessarily sexually stimulating.


Yeah, terrible to have to look to a person's personality, ain't it?

As a woman who has to be extremely conscious of her expiring by the minute SMV, and deserves a kick or two from Athol Kay about how I overvalued myself, I understand how much nicer it would be to just be able to snag myself a top model and go to town.

I'm sorry, Lon. Despite my sarcastic attitude, I actually do have sympathy for your situation and agree that it's important for you to be he confident self that you can be, and have the opportunity to pursue relationships that are meaningful to you.

But whenever I hear you talk about women, I hear "only 10s need apply, and the rest of you are just something I'm forced to settle for because I need to get laid." If *that's* your attitude, it's no wonder to me that you have challenges with women.


----------



## Conrad

Faithful Wife said:


> So Conrad...if I talked about how dishonest and unfaithful some women are, you would then feel I "get it"?
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, I don't discuss the mendacity of men in relationships either. The things I have said specifically about evo-psyche, PUA/MRA and MMSL have nothing to do with what I think of men.
> 
> I love men. I don't blame everything on men and I never have.
> 
> I am well aware that both men and women can act in truly evil ways.


That's not it at all.

While we're all in agreement that men bring much of what happens to them on themselves, the tone of your posts (in this thread) are nearly 100% women as victims.

It's not nearly that simple... and I think you know it.

I'm not nearly as eloquent as Deejo. He has said many times what the essence of this is all about... it's about better marriages and helping people see their role in their own demise.

Yet, the grinding continues.

And, I was surprised to see your participation in same... especially after the supportive tone in Racer's thread.

We both know this stuff is all too real for all too many people.

Taking up arms vs. a helpful resource in getting people's eyes to open strikes me as counterproductive.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Octillo,

I think Nice Guy traits are rampant but not just limited to what NMMNG describes. Remembering my old suburban neighborhood street would make me inclined to say about 60% of the men were Nice Guys - if by a bit broader definition - and its not about how manly or unmanly their activities were, but how their wives controlled virtually everything. From parenting faux pas like mother correcting the father's parenting that passed without objection, to decision making processes, to deferring attitudes and permission seeking. -"whatever she wants" -even as simple as him always asking "where do you want to go eat?" -saving him from volunteering a desire to eat somewhere she may not like. Its weird, but I've heard this complaint from married women a lot... complaining that he offloads decisions on to her because she might not like his decision, and even more, will blame her if its not that great. They're like "sometimes I want him to just be decisive and GO because HE wants to eat there instead of always making me pick something and making me worry if he'll be happy with it."

I can't count how many times a man on my street stopped by to talk while I was working on my motorcycle or something saying "his wife vetoed him buying one", and after a good long conversation say something like "I gotta get going before my wife wonders where I wandered off to and I get in trouble"... as if they were children!! A lot of it starts with deferring to the woman over child rearing responsibilities, something a lot of men aren't comfortable with to begin with. The power balance shifts and "mom" has a new huge zone of authority, and the man happily surrendered it. From there you hear a lot of "I dunno, whatever she says" or "I have no idea when the xyz is, I just go when my wife tells me to." I don't need to pay attention, or do much of anything, wifey pretty much runs the show. The men become passive participants who increasingly become Nice Guys.

I lump all of these sorts of traits in with NMMNG's definition of "Nice Guy" - an excessively deferring, pleasing, unassertive man. That said, just being a Nice Guy doesn't mean it WILL be a major problem. Its just that it CAN be a major problem.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> It's hard not to observe that people are all different and good advice for one man would be a disaster for another. But maybe the, "Nice Guy" phenomenon in marriage is much more widespread than I realize.


I think it's presumed to be more prevalent than it really is by TAM folks, but I don't have any real numbers to back that up. Just the observation that all examples to the contrary or suggestions that it could do more harm than good are drowned out by the assertions that it produces results, and assumptions that this should be universally so.

Yet, I know many men that feel no need to sit around spreading stupid stereotypes about women to build themselves up, and indeed are appalled by it, and are still plenty capable of finding and keeping girlfriends and wives, and having good sex.


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> I think it's presumed to be more prevalent than it really is by TAM folks, but I don't have any real numbers to back that up. Just the observation that all examples to the contrary or suggestions that it could do more harm than good are drowned out by the assertions that it produces results, and assumptions that this should be universally so.
> 
> Yet, I know that many men that feel no need to sit around spreading stupid stereotypes about women to build themselves up, and indeed are appalled by it, and are still plenty capable of finding and keeping girlfriends and wives, and having good sex.


Where do stereotypes begin?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Conrad said:


> That's not it at all.
> 
> While we're all in agreement that men bring much of what happens to them on themselves, the tone of your posts (in this thread) are nearly 100% women as victims.
> 
> It's not nearly that simple... and I think you know it.
> 
> I'm not nearly as eloquent as Deejo. He has said many times what the essence of this is all about... it's about better marriages and helping people see their role in their own demise.
> 
> Yet, the grinding continues.
> 
> And, I was surprised to see your participation in same... especially after the supportive tone in Racer's thread.
> 
> We both know this stuff is all too real for all too many people.
> 
> Taking up arms vs. a helpful resource in getting people's eyes to open strikes me as counterproductive.


Conrad, I do not think that the wives of men who read MMSL are victims.

I have never said that, nor have I said anything about the wives. But I will say it now: I do not feel that women are victims of men, nor that wives are victims of husbands, in any general sense. Some men and women are victims of mean or hateful people...there is no group that is more victimized than any other.

What I am "against" and what I have written about in this thread has nothing to do with those issues at all. I am not trying to champion about women being victims.

So while I do understand how you are reading me wrong, I would like to correct you at least, and have it be understood that I'm not coming from the direction you think I am.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yeah, terrible to have to look to a person's personality, ain't it?
> 
> As a woman who has to be extremely conscious of her expiring by the minute SMV, and deserves a kick or two from Athol Kay about how I overvalued myself, I understand how much nicer it would be to just be able to snag myself a top model and go to town.
> 
> I'm sorry, Lon. Despite my sarcastic attitude, I actually do have sympathy for your situation and agree that it's important for you to be he confident self that you can be, and have the opportunity to pursue relationships that are meaningful to you.
> 
> But whenever I hear you talk about women, I hear "only 10s need apply, and the rest of you are just something I'm forced to settle for because I need to get laid." If *that's* your attitude, it's no wonder to me that you have challenges with women.


The point he's making is that when you lack an independent sense of self and defer to what you think a woman wants, out of your desire to be pleasing to her, the only women that want you are the unattractive ones relative to yourself. You do not find your physical match, because your behavior is so unattractive.

That you hear this as "woe is me, I can't get a 10", is the reason communicating with you is so difficult. Its doubtful he needs a "10". Its more likely he just wants someone on his level, as determined by the fact he sees other men no better looking than himself, getting these women.

Also, personality is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't turn an absolute "no" on looks into a "yes" - even for most women. Personality will turn a "neutral/maybe" into a "yes".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yet, I know that many men that feel no need to sit around spreading stupid stereotypes about women to build themselves up, and indeed are appalled by it, and are still plenty capable of finding and keeping girlfriends and wives, and having good sex.


And a ton more who wouldn't dare say something remotely offensive about a woman, but end up watching porn more than they pursue their wives. -another passive Nice Guy behavior.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Do *you* ever concede?
> 
> *Honest question.*


Funny,
I thought all of your questions, and answers were honest. Don't understand why you see the need to qualify your question with another sentence stating that it is " honest."

I always assumed that you are being are open , honest and straightforward.
Was I wrong?:scratchhead:

But to answer your question, our relationship started off with the biggest concession of my life to any woman .
She bluntly stated that she wasn't interested in sex before marriage, it wasn't up for discussion, and she's not going to change her mind.
She made me to understand that if I wanted sex , I should just continue living my lifestyle.

I simply conceded .
Two decades later only she could get me to concede when other people can't.

She knows exactly how to get me to concede , when she wants me to much effort.

Is it manipulative?
Most definitely it is, but I don't mind.

The power of a woman.


I wish I could tell you how to do it, but even I don't know how she does it.

If that ain't a woman with edge , then you tell me what is.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



always_alone said:


> Yeah, terrible to have to look to a person's personality, ain't it?
> 
> As a woman who has to be extremely conscious of her expiring by the minute SMV, and deserves a kick or two from Athol Kay about how I overvalued myself, I understand how much nicer it would be to just be able to snag myself a top model and go to town.
> 
> I'm sorry, Lon. Despite my sarcastic attitude, I actually do have sympathy for your situation and agree that it's important for you to be he confident self that you can be, and have the opportunity to pursue relationships that are meaningful to you.
> 
> But whenever I hear you talk about women, I hear "only 10s need apply, and the rest of you are just something I'm forced to settle for because I need to get laid." If *that's* your attitude, it's no wonder to me that you have challenges with women.


I love women that have good personalities that compliment my own and whom I connect with. 

But sometimes it's nice to have sex with my eyes open and not have that small nagging voice of disappointment hinting at what I know, that the person I settled for while compatible in so many ways just doesn't hit that one little desire I've always had to be sexual with someone that visually can do it for me. It is only after my divorce and working at changing myself that I haven't had to fool myself into thinking that anymore, I have never wanted a 10. I have gotten more visual gratification from average looking women, but the point is, to not be sexless one of the requirements is to be with someone I am sexually attracted to and as a nice guy I was unable to make that happen for my aversion to approaching thus offending such an attractive women. Nor has any woman ever "applied" it has always been me that has had to pursue, which is another thing that my niceguy approach has wired into me to not sit well, pursuing an attractive woman is as comfortable and fun as getting caught passing gas in public.


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As to whether it applies to an existing marriage is probably hit or miss - probably only if her self-assured man became a submissive Nice Guy.
> I don't know... to be honest, *I'm not aware of a case where MMSL advice convincingly improved a marriage.* A couple guys I know who have read it still have the same old problems.


My marriage is such a case. MMSL didn't change my husband . . . it changed him *back. *


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> You accuse me of not being able to hear you, but you have never once actually listened to what I've said.
> 
> Patronize me all you want. It still won't change my view that too much of man-up and TAM threads are about perpetuating awful gender stereotypes that I'm not interested in playing along with.
> 
> If they make you happy, so be it.


Lol,

You've got to be joking right?

I know more about AA's relationship when she first came to TAM than anyone else on this thread.

I participated with you on the very first thread you posted here concerning your husband's porn abuse, and his neglect of you, and how it made you feel unwanted.

I had agreed with you and basically told you to stop enabling his bad treatment of you.

I was the only person on that thread who told you that if you weren't comfortable with his use of porn that you shouldn't put up with it , even though everyone else was telling you otherwise. I even said that you shouldn't pay the internet bill because you were the one who's ringing home the money.

And many other things.

Remember?


Or you weren't listening?


----------



## Conrad

GettingIt said:


> My marriage is such a case. MMSL didn't change my husband . . . it changed him *back. *


So many overlook this.

The idea that "this is how we are" is complete b.s.

Our personalities have many "parts" to them.

As humans, we are UNIQUE in nature that we - alone - are permitted to rise above our instincts and CHOOSE our response in any and all situations.

The manipulative niceguy is making a CHOICE to be manipulative, even if he doesn't consciously recognize it.

AND... he can make the CHOICE to emphasize other aspects of his personality.

It's not fake at all. In fact, it's about as real and has essentially human as it gets.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Yeah, terrible to have to look to a person's personality, ain't it?


Is there something wrong with wanting to be attracted to one's mate?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Conrad said:


> The manipulative niceguy is making a CHOICE to be manipulative, even if he doesn't consciously recognize it.
> 
> AND... *ONLY* he can make the CHOICE to emphasize other aspects of his personality.


YES!
[ Hope you don't mind me fixing it for you ]

And that's the point lots are missing.

People can, and often do change aspects of their character either for the better or for worse.
Your personality type is what you are born with. Your character is molded by years of external stimuli ,and it can be changed.

I made that point pages ago.

What I find intriguing with the arguments on this thread is that the same people who are saying that the " man up" strategy can't work because it wouldn't be the " authentic" person are also saying that MMSL changed their SO's into something worse.

So why does MMSL have the power to change a man into something horrible but NNMG can't help change a man into anything good because it won't be his " authentic self?" :scratchhead:


----------



## Conrad

Caribbean Man said:


> YES!
> [ Hope you don't mind me fixing it for you ]
> 
> And that's the point lots are missing.
> 
> People can, and often do change aspects of their character either for the better or for worse.
> Your personality type you are born with. Your character is molded by lots of external stimuli ,and it can be changed.
> 
> I made that point pages ago.
> 
> What I find intriguing with the arguments on this thread is that the same people who are saying that the " man up" strategy can't work because it wouldn't be the " authentic" person are also saying that MMSL changed their SO's into something worse.
> 
> So why does MMSL have the power to change a man into something horrible but NNMG can't help change a man into anything good because it won't be his " authentic self?" :scratchhead:


Fix away brother


----------



## ocotillo

Conrad said:


> As humans, we are UNIQUE in nature that we - alone - are permitted to rise above our instincts and CHOOSE our response in any and all situations.


--Could not agree more.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I, too, don't know what to do with the notion that working on oneself threatens authenticity. I am in search of my best and truest self when I attend therapy or consider perspectives that challenge my own or try to avoid behaviors that hurt the people I love. I am honest about my struggles; and I always feel the urge to look inward. I expect the same from my partner. He is free to choose the source of his inspiration for his journey of self improvement, but strive to improve he must. 

I thought it was called "working on your sh!t." 

And I thought it was expected in a marriage. The so-called LD partner is constantly challenged on TAM to work on her desire for sex with her husband (or his wife) for the good of the marriage. I wonder if a man whose formerly LD wife discovered her libido in erotica that treated men as objects would cry foul as long as her sexual passion was playing out in the marriage bed with him? I think _most_ of these men would not.

And so it is that my experience likely colors my opinion of MMSL. I've been more hurt by people wielding a bible than anything written by Athol Kay.


----------



## jld

Your last sentence made me laugh, GI!  

A lot of truth there . . .


----------



## Racer

Blonde said:


> Fixed that to reflect my experience.
> 
> But do you really think this is necessary in ALL marriages? I don't think so. IMO it is essential for the BS in a M where there is a WS.
> 
> How would you fellas feel if your SO thinks of you as a nasty, cum encrusted, entitled king?


Meh... I got long winded. 
Not all marriages need demonizing to a extreme degree. I sort find it’s an equal and opposite thing; the worse it is, the worse you need to accept that it is that bad as your reality. 

Even your own controlling husband thing. It helped immensely to say he was like that. I’d bet that book had you focus on you. It gave you tools so you felt ok about your choices and able to make them based on what you wanted versus what he wanted. It taught you to own your own actions to stop the enabling so his tactics no longer worked or had the same emotional response in you? Basically, you fought your own monsters that allowed you to be controlled and manipulated. Because, lets face it... he wasn’t holding a gun to your head, you choose to allow that to happen to you probably based on some higher ideal you held onto like ‘the greater good’, etc. It’s human and decent btw. But it didn’t help that much. 

But to get there, something had to push you over that edge so you challenged yourself about ‘what would a good spouse do?’ and replace it with ‘what should I do?’.... Assuming you are still with him and no longer feel manipulated and controlled (beyond reasonable stuff), it is better and more heathy right? It had to start by upsetting him enough that he wanted things to change for himself right?

Without the thought and anger behind demonizing that other person and the blame, there wouldn’t be change. If you were like me, you would excuse the behaviors over and over justifying and defending him and why you did whatever he asked in your head. A swift kick down the rabbit hole making it all inexcusable finally gave you the power to do something about it; And it probably wasn’t a unicorn/rainbow experience for either of you full of love and understanding. Usually, there’s a few bloody battles in there and kicking and screaming. But finally the recognition: You control you and everything else or thought that you can actually control anything else is shattered for the illusion it really is. 

You create the opportunities for others to know what you want and leave it to them to decide whether or not to give it freely without strings or expectations. No tantrums allowed. <== that’s practically the motto of the pua. You sure you don't have some pua in you?


----------



## jld

GI, have you seen the film The Graduate? You know that scene where the young guy takes his lover's daughter to a strip show or something like that? And then she starts to cry, and he just gives up the act and they go out for hamburgers?

I think that is a little like how I see MMSL. And to be truthful, I have not read it. I bought it because I heard so much about it, but it just doesn't appeal to me, and I am sure it would not appeal to dh, so I just kind of skimmed through it.

I would rather be with a guy who I can sit and laugh through a burger with than some dude trying to impress me with how alpha he is. What a laugh. 

That is the kind of authenticity I am envisioning, I guess.


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> GI, have you seen the film The Graduate? You know that scene where the young guy takes his lover's daughter to a strip show or something like that? And then she starts to cry, and he just gives up the act and they go out for hamburgers?
> 
> I think that is a little like how I see MMSL. And to be truthful, I have not read it. I bought it because I heard so much about it, but it just doesn't appeal to me, and I am sure it would not appeal to dh, so I just kind of skimmed through it.
> 
> I would rather be with a guy who I can sit and laugh through a burger with than some dude trying to impress me with how alpha he is. What a laugh.
> 
> That is the kind of authenticity I am envisioning, I guess.


Yes, I know the scene you reference. Good movie. 

I'm glad you and your dh have a handle on what works for you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GettingIt you said..."I don't know what to do with the notion that working on oneself threatens authenticity."

I hope you don't think that I think anything like this, but if you do, I'd just like to correct that notion. I don't.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Funny,
> I thought all of your questions, and answers were honest. Don't understand why you see the need to qualify your question with another sentence stating that it is " honest."


Yes, thank you, my questions are honest, but I was worried that one might be interpreted as only snarky, and so I qualified it.

I'm glad you didn't take it that way.

Part of a good partnership is, IMHO, allowing room for concessions. But I don't see that as manipulative or edgy at all. Just acknowledging when he other has some valuable input.


----------



## Blonde

GettingIt said:


> And so it is that my experience likely colors my opinion of MMSL. I've been more hurt by people wielding a bible than anything written by Athol Kay.


Ditto, and it was my H who used the Bible that way. And I would NOT want him to read Kay. I think Kay would be just as dangerous in his hands as the Bible has been.

But I don't reject the Bible because of how H used it.

Ever hear the parable about blind people describing an elephant?


----------



## GettingIt_2

Faithful Wife said:


> GettingIt you said..."I don't know what to do with the notion that working on oneself threatens authenticity."
> 
> I hope you don't think that I think anything like this, but if you do, I'd just like to correct that notion. I don't.


I have no idea how or with whom it originated on this thread; but I've seen the notion on other threads, too, and wanted to add my two cents, that's all. I generally am not very good at remembering who says what in the more "abstract" discussions such as this one, and I tend to focus more on the ideas than the identity of the posters.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Blonde said:


> Ditto, and it was my H who used the Bible that way. And I would NOT want him to read Kay. I think Kay would be just as dangerous in his hands as the Bible has been.
> 
> But I don't reject the Bible because of how H used it.
> 
> Ever hear the parable about blind people describing an elephant?


I'm glad you found what works for you and your marriage. 

I don't pay much attention to what my h reads; but I do notice how he treats me. If he reads something and then treats me like a jerk, it's because he's a jerk. He's a big boy and I expect him to act like one. But that's just what works for me and my marriage.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> Yes, I know the scene you reference. Good movie.
> 
> I'm glad you and your dh have a handle on what works for you.


As you know, we are truly a work in progress.


----------



## Blonde

Racer said:


> Assuming you are still with him and no longer feel manipulated and controlled (beyond reasonable stuff), it is better and more heathy right? It had to start by upsetting him enough that he wanted things to change for himself right?
> 
> Without the thought and anger behind demonizing that other person and the blame, there wouldn’t be change. If you were like me, you would excuse the behaviors over and over justifying and defending him and why you did whatever he asked in your head. A swift kick down the rabbit hole making it all inexcusable finally gave you the power to do something about it; And it probably wasn’t a unicorn/rainbow experience for either of you full of love and understanding. Usually, there’s a few bloody battles in there and kicking and screaming. But finally the recognition: You control you and everything else or thought that you can actually control anything else is shattered for the illusion it really is.
> 
> You create the opportunities for others to know what you want and leave it to them to decide whether or not to give it freely without strings or expectations. No tantrums allowed. <== that’s practically the motto of the pua. You sure you don't have some pua in you?


No PUA in me  I'm a one woman man *all the way*. The description above that is spot on though!!!

If anything happens to H or to our M, I won't M again though. I will date and be serially monogamous. IME men are polite and attentive on dates but not so much once they bag the prey.  And I will not shack up because I don't like the one way "bend and fetch and serve" expectations toward women which have been my experience.


----------



## Sandfly

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Thank you jld. A little concern for what others think is probably perfectly normal. So much worry about what others think that it changes who you actually are - in fact making you fearful of being yourself - is probably unhealthy.
> 
> The funny thing is, other people naturally pick up on these characteristics of personality and will either abuse it or feel a little awkward. It turns out they'd probably like you more for being your genuine self, warts and all. Then you hold real value.
> 
> The hyperbole really is about breaking out of being so constrained by how others will perceive you. Once you can do that, its pretty easy to be yourself and actually know what that is.


Wow, you did it again. 

You saying wise stuff concisely is getting to be a habit, DvlsAdvc8. 

I'm gonna start trawling through your previous posts when I get some more time.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I was the only person on that thread who told you that if you weren't comfortable with his use of porn that you shouldn't put up with it , even though everyone else was telling you otherwise. I even said that you shouldn't pay the internet bill because you were the one who's ringing home the money.
> 
> And many other things.
> 
> Remember?
> 
> Or you weren't listening?


I remember, and I was listening. So my apologies for the blanket statement. But several times in this thread you have made comments about things going over my head.

They are not. I just happen to disagree with you.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> Is there something wrong with wanting to be attracted to one's mate?


Of course not. Is there something wrong with paying attention to the personality of the person you date/marry?

I submit that if more people did, there would be fewer marital problems.


----------



## WyshIknew

Blonde said:


> If my H read this thread (or MMSL) I'm afraid he might take something like the above and use it to justify his mouth.
> 
> I understand in the context you describe, Wysh.
> 
> OTH, some people are just brutal with their character assassinating mouths. And Lon thinks these are the ones who "get laid" (<--hate that terminology BTW!) If that's the takeaway,
> 
> My oldest daughter did not date for a very very long time... I really think it is BECAUSE of her dad, not wanting to fall for someone like that. Before she dated her now H she watched him for a long time at church, serving quietly behind the scenes with things like a used furniture ministry for needy people.
> 
> When she went home with him and met his parents for the first time at TG, she called me up all excited because of how his dad treated his mom. His dad, though is the primary wage-earner, actually *helped* his mom in the kitchen!!! In my H's family all the men watch football while all the women serve, and H (at that time) would not touch women's work (contemptuous spit!) with a 10 foot pole.
> 
> My daughters are beautiful and intelligent. And they don't want alpha a$$H
> 
> Here and there, I've heard men whining @ feminism and the fact that females file 2/3 of divorces. I agree with this analysis of the reason: Men's Issues - What has Happened to Men?


Yes, don't want to make it sound like I was insensitive. I'd been sensitive until enough is enough.

Re. the man up and nice guy thing, I'm sure if a lot of the guys here could see me IRL they would be giving me all sorts of advice about how I should man up etc.

I do nearly all the cooking at home, I look after my grandchildren, I help where I can with laundry and cleaning and I let my emotions show sometimes.


I don't get laid like tile, I get laid like shag carpet. Soft, deep, luxurious and everywhere in the house.

I wonder if I am just a lucky outlier or if it is simply that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Yes, I was a disaster area with women as a young man, maybe I did need to 'man up' etc. I don't know.

But I do know that now, should I lose Mrs Wysh for whatever reason, I would be upset for a while but I know I am a 'high worth' individual (not talking about money) and should I wysh it a replacement would be found easily.

I don't mean that to sound as cold as it looks, hopefully you know what I mean.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Part of a good partnership is, IMHO, allowing room for concessions. But I don't see that as manipulative or edgy at all. Just acknowledging when he other has some valuable input.


I've said before here on another thread, and I'll say it again.

I ALWAYS view my wife's input as valuable, even though to others it might sound crazy.

Even though I'm tempted to think her stance on a particular matter might appear to be unreasonable, her input is still more valuable than any other person's.

In other words,
She comes first.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde said:


> * IME men are polite and attentive on dates but not so much once they bag the prey. *


Somehow as bad as it might sound,
I agree with this statement.

That's why I always say that marriage is work.
For some it is a labor of love.
Not so much for others.
You must constantly work on your marriage and yourself.

Whether to choose to or not to, you reap the rewards.


----------



## jld

I just want to say that I do not support censorship. If someone wants to read MMSL, that is their right. It has obviously helped some people. They are happier now than before.

That said, it is amazing to me how we can come from such different marriages.

GI wanted her guy to be more attractive to her, and had him read MMSL. It helped, and they are back in business.

I want my guy to be more in touch with his emotions. I want that wall to crack, and I want to see his beating heart. I like Superior Man.

Blonde seems to be in perpetual self-defense from her husband. And no wonder. I could not have stayed, Blonde. Your husband scares me, and I don't even know him.

We all come from different places. We all have different needs. So clearly, we are going to have different ideas about which books are good.


----------



## Fozzy

I feel like pulling over and taking a picture of the odometer on this thread.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And a ton more who wouldn't dare say something remotely offensive about a woman, but end up watching porn more than they pursue their wives. -another passive Nice Guy behavior.


It couldn't possibly because a man likes and respects women that he doesn't want to disparage them? It has to be because he doesn't *dare* offend? And then rushes to porn to fulfill his secret need to demean women? Really?

I have heard stories like the one you describe above, where a man has sold his bike or his comics, or stopped playing video games, or jumping out of airplanes, because the wife doesn't like it. And I do absolutley agree that such men would probably be a lot happier if they were to look after themselves, do what they want, and tell her to stuff it. 

I get that people need to look out for themselves, and be the best they can. And that this may not always be pleasing to the partner.

I still don't see why this must entail demeaning women. You say it's just a 2x4 to tell head, and it doesn''t *really* mean disrespect. And yet it always comes out that way, and over and over, the message is that women are stupid, irrational, emotional, cheating wannabees that need to be put in their place.

You *do* realize, don't you, that this very same characterization of women was created in order to keep women in their place? It certainly didn't originate by helping a few nice guys swing their pendulum, and was all about women as chattel, incapable, not even persons. And this was not alpha sexuality, but economic and political subjugation.

But you still want to defend it all as some kind of biological, sexual necessity?


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> GI wanted her guy to be more attractive to her, and had him read MMSL.


Nah, he discovered that "gem" from poking around here on TAM, seeing what I'd been up to. He's not a fan of this place, but loves what it did for me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Blonde seems to be in perpetual self-defense from her husband. And no wonder. I could not have stayed, Blonde. Your husband scares me, and I don't even know him.


But it made her a strong-_er_ woman.

We all have our battles we must fight and we choose them based on long term goals.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> We all come from different places. We all have different needs. So clearly, we are going to have different ideas about which books are good.


I want to be clear that this thread was never intended to bash the advice itself. (Just in case anybody is misunderstanding.) I think a lot of it probably falls under the category of, "What every man should know," especially when it comes to things like fitness, hygiene and dressing well. 

I started this thread because the theology and psychology presented in some of it is not terribly complimentary when taken to its conclusion.


----------



## Blonde

Thanks CM, well said and true.

I want to reply to jld in a way that makes sense but it's a *long long story*...

H and I are a "matched set" in having some serious childhood baggage. I deeply engaged recovery in my early 40's and he has come along for the ride digging in heels, kicking, and screaming so to speak...

The children- we have EIGHT- are better off with both of us under one roof. 

I'm not afraid of H anymore now that I have embraced agency and have stopped being a "volunteer" doormat.

Hopefully that makes sense


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> Thanks CM, well said and true.
> 
> I want to reply to jld in a way that makes sense but it's a *long long story*...
> 
> H and I are a "matched set" in having some serious childhood baggage. I deeply engaged recovery in my early 40's and he has come along for the ride digging in heels, kicking, and screaming so to speak...
> 
> The children- we have EIGHT- are better off with both of us under one roof.
> 
> I'm not afraid of H anymore now that I have embraced agency and have stopped being a "volunteer" doormat.
> 
> Hopefully that makes sense


I am glad you are not afraid of him anymore. I am from a family similar to yours, and my oldest sister's husband reminds me of your husband, and my sister reminds me of you. I was always scared of her husband. When I was little, his was the face of the devil to me.

I understand why you stay with him. I think you are stronger than I am.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> I started this thread because *the theology and psychology *presented in some of it is not terribly complimentary when taken to its conclusion.


Sow bad theology --> reap rotten fruit

*If* my religion had not removed my agency by telling me to shut up and be a submissive wife (doormat). And if my religion had not promoted H's entitlement mentality by telling him that he is the head of the household and gets to make all the decisions and is entitled to respect and submission from everyone else (but a man should NOT submit to a woman ever, nor should a man listen to his wife- look what happened to Adam). And if my religion had not insisted that it is a sin to divorce (so I was trapped)..

...I might not have been so stuck for so long (22y of my M was lived under that cloud)

Makes me wonder why young men who flock to Kay over their sex life are not busting down the door into churches like Mark Driscoll's? Blow Job Evangelism | Blinders Off


----------



## Conrad

ocotillo said:


> I want to be clear that this thread was never intended to bash the advice itself. (Just in case anybody is misunderstanding.) I think a lot of it probably falls under the category of, "What every man should know," especially when it comes to things like fitness, hygiene and dressing well.
> 
> I started this thread because the theology and psychology presented in some of it is not terribly complimentary when taken to its conclusion.


What is your opinion of the human condition?


----------



## Conrad

Caribbean Man said:


> But it made her a strong-_er_ woman.
> 
> We all have our battles we must fight and we choose them based on long term goals.


And if you're going into battle, sugar coating things doesn't help you.

You need to know how to get what you're seeking, or you're better off skipping the battle.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> Ditto, and it was my H who used the Bible that way. And I would NOT want him to read Kay. I think Kay would be just as dangerous in his hands as the Bible has been.
> 
> But I don't reject the Bible because of how H used it.
> 
> Ever hear the parable about blind people describing an elephant?


Here's the thing... if you are NOT abusive to him, the likelihood of him seeking out Kay or others is minimal.

If you read the "Fitness Test" thread in the Men's Clubhouse, you'll see how I got here. And, reading this forum is much cheaper than 500 gallons of Corona and several gross of Zantac.


----------



## ocotillo

Conrad said:


> What is your opinion of the human condition?


I accept that there are things all humans have in common, but there are competing theories on what exactly they are. 

To do your question justice, I'd probably need to know what you have in mind specifically.


----------



## Conrad

ocotillo said:


> I accept that there are things all humans have in common, but there are competing theories on what exactly they are.
> 
> To do your question justice, I'd probably need to know what you have in mind specifically.


Since human beings are wired - from primitive times - for survival, I'm not sure an accurate description of base human nature would be very complimentary.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Sandfly said:


> You saying wise stuff concisely is getting to be a habit, DvlsAdvc8.


I'm pretty sure its immoral to call me concise. lol 

Thank you.


----------



## Blonde

Ocotillo appears to me to play pretty close to the vest when it comes to answering questions...

Asked earlier and still wonder if you are egalitarian, ocotillo? IIRC you are Jewish with a Christian wife. Do you understand "original sin" to have a bearing on the human condition?

IMO Genesis 1:26-28 is God's original plan for marriage and there is no record anywhere that He changed his mind 

My perception is that society is moving (ever so slowly)in that direction which gives me hope. :smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> I want my guy to be more in touch with his emotions. I want that wall to crack, and I want to see his beating heart. I like Superior Man.


I read an article just the other day about the emotional conditioning and repression in men and how it relates to sexual obsession. It makes some sense, but I came away feeling the case was a little overblown. Maybe you'll enjoy the read... its lengthy.

Why Men Are So Obsessed With Sex - The Good Men Project


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I still don't see why this must entail demeaning women. You say it's just a 2x4 to tell head, and it doesn''t *really* mean disrespect. And yet it always comes out that way, and over and over, the message is that women are stupid, irrational, emotional, cheating wannabees that need to be put in their place.
> 
> You *do* realize, don't you, that this very same characterization of women was created in order to keep women in their place? It certainly didn't originate by helping a few nice guys swing their pendulum, and was all about women as chattel, incapable, not even persons. And this was not alpha sexuality, but economic and political subjugation.
> 
> But you still want to defend it all as some kind of biological, sexual necessity?


I didn't defend it by some biological, sexual necessity; and I don't defend it as keeping women in their place or enforcing social mores. I realize the origin and wider use of the word. 

In the context I and AK are using it however, and really its ultimate purpose in the PUA community - probably not even understood except by the most intellectual of them - it really has nothing to do with women, but with the mental state of the man. It IS about bringing the man's concept of woman down, because it NEEDS to be brought down. He holds her up too high, is approval seeking and cautious of saying the "wrong thing" to her. He dances around carefully, because deep down in his being, he thinks she's better than him. He's given up all of his masculine energy. The act of bringing her down isn't about making her lower than him, but of changing his concept of women, or specifically his wife, so that he doesn't hold them above himself. The language is purposefully outrageous. She's not a princess. She doesn't just want sex - such a casual blasé statement. No, the point is made in a forceful fashion that brings her down to his level, where she should have been in the first place: she's a sl*t driven to satisfy base human desires just like HIM.

The action is all in the guy's head for the most part - an effort to erase the notion of the porcelain doll and the need for her approval. So yes, its intentionally dismissive... but it has value in its use to break the cycle of woman worship. Men reading MMSL NEED to have their concept of women, or their wife, torn down. They aren't angels, their sh*t still stinks, these men don't need their approval or have to cater to their every whim. It is about reconditioning these men such that they stop censoring themselves and deferring - stop being what you think she wants, and start being yourself regardless of whether it upsets her. Some of that contentiousness is even downright necessary for anyone to hold their value, and the interest of their partner.

Nobody is attracted to suck-up doormats.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I read an article just the other day about the emotional conditioning and repression in men and how it relates to sexual obsession. It makes some sense, but I came away feeling the case was a little overblown. Maybe you'll enjoy the read... its lengthy.
> 
> Why Men Are So Obsessed With Sex - The Good Men Project


I can shorten this one.

Women can have sex 365 days/year. All they have to do is put on makeup and weigh a bit less than 365 pounds (I call it the 365 rule)

Head down to a local watering hole and park it on a bar stool.

The opportunies... yes plural... will present themselves.

For a guy to have sex, someone has to say "yes"


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Conrad said:


> I can shorten this one.
> 
> Women can have sex 365 days/year. All they have to do is put on makeup and weigh a bit less than 365 pounds (I call it the 365 rule)
> 
> Head down to a local watering hole and park it on a bar stool.
> 
> The opportunies... yes plural... will present themselves.
> 
> For a guy to have sex, someone has to say "yes"


I'm a little torn. I do think men are "easier" than women in general. But I'm not convinced why this is so. Are men easier because of biology (AA and FW would probably object... oh noes! Evo-psych!), or are men easier because of sex scarcity (can sex be said to be scarce for women, if it is women's higher than men's sexual standards that makes it scarce?), or are men sex obsessed and willing to lower standards because of a lifetime of conditioning that has denied emotional expression - such that sex is the only time its acceptable for a man to feel and be sensitive, thus making men desperate for sex -for some connection at all.

I'm inclined to believe its a bit of all three.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm a little torn. I do think men are "easier" than women in general. But I'm not convinced why this is so. Are men easier because of biology (AA and FW would probably object... oh noes! Evo-psych!), or are men easier because of sex scarcity (can sex be said to be scarce for women, if it is women's higher than men's sexual standards that makes it scarce?), or are men sex obsessed and willing to lower standards because of a lifetime of conditioning that has denied emotional expression - such that sex is the only time its acceptable for a man to feel and be sensitive, thus making men desperate for sex -for some connection at all.
> 
> I'm inclined to believe its a bit of all three.


Notice the location I recommended they frequent.

The beer goggles kick in later in the evening.

And, yes, standards can - and do - get pretty damned low.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> ...No, the point is made in a forceful fashion that brings her down to his level, where she should have been in the first place: she's a sl*t driven to satisfy base human desires just like HIM.


I agree with almost everything you've written on this thread Dvl, and this point I quoted of yours is the one I have been trying to make... The part I have tried to mansplain is that HOW can it be demeaning to women if the message is that girls are just as nasty as boys? If it is demeaning to everyone alike then how can I nod my head in agreement with Dvl or Athol Kay unless what he writes is actually valid? It's not just about knocking women off the pedestal, it's knocking everyone off and trying to explain that we are all sexual humans.


----------



## Conrad

Lon said:


> I agree with almost everything you've written on this thread Dvl, and this point I quoted of yours is the one I have been trying to make... The part I have tried to mansplain is that HOW can it be demeaning to women if the message is that girls are just as nasty as boys? If it is demeaning to everyone alike then how can I nod my head in agreement with Dvl or Athol Kay unless what he writes is actually valid? It's not just about knocking women off the pedestal, it's knocking everyone off and trying to explain that we are all sexual humans.


We're simply owning our pos tendencies.... which is actually the key to inner peace and emotional stability.

If we run from them our whole lives, think we can conceal them from others, etc., we're not "authentic"

And, this insistence that it's ok to pound on male base nature while "being nice to the girls" is complete crap.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Conrad said:


> And, this insistence that it's ok to pound on male base nature while "being nice to the girls" is complete crap.


AA/FW etc have valid points on the language from their perspective, and I'm not really making a point about what men's nature is. I'm just saying that if you want a soft man to harden up, you don't use soft language.


----------



## FrenchFry

Lon said:


> I agree with almost everything you've written on this thread Dvl, and this point I quoted of yours is the one I have been trying to make... The part I have tried to mansplain is that HOW can it be demeaning to women if the message is that girls are just as nasty as boys? If it is demeaning to everyone alike then how can I nod my head in agreement with Dvl or Athol Kay unless what he writes is actually valid? It's not just about knocking women off the pedestal, it's knocking everyone off and trying to explain that we are all sexual humans.


Because words mean different things to everyone.

For you **** means knocking everyone down to the same pedestal.

For me, the word **** contains very different connotations, especially as a black woman. It's a negative word used to bring us down to something lower than men, lower than white women. It lowers us to animals, to being only desireable because of the hole between our legs. This is how black women have been seen for ages and using that word to describe me is pretty repugnant. 

I get your explanation, but my life experience does not see that word that way.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> Here's the thing... if you are NOT abusive to him, the likelihood of him seeking out Kay or others is minimal.


It is hard for me to understand how a woman who is reacting appropriate according to the actions of her man she can be said to be abusive.


----------



## Lon

I see we are still not over the language barrier in this thread. I was hoping we would be past the language barrier so that we could actually discuss the meanings and reasons, but if you are offended by the language I think it is impossible to understand the nuances that make them worth discussing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> I get your explanation, but my life experience does not see that word that way.


All I've sought is that understanding. I understand what the word brings to the table for most women. However, it is the Married *MAN's* Sex Life Primer - so when we characterize the use of the word, I'm saying you have to look at it from the perspective of the man it was written for.


----------



## FrenchFry

*shrug*

Well, I'm telling you why I don't own the word and why any partner I'm with who chooses to view me that way I would have an issue with it.

So be it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> For me, the word **** contains very different connotations, especially as a black woman.


Sort of tangent, but how/why does race amplify it?


----------



## Lon

FrenchFry said:


> ...It lowers us to animals, to being only desireable because of the hole between our legs.


the general presumption is that men are dogs already, animals, only desireable for their servitude and persistence. So I'm not sure how I can see the word slvt being able to lower you below men, merely lower you from the ideal superior state of purity that women have been held to.

As for the racial insunuation, I unfortunately don't know many black women, but of all the Caucasion, Latino, Aboriginal, and Eastern subcultures I am more familiar with, the word slvt definitely has that exact same connotation of lowering women from the superior state of sexual purity that they have been held to.


----------



## FrenchFry

> The second stereotype of African American women is that of Jezebel. Jezebel "is the promiscuous female with an insatiable sexual appetite." In Biblical history, Jezebel was the wife of King Ahab of Israel. Jezebel's actions came to exemplify lust. Subsequently, the name Jezebel has become synonymous with women who engage in lewd sexual acts and who take advantage of men through sex. Jezebel is depicted as erotically appealing and openly seductive. Her easy ways excused slave owners' abuse of their slaves and gave an explanation for Jezebel's mulatto offspring. This inability to be perceived as chaste brought about the stereotype of dishonesty. In other words, African American women were not, and often are not, portrayed as being truthful and, therefore, they could not be trusted. Throughout history, our court system has also exploited the myth of Jezebel. The courts have used this image to make racism and sexism appear natural. The sexual myth of Jezebel functions as a tool for controlling African American women. Consequently, sexual promiscuity is imputed to them even absent specific evidence of their individual sexual histories. This imputation ensures that their credibility is doubted when any issue of sexual exploitation is involve


Mammy Jezebel and Sistahs


----------



## FrenchFry

Lon, black women have already been seen lower than. The word only reinforces it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> It is hard for me to understand how a woman who is reacting appropriate according to the actions of her man she can be said to be abusive.


There's usually more to it than this. She can't explain why she's reacting this way. Pressed on it, she's more likely to think something up that could be plausible than realize that she's not attracted to him anymore because he's sold himself out. Hence you get, "well, you could do more around the house". What follows is a series of hoops to jump through that only exacerbate the sellout and make even less attracted. He then feels that he's met her demands, only for her to change the demands. Everything is framed in this passive, "she's in total control" sense - and she doesn't want to be in that position - hence the loss of attraction. Now he's a needy hoop jumping shell of a man who'll do anything she wants for sex. Holy unattractive batman!

I don't know if its abuse or not - I guess if you only think abuse is that harm which is done with intent it would not be abuse since she doesn't have intent to harm, but its certainly a downward spiral.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Quick remind again that the original intent of the thread was to ask WHAT DO THE WOMEN THINK.


----------



## Blonde

Very interesting FF.

In my WASPy circles, "Jezebel" is a put down of women with leadership ability. Ahab her H is considered a weak wuz.

So strong women are put in their place with the "Jezebel" slur.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



FrenchFry said:


> Lon, black women have already been seen lower than. The word only reinforces it.


I will take your word for it... Where I live there are many recent immigrants from Muslim African countries, but not really African Americans... 90% of racial sexism is directed to the First Nations women out here.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Quick remind again that the original intent of the thread was to ask WHAT DO THE WOMEN THINK.


Obviously one cannot generalize too very much on that point.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There's usually more to it than this. She can't explain why she's reacting this way. Pressed on it, she's more likely to think something up that could be plausible than realize that she's not attracted to him anymore because he's sold himself out. Hence you get, "well, you could do more around the house". What follows is a series of hoops to jump through that only exacerbate the sellout and make even less attracted. He then feels that he's met her demands, only for her to change the demands. Everything is framed in this passive, "she's in total control" sense - and she doesn't want to be in that position - hence the loss of attraction. Now he's a needy hoop jumping shell of a man who'll do anything she wants for sex. Holy unattractive batman!


Yah. But no more intentional on her part than on his. And raising it to the level of abuse is detrimental to real victims of honest to goodness abuse. 

And further it sounds exactly like the offensive, ***** entitled speak to which several on this board object.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Interesting perspective FF, I have never had any racial association with promiscuity, nor did I associate "Jezebel" with African American females. To my mind, Jezebel is a gold digger/advantage seeker with a more southern US, country, even ******* association. lol

ie - someone who has sex with the sheriff to get out of her speeding tickets.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Quick remind again that the original intent of the thread was to ask WHAT DO THE WOMEN THINK.


Good point. Sl*t = bad. Got it.

Is it just me or is asking women what they think about literature intended to get men to cease approval seeking kinda ironic? 

They don't approve of it. I guess we have to put it away now. lol


----------



## ConanHub

Blonde said:


> Thanks CM, well said and true.
> 
> I want to reply to jld in a way that makes sense but it's a *long long story*...
> 
> H and I are a "matched set" in having some serious childhood baggage. I deeply engaged recovery in my early 40's and he has come along for the ride digging in heels, kicking, and screaming so to speak...
> 
> The children- we have EIGHT- are better off with both of us under one roof.
> 
> I'm not afraid of H anymore now that I have embraced agency and have stopped being a "volunteer" doormat.
> 
> Hopefully that makes sense


Blond... You are a pretty damn amazing woman. I don't think you might have started off that way but you have worked hard at becoming this great gal!

Just admire your strength. It would be nice if your H grew in strength as well.


----------



## Lon

FF, I respect your opinion on this greatly but I think you are certainly bringing in cultural variables that overly complicate the heart of the matter...

And also, off topic, but weren't you trying to convince some of us that twerking isn't supposed to be a derogatory form of dance?


----------



## FrenchFry

That actually is interesting Blonde.

But, for example, while dating I was always on the lookout for guys who were looking for "the experience," ie--sleeping with a black woman because of a) how easy it is b) how wild it will be c) how easy it will be to take advantage of me.

There is no shortage of people willing to do this blatantly, and then when I didn't fit into the Jezebel box, how easy it is to be put into another one.

Now, I think women can claim the word however they like and can clearly articulate why the word describes and empowers them. For me, it will never be put into that category because it reinforces status to me.


----------



## FrenchFry

Lon said:


> FF, I respect your opinion on this greatly but I think you are certainly bringing in cultural variables that overly complicate the heart of the matter...
> 
> And also, off topic, but weren't you trying to convince some of us that twerking isn't supposed to be a derogatory form of dance?


Ugh.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> Ocotillo appears to me to play pretty close to the vest when it comes to answering questions...


Sorry. I'm not deliberately trying to be uncommunicative or contrary. People of Jewish and Christian backgrounds can misunderstand (And inadvertently offend) each other at so many levels that it boggles the mind. There's actually entire books on the subject. Marrying into a Christian family (My wife's flavor of Christianity actually falls into the fundamentalist spectrum) has taught me to be careful 




Blonde said:


> Asked earlier and still wonder if you are egalitarian, ocotillo?


I agree with the precepts of egalitarianism.




Blonde said:


> IIRC you are Jewish with a Christian wife. Do you understand "original sin" to have a bearing on the human condition?


No I don't. I'm not a true adherent, but even if I were, Judaism has not recognized the concept of "Original sin" since Talmudic times and even then, it was only a minority view. The story of Adam and Eve started to be regarded as allegory around the time of Rambam (I think) and that view is pretty common in Judaism today. 

Even purely as allegory, I would add that Judaism held horrible, horrible views of women long ago (Probably as bad or worse than the Taliban today) and one of the positive developments of the 1st century is that liberal Phariseeism is the only Judaic sect that survived the fall of Jerusalem. Normative Judaism today is founded upon their softer approach. 




Blonde said:


> My perception is that society is moving (ever so slowly)in that direction which gives me hope. :smthumbup:


I like to believe that the human race is slowly maturing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ocotillo...THANK YOU for actually asking what the women think.

I know you really did want to know.

Sadly, some men don't care what we think.

I'm pretty sure you never needed any of the books mentioned, correct?


----------



## Blonde

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Good point. Sl*t = bad. Got it.
> 
> Is it just me or is asking women what they think about literature intended to get men to cease approval seeking kinda ironic?


LOL, ironic, yep...

But I note that FW has made clear that she sees value in NMMNG but objects to MMSL. So (correct me if I am wrong FW) advice to quit doormating and puppy dog approval seeking is good advice.

In MMSL, it's the contempt toward women which is the objection.

OP Ocotillo, I can't quite figure... as his questions did not arise out of MMSL or NMMNG but Calle Zorro where the misogyny is Bible based.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



FrenchFry said:


> That actually is interesting Blonde.
> 
> But, for example, while dating I was always on the lookout for guys who were looking for "the experience," ie--sleeping with a black woman because of a) how easy it is b) how wild it will be c) how easy it will be to take advantage of me.
> 
> There is no shortage of people willing to do this blatantly, and then when I didn't fit into the Jezebel box, how easy it is to be put into another one.
> 
> Now, I think women can claim the word however they like and can clearly articulate why the word describes and empowers them. For me, it will never be put into that category because it reinforces status to me.


When I was single I sometimes daydreamed and joked to myself about "the experience" of sexual relations with women of various races... But in the past I have been told (as a sort of disrespectful backhand) that I could not handle a black woman in bed. To me the experience would be a) not easy at all b) would hopefully be pretty wild (regardless of skin color) c) intimidating (certainly very unlikely that I could take advantage even if I wanted to).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Gee, I'm sure FF will feel so flattered by that, Lon. (not)


----------



## Blonde

Oops, just saw your awesome reply ocotillo... 

You certainly show the fruit of living through the marital school of... err...diplomacy(?) tact(?)


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> Yah. But no more intentional on her part than on his. And raising it to the level of abuse is detrimental to real victims of honest to goodness abuse.
> 
> And further it sounds exactly like the offensive, ***** entitled speak to which several on this board object.


No it isn't.

It depends on how far she takes it.

Once someone realizes your boundaries are for crap, they do things because they WANT to and because they CAN.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Good point. Sl*t = bad. Got it.
> 
> Is it just me or is asking women what they think about literature intended to get men to cease approval seeking kinda ironic?
> 
> They don't approve of it. I guess we have to put it away now. lol


I really did laugh out loud.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> Gee, I'm sure FF will feel so flattered by that, Lon. (not)


You have never thought to yourself what it would be like to get to know and have a relationship with someone of another culture?

And I was just being honest in the spirit of actually learning or sharing something new.


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> . Marrying into a Christian family (My wife's flavor of Christianity actually falls into the fundamentalist spectrum) has taught me to be careful


I hear ya! 
Been in that camp but thankfully,
"The older I get, the less I know."


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes Lon...I wonder what it would be like to be with an NBA player, all the time...."I've heard things".


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> It is hard for me to understand how a woman who is reacting appropriate according to the actions of her man she can be said to be abusive.


Do you think it's "appropriate" to steamroll your partner out of the relationship?

Yet, if he's a doormat, that's often what happens.


----------



## Blonde

^^goes back to an adult being a "*volunteer* doormat" 

If you volunteer for it, why so surprised when someone wipes their sh!t?


----------



## FrenchFry

Lon said:


> When I was single I sometimes daydreamed and joked to myself about "the experience" of sexual relations with women of various races... But in the past I have been told (as a sort of disrespectful backhand) that I could not handle a black woman in bed. To me the experience would be a) not easy at all b) would hopefully be pretty wild (regardless of skin color) c) intimidating (certainly very unlikely that I could take advantage even if I wanted to).


This is why I don't use the word **** to describe myself, seriously. This is already the perception of black women out there and this is trying to be framed in a more positive context and it still puts a lot of really weird stuff on me because of the color of my skin...

I'm not a hypersexual being whom men can't handle.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> Yes Lon...I wonder what it would be like to be with an NBA player, all the time...."I've heard things".


Who is stereotyping now? NBA?

I'm an equal opportunity lover 

I am equally as desperate in front of attractive white women as I am black, asian, latino whatever.

I have not been with any female basketball players of any race though :/


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



FrenchFry said:


> I'm not a hypersexual being whom men can't handle.


That insinuation, by someone in my life who ought to know better, is why I was offended when she made the remark.


----------



## FrenchFry

You are offended by the insinuation that you can't handle a black woman.

I'm offended by the insinuation that I need to be tamed, that I'm out of control, that I'm wildly easy and need to be treated as such. That I'm an other, I'm not like most women, that no man can satisfy me and I'm going to continually be promiscuous because my sexuality is uncontrollable. That my mind is more base, that anyone who asks can have me because I cannot control myself.

These are all things that the word **** connotates to me. While it can be dismissed as a cultural variable, it really does effect my life and why I would have a visceral reaction to being treated like a ****--I'm already one in the minds of a lot of people.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry said:


> I'm not a hypersexual being whom men can't handle.


I actually *am* that, but the stereo type that applies to me is "men want sex more than women, therefore since you are a woman, you will never understand how important sex is to a man".

Meanwhile, my husband is the only man I've ever met who is even close to being as sexual as I am.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FF - I have always wondered why it is ok to play the song "Black Bettie" on the radio....stupidest racist f*cking song if I ever heard of one...which sucks because the song rocks, but the lyrics make me want to punch my dashboard.

Basically (in case anyone doesn't know) a man has a black girl "on the side", she is so rock steady because she's always ready, he gets her pregnant, the child is ill and blind, and he refuses to acknowledge the child is his.

grr.......


----------



## FrenchFry

Ah man, there are so many songs that I really like that the lyrics make me want to punch my phone. My wonderful Beyonce isn't even immune to this. (Eat the cake Anna Mae, come on girl)


----------



## Lon

FrenchFry said:


> You are offended by the insinuation that you can't handle a black woman.
> 
> I'm offended by the insinuation that I need to be tamed, that I'm out of control, that I'm wildly easy and need to be treated as such. That I'm an other, I'm not like most women, that no man can satisfy me and I'm going to continually be promiscuous because my sexuality is uncontrollable. That my mind is more base, that anyone who asks can have me because I cannot control myself.
> 
> These are all things that the word **** connotates to me. While it can be dismissed as a cultural variable, it really does effect my life and why I would have a visceral reaction to being treated like a ****--I'm already one in the minds of a lot of people.


I was offended at the racial stereotyping (for the same reasons you describe here) of black women by my ex W who was professing it from down on high after she happened to have met and been welcomed into a community of black people while she was detaching from our marriage and having GNO's behind my back. I was offended that she could claim to be befriending people while at the same time stereotyping all the women in that group based on their skin color.

I was hurt by the insinuation that I was inadequate sexually.

And to clarify, I wasn't insinuating in my comment about fantasizing of other cultures, that because of her skin color a black woman is wild in bed - I meant to insinuate that the woman of all races in all of my sexual fantasies are wild in bed.

For your own personal reasons you chose to see my comment as being directed to your race at the exclusion of all others.


----------



## Lon

Faithful Wife said:


> I actually *am* that, but the stereo type that applies to me is "men want sex more than women, therefore since you are a woman, you will never understand how important sex is to a man".


So the stereotype is that you are the opposite of a slvt?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yep. The stereo type that applies to me is that I will use sex to "catch" a man with - - not for any pleasure of my own. And that I "need" a man to marry me, as I can't support myself obviously. And once I've "caught" him with sex, I won't want to have it anymore.

:rofl:


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



Faithful Wife said:


> Yep. The stereo type that applies to me is that I will use sex to "catch" a man with - - not for any pleasure of my own. And that I "need" a man to marry me, as I can't support myself obviously. And once I've "caught" him with sex, I won't want to have it anymore.
> 
> :rofl:


So then, even as offensive as MMSL is to you, would you say that it is helping break that stereotype?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nope because NAWALT.


----------



## FrenchFry

No, I'm just describing what the word **** means to me and why the protestations of it being used to bring women off a pedastal mean nothing to me. 

We had no pedastal to begin with.

I'm sorry your ex race-baited you. This is not that uncommon, unfortunately and I think what FW was getting at in regards to NBA players.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde said:


> In MMSL, it's the contempt toward women which is the objection.


I acknowledge that. But given the problem is largely rooted in approval seeking and fear of offending, sharp and outrageous language serves quite well to break that cycle in that it builds greater tolerance for being un-PC. I've always maintained that there is a balance, but I think such a system shock is in order for some men... not a soft and sweetly vague delivery.

I came away from reading NMMNG recognizing a similar objective, but I felt it lacked IMPACT - the vibe necessary to induce a change in mindset. My intuition is that Nice Guys read it, feel nice and fluffy about understanding their behavior - but still go on approval seeking. They are Nice Guys, and NMMNG is "nice". One thing about PUA literature, in spite of its vices, is that you don't come out the other end feeling like women are special beings you need to seek approval from. That's why I feel AK is brings something novel to the table - less vice - but abrasive enough to induce a change in mindset.


----------



## Lon

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope because NAWALT.


not all women fall under the general stereotype of being a woman? Then what are you complaining about?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Quick remind again that the original intent of the thread was to ask WHAT DO THE WOMEN THINK.


And we did say. So of course now we need to be told how wrong we are.

Because, apparently, history has not yet given men sufficient opportunity to define or control women.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I acknowledge that. But given the problem is largely rooted in approval seeking and fear of offending, sharp and outrageous language serves quite well to break that cycle in that it builds greater tolerance for being un-PC. I've always maintained that there is a balance, but I think such a system shock is in order for some men... not a soft and sweetly vague delivery.
> 
> I came away from reading NMMNG recognizing a similar objective, but I felt it lacked IMPACT - the vibe necessary to induce a change in mindset. My intuition is that Nice Guys read it, feel nice and fluffy about understanding their behavior - but still go on approval seeking. They are Nice Guys, and NMMNG is "nice". One thing about PUA literature, in spite of its vices, is that you don't come out the other end feeling like women are special beings you need to seek approval from. That's why I feel AK is brings something novel to the table - less vice - but abrasive enough to induce a change in mindset.


And a large enough dose of street smarts so you can actually test what he's saying.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Sadly, some men don't care what we think.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you never needed any of the books mentioned, correct?


Passive-aggressive much? lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon, I'm not "complaining" about anything. I have given my opinion here because that is what this thread asked for.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Gee, I'm sure FF will feel so flattered by that, Lon. (not)


I've seen the same stereotype perpetuated by black women. I was specifically told by one that I was sexy, but she'd "break me". I certainly had no part in creating or enforcing that perception.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> And we did say. So of course now we need to be told how wrong we are.
> 
> Because, apparently, history has not yet given men sufficient opportunity to define or control women.


Ah yes, because giving other views is the equivalent of telling you you're wrong. Its impossible to discuss different interpretations of something if that's your position.

Funny, but I don't view your opinion as telling me how wrong I am in having my opinion. So where does the issue lie?


----------



## Lon

FrenchFry said:


> No, I'm just describing what the word **** means to me and why the protestations of it being used to bring women off a pedastal mean nothing to me.
> 
> We had no pedastal to begin with.
> 
> I'm sorry your ex race-baited you. This is not that uncommon, unfortunately and I think what FW was getting at in regards to NBA players.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm sorry that where you live, that you are not only subject to sexism but also racism.

Where I live, like I said earlier, the racial sexism is mostly limited to one race and it is not African American (or any black race). Of the black women that I notice in my community there are a few different stereotypes - for the muslims wearing the hijab or other cultural garb there certainly is not any crude sexual stereotypes towards them. Many black women here mix into the multicutural fabric and are treated like any other woman for the most part - and for those that identify as Christian they fit in well with the temperant bulk of the people here. And then there is a small segment of the black population that does really put out the sexual vibe in the clothes they wear, the way they act in public and the words they use - and of course the wild unrestrained sexual stereotype is obvious towards them (both the women and the men). If you have bling and swagger, and welcome sexual energy, you give off the message that you are a sexual being, but that is completely their choice to put out that vibe if they so choose, and wearing the stereotype of a highly sexual individual comes along with that. The skin color is just the blank canvas underneath the expression we paint on it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes Lon...I wonder what it would be like to be with an NBA player, all the time...."I've heard things".


I've heard things too. "Proportions are a bish".


----------



## Blonde

As for me, I'm in the middle. I can see how the books in question could be helpful for some and how they could be destructive for others.

What is destructive IME as a "submissive christian wife" is making the lifestyle into a *requirement* and shaming someone who does not fit or does not agree or for whom the lifestyle proves to be a bust...

With that "Bible" experience, and the experience of reading several Christian marriage books which were like a shiny red apple with deadly poison mixed in (eg Egghead- I mean Eggerich,)... I am wary of the potential for even well meaning advice to be taken the wrong way and lead people off a cliff relationally...

The shiny read apple looks real good and promising, but beware if poison is mixed in... If I am understanding correctly, FW, AA, FF are picking up on poison (misogyny?) mixed into MMSL


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Blonde said:


> ^^goes back to an adult being a "*volunteer* doormat"
> 
> If you volunteer for it, why so surprised when someone wipes their sh!t?


She doesn't know why she's pushing him out. He doesn't know that he's volunteering to be a doormat.

He thinks he's being a great husband and she's lucky to have someone who is so "good" to her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here is what Dvls would like all of us women to know:

"However, it is the Married *MAN's* Sex Life Primer - so when we characterize the use of the word, I'm saying you have to look at it from the perspective of the man it was written for."

Because we couldn't have possibly understood it on our own.

Yet...when we give our opinion as was asked on the first post by ocotillo...Dvls would like to remind us again that we can't possibly have a valid opinion, since the book is for men. When we explain that we know this, we've read it (and many other books about marriage) again, this doesn't matter...as the book is for men.

So there we go ladies! NO further need for our opinion.

The book is about men and for men and therefore, no need for a woman's opinion. Unless we want to ONLY read it and interpret it "from the man's perspective".

Right?

yep.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've heard things too. "Proportions are a bish".


Are you talking about the long line up of floozies thinking they need to get with an NBA player?


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> She doesn't know why she's pushing him out. He doesn't know that he's volunteering to be a doormat.
> 
> He thinks he's being a great husband and she's lucky to have someone who is so "good" to her.


No way to say this better.

But, someone has to wake up and scream STOP.

Not literally, but emotionally.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> As for me, I'm in the middle. I can see how the books in question could be helpful for some and how they could be destructive for others.
> 
> What is destructive IME as a "submissive christian wife" is making the lifestyle into a *requirement* and shaming someone who does not fit or does not agree or for whom the lifestyle proves to be a bust...
> 
> With that "Bible" experience, and the experience of reading several Christian marriage books which were like a shiny red apple with deadly poison mixed in (eg Egghead- I mean Eggerich,)... I am wary of the potential for even well meaning advice to be taken the wrong way and lead people off a cliff relationally...
> 
> The shiny read apple looks real good and promising, but beware if poison is mixed in... If I am understanding correctly, FW, AA, FF are picking up on poison (misogyny?) mixed into MMSL


This is an interesting perspective.

But, what is someone supposed to do when they're staring at the ceiling, their wife is who knows where, and the gnaw inside is eating them alive?

Try to nice them out of it?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Here is what Dvls would like all of us women to know:
> 
> "However, it is the Married *MAN's* Sex Life Primer - so when we characterize the use of the word, I'm saying you have to look at it from the perspective of the man it was written for."
> 
> Because we couldn't have possibly understood it on our own.


Given you all expressed it as meaning to DEMEAN women, where men take it as glorifying female sexuality, its readily apparent you didn't get the message... unsurprising, because the message wasn't written in YOUR language.



Faithful Wife said:


> Yet...when we give our opinion as was asked on the first post by ocotillo...Dvls would like to remind us again that we can't possibly have a valid opinion, since the book is for men. When we explain that we know this, we've read it (and many other books about marriage) again, this doesn't matter...as the book is for men.
> 
> So there we go ladies! NO further need for our opinion.
> 
> The book is about men and for men and therefore, no need for a woman's opinion. Unless we want to ONLY read it and interpret it "from the man's perspective".
> 
> Right?
> 
> yep.


Of course you have a valid opinion, and I've expressed such several times now. But your opinion means expressly squat *in determining whether the language is appropriately helpful in the objective of the book*, because the book's message is precisely crafted for specific segment of MEN, NOT YOU.

You can't very well opine on the usefulness of such language to men anymore than I can opine on the quality of a tampon.

But I will agree with you - no need for a woman's opinion on it to begin with. The whole point of such books is to cease approval seeking. Hence why I find this so ironic. Let's start a thread on male opinions of tampon quality.


----------



## sinnister

I should probably contribute to this thread in some way but I don't know how without being labled.

You have to understand NMMNG and the like for what they are and their target audience. You have to really dumb down the message, and realize that there are ZERO inferences actually being made.

The message is intended to be direct because it's speaking to men in crisis. They don't have the intellectual capacity to interpret a broader message when they perceive their world to be crashing down around them. 

I dunno. If you're firmly in the camp that hate this stuff you'll never see the merits. Personally I think all self-help literature is pretty much garbage but I understand the message here. I could do withouth the childhood memories psuedo-psychological BS - but that comes with the self-help territory.

I'm not gonna get on ya for not liking this stuff if you'rea woman. What's to like if you're female?


----------



## Conrad

sinnister said:


> I should probably contribute to this thread in some way but I don't know how without being labled.
> 
> You have to understand NMMNG and the like for what they are and their target audience. You have to really dumb down the message, and realize that there are ZERO inferences actually being made.
> 
> The message is intended to be direct because it's speaking to men in crisis. They don't have the intellectual capacity to interpret a broader message when they perceive their world to be crashing down around them.
> 
> I dunno. If you're firmly in the camp that hate this stuff you'll never see the merits. Personally I think all self-help literature is pretty much garbage but I understand the message here. I could do withouth the childhood memories psuedo-psychological BS - but that comes with the self-help territory.
> 
> I'm not gonna get on ya for not liking this stuff if you'rea woman. What's to like if you're female?


Only the results, but apparently, those take second place to some other greater objectives.


----------



## sinnister

Faithful Wife said:


> Here is what Dvls would like all of us women to know:
> 
> "However, it is the Married *MAN's* Sex Life Primer - so when we characterize the use of the word, I'm saying you have to look at it from the perspective of the man it was written for."
> 
> Because we couldn't have possibly understood it on our own.
> 
> Yet...when we give our opinion as was asked on the first post by ocotillo...Dvls would like to remind us again that we can't possibly have a valid opinion, since the book is for men. When we explain that we know this, we've read it (and many other books about marriage) again, this doesn't matter...as the book is for men.
> 
> So there we go ladies! NO further need for our opinion.
> 
> The book is about men and for men and therefore, no need for a woman's opinion. Unless we want to ONLY read it and interpret it "from the man's perspective".
> 
> Right?
> 
> yep.


You're missing the point.

You can have your opinion and it can never be wrong because you own it. He is saying in making your judgement you have to keep in mind the intended audience and purpose for writing it. Beaten, broken men with zero self-esteem or backbone. In a clumbsy and crude way, these writings offer strength to these men. It doesn't take into account how a woman may "feel" because that isn't the intended purpose of the book

I don't think anybody is discounting your personal opinion. But you have to consider the entire perspective and purpose of the writing in the first place.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lon said:


> Are you talking about the long line up of floozies thinking they need to get with an NBA player?


No, I'm referring to the fact that height is not correlated with "things you might hear", which can make for some interesting aesthetics.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Anything that makes passive aggressive whiny complainer dudes straighten up and take responsibility for their feelings and actions is a good thing. I've never read the stuff being discussed and don't really care what words are used.
No matter what he reads,my man knows the first time he refers to me as a sl*t in a non playful way is the day he gets to see my angry side. 


just my .02 of course


----------



## Blonde

Conrad said:


> This is an interesting perspective.
> 
> But, what is someone supposed to do when they're staring at the ceiling, their wife is who knows where, and the gnaw inside is eating them alive?
> 
> Try to nice them out of it?


I've posted the link to the free NMMNG to fellas before, but I also called out a guy whom I thought was using it to justify being a selfish pr!ck.

I absolutely LOVE that MMSL's Kay preaches so passionately against porn. I believe I have mentioned that my 27 yos reads over there? And he is preaching to my 13 and 11 yos the dangers of porn. Sent them to yourbrainonporn which he got from Kay.

Such preaching goes over a lot better coming from a MAN than from mommy IYKWIM...

I am pretty amazed how confrontational Kay is about men sh!t. I'm pretty sure their wife has been telling them for YEARS and they just ignore it...

And I believe wives are subject to their husbands (Eph 5). You would not believe the flack I have gotten for my understanding of how the husband sets the tone for the M from Christian men on another forum. But Kay says just about the SAME THING in macho-speak and the SAME GUYS eat it right up and go on and on about red pill... It's quite amusing to me :rofl:


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm pretty sure you never needed any of the books mentioned, correct?


That's a good question, FW. My wife lost almost all interest in sex shortly after the first child was conceived. This happened long before the internet (At least as we know it) and long before these books were written

She did not get it back until two things were happening in her life: Her cycle was starting to become erratic and the youngest was graduating from high school. Her libido blew through the roof. 

The reasons I came to TAM have nothing to do with any of this. I stumbled upon TAM trying to cope with the religious differences I've explained to Blonde. They've resulted in some pretty major blowouts with extended family.

Would I have read these books if they had been available? (Other than for curiosity's sake?) I almost certainly would have, but I'm not at all sure what difference they would have made.

I don't think they properly account for fairly obvious things like upbringing. My parents couldn't keep their hands off of each other the whole time I was growing up. My Mother would wind up in my Father's lap at the dinner table long before dinner was over.

My wife grew up in an atmosphere of thinly veiled hostility and zero affection between her parents. That this affected her view of how parents are 'supposed' to act is a far more plausible explanation to me than what I've read.

But what do I know? I've followed you on Twitter a little bit and notice you have your own domain now, so I know you have an interest in the subject. What do you think? Do you think upbringing affects a person's sex life?


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> I've posted the link to the free NMMNG to fellas before, but I also called out a guy whom I thought was using it to justify being a selfish pr!ck.
> 
> I absolutely LOVE that MMSL's Kay preaches so passionately against porn. I believe I have mentioned that my 27 yos reads over there? And he is preaching to my 13 and 11 yos the dangers of porn. Sent them to yourbrainonporn which he got from Kay.
> 
> Such preaching goes over a lot better coming from a MAN than from mommy IYKWIM...
> 
> I am pretty amazed how confrontational Kay is about men sh!t. I'm pretty sure their wife has been telling them for YEARS and they just ignore it...
> 
> And I believe wives are subject to their husbands (Eph 5). You would not believe the flack I have gotten for my understanding of how the husband sets the tone for the M from Christian men on another forum. But Kay says just about the SAME THING in macho-speak and the SAME GUYS eat it right up and go on and on about red pill... It's quite amusing to me :rofl:


Interesting post Blonde.

If I may digress a bit. Historically, this huge issue for us is on the path to resolution.

But, it takes tremendous patience and perseverance.

My wife initially logged on here and agreed with the more militant women frontloaded in this thread.

Back then we'd been separated just for a bit - this after me taking on her and her female children for nearly 5 full years. She was a SAHM and I "niced" may way into low man status in my own home.

Back then, I worked every shift I could get to make student ambassadorships possible, special Cirque de Soleil Christmas tickets, full wardrobes, new house(s), etc. All in the name of being "Mr. Fixit" - literally - and earning their love.

You tell me how that sort of arrangement is likely to work out and I'll tell you the rest.


----------



## Blonde

Conrad said:


> Back then, I worked every shift I could get to make student ambassadorships possible, special Cirque de Soleil Christmas tickets, full wardrobes, new house(s), etc. All in the name of being "Mr. Fixit" - literally - and earning their love..


Maybe no similarity with you but this is MY experience.

My H pursued the American Dream for a spell. He was the biggest pr!ck when he made the most money. He can claim it was for us all he wants... I see right through it... It was for his ego, not for us. 

He was very seriously neglectful while engaging workaholism and it nearly ended the M. Casting Crowns - American Dream (with lyrics) - YouTube

"all they really wanted was you
all they really wanted was you
all they really wanted was *you*"


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> Maybe no similarity with you but this is MY experience.
> 
> My H pursued the American Dream for a spell. He was the biggest pr!ck when he made the most money. He can claim it was for us all he wants... I see right through it... It was for his ego, not for us.
> 
> He was very seriously neglectful while engaging workaholism and it nearly ended the M. Casting Crowns - American Dream (with lyrics) - YouTube
> 
> "all they really wanted was you
> all they really wanted was you
> all they really wanted was *you*"


For a stepfather, it's a bit more complicated.

All they REALLY wanted was HIM.

The harder you push for the connection, the more it's withheld.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ah yes, because giving other views is the equivalent of telling you you're wrong. Its impossible to discuss different interpretations of something if that's your position.
> 
> Funny, but I don't view your opinion as telling me how wrong I am in having my opinion. So where does the issue lie?


Hmmm, let's revisit this shall we?

I said the attitudes in MMSL are demeaning to women and promote hatred against them.

You said, not they aren't and no they don't.

How is that *not* telling me I am wrong?

Or is that you really do see my perspective, but just think it's fine and dandy to demean women and promote hatred against them?

Either way, I'm not going to be cagey: I think you're interpretation is wrong.


----------



## Conrad

Your opinion is yours and he cannot change it or own it.

He may disagree with your judgement and doesn't wish to seek your approval.

And, he realizes that your conclusions ignore the great benefits men gain from reading same material.

He's taken that into account also.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

sinnister said:


> I could do withouth the childhood memories psuedo-psychological BS - but that comes with the self-help territory.
> 
> I'm not gonna get on ya for not liking this stuff if you'rea woman. What's to like if you're female?


Exactly. That's another tendency of men... the psycho-babble tends to gloss our eyes. Most of us don't care so much for why - there is a tendency to think "why" doesn't matter, because no matter why, this is what IS and we need to deal with it. So prescriptive measures are more highly valued - WHAT is the actual problem and HOW do we actually fix it.

NMMNG really explains why some men are like they are, touched a little on what the problem actually is, but wasn't very prescriptive.

MMSL doesn't care about why the guy is as he is. Its concerned with the what and how. It explains how some behaviors cause attraction issues and what behaviors send better signals. And its all packaged in such a way that promotes its aim - to stop holding women on a pedestal, stop thinking she has all the control; -stop being so cautious, helpful and nice - stop being so co-dependent. It says, "be a man" and as such is completely unapologetic for its language - its brazen to make to point.

I wouldn't expect women to like it, and its perfectly valid for you not to. Just as my opinion is perfectly valid in thinking NMMNG is mostly pyscho-fluff without much in the way of prescription.


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> Your opinion is yours and he cannot change it or own it.
> 
> He may disagree with your judgement and doesn't wish to seek your approval.
> 
> And, he realizes that your conclusions ignore the great benefits men gain from reading same material.
> 
> He's taken that into account also.


All I was saying is that the disagreement *is* telling me I'm wrong. And that's his or your prerogative. I know you don'tneed my approval. But what we're seeing here are contradictory viewpoints, both of which can't be right.

You point to the great gain men receive from these books, but there are also tales of abysmal failure. Those don't ever seem to count in the view that bringing women down a peg or two yields results, and is just what men need.

I wonder why.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> MMSL doesn't care about why the guy is as he is. Its concerned with the what and how. It explains how some behaviors cause attraction issues and what behaviors send better signals.


No the psycho-babble doesn't care how men got to be the way they are; it's all about caricaturing women, and why women are the way they are. That doesn't cause the eyes to glaze over, though. No, it drives home the point that women need to be brought down a peg or two.

Funny how that works.


----------



## WyshIknew

Are there any self help for men (man up or whatever) written by women?

It might be interesting to see a really well thought out book like that.

I assume it would be more than "He needs to do the dishes dressed solely in some sexy undies."

Do you think a woman writing about what makes a woman attracted to a man might give better advice than a man would?


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> But what we're seeing here are contradictory viewpoints, both of which can't be right.


And one of us actually has empiric data and thousands of personal testimonies to back it up.


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> And one of us actually has empiric data and thousands of personal testimonies to back it up.


Empirical data? Where? All I've seen is pseudo-science and sweeping assumptions.

As for thousands of personal testimonies, I've seen plenty that have said it had no effect at all or made things worse. Somehow these are always ignored or discounted.


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> Empirical data? Where? All I've seen is pseudo-science and sweeping assumptions.
> 
> As for thousands of personal testimonies, I've seen plenty that have said it had no effect at all or made things worse. Somehow these are always ignored or discounted.


I'm certain there's nothing to it, as the massive traffic at this website and MMSL's website attests.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> Do you think a woman writing about what makes a woman attracted to a man might give better advice than a man would?


Interesting question!

While I think this whole "women don't know what they want and need a man to tell them" thing has gone way too far, I wouldn't presume that women would necessarily offer the better advice.

... Although she would at least have a woman's perspective on women's attraction, which you'd think would count for something.

On the flip-side, I've heard plenty of men saying that dating/attraction/relationship advice written for women is garbage because it doesn't have the male perspective, and women have no idea what men really like.

But are they right? I don't know


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> I'm certain there's nothing to it, as the massive traffic at this website and MMSL's website attests.


Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right or effective.

And I've seen a lot of men on this website who have been told to man-up, and have executed all the steps, and have zilch to show for it. A lot of them don't seem to stick around. This doesn't surprise me at all.

I also think it's super sad and mean to see the way nice guys are given such short shrift, and basically mocked. Some very great men were/are poets, artists, healers, spiritual leaders, etc.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> No the psycho-babble doesn't care how men got to be the way they are; it's all about caricaturing women, and why women are the way they are. That doesn't cause the eyes to glaze over, though. No, it drives home the point that women need to be brought down a peg or two.
> 
> Funny how that works.


We both know its pointless to engage in this line of discussion with you. You will absolutely refuse to see anything but what you want to see.

Funny how I get flak for seeming to tell you what you *should* think when I'm giving my opinion of something, but its perfectly acceptable for you to immediately turn around and tell me WHAT I actually think. YOU think its about caricaturing women for some nefarious end that gives men supremacy. That is not what I, nor any of the men in this thread have expressed to you. It is about changing the Nice Guy's mindset such that he ceases to believe a woman is more valuable than he is, and thereby stop seeking approval from her. Do you think we're lying???

The "bringing down" of a woman in these Nice Guy scenarios is not a bad thing. The bad thing was holding her above himself to begin with. So unless you're arguing that he should rightly think a woman is somehow more important than he his, thus justifying his all his pleasing accommodations and deferrals, then you are forced to agree that she needs to be brought down.

And ALL of this occurs inside of HIS head.


----------



## U.E. McGill

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Exactly. That's another tendency of men... the psycho-babble tends to gloss our eyes. Most of us don't care so much for why - there is a tendency to think "why" doesn't matter, because no matter why, this is what IS and we need to deal with it. So prescriptive measures are more highly valued - WHAT is the actual problem and HOW do we actually fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> NMMNG really explains why some men are like they are, touched a little on what the problem actually is, but wasn't very prescriptive.
> 
> 
> 
> MMSL doesn't care about why the guy is as he is. Its concerned with the what and how. It explains how some behaviors cause attraction issues and what behaviors send better signals. And its all packaged in such a way that promotes its aim - to stop holding women on a pedestal, stop thinking she has all the control; -stop being so cautious, helpful and nice - stop being so co-dependent. It says, "be a man" and as such is completely unapologetic for its language - its brazen to make to point.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't expect women to like it, and its perfectly valid for you not to. Just as my opinion is perfectly valid in thinking NMMNG is mostly pyscho-fluff without much in the way of prescription.



NMMNG is actually very prescriptive. There's a whole plethora of of things. In fact there's 46 prescribed exercises. The gent who wrote it is a licensed therapist. You get what out what you put into it. Do we blame the car when some one crashes it because they were text messaging?

It is no way misogynistic. The basic premise is, don't behave badly. Don't engage in covert contracts, and don't put up with bull****. You have the right to fight fair, and the right to be your own judge. It's not really about relationships with women per se, as he often sites same sex relationship woes. 

MMSLP is also not about "putting women in their place". The basic premise? Get in shape. Take care of your home and business. Lead your kids, and lead your wife WHEN SHE ASKS YOU TO. Trust her to be a leader in her own right. Foreplay is an all day event, and it's up to you to get the sex you want. Ultimately, you have to do all these things and decide, is it worth it if she doesn't respond. 

I get the feeling that very few of you critics have read the books. Keep in mind, any method taken out of context can result in very poor results. Both of these books are neither instant fixes nor for casual application.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Hmmm, let's revisit this shall we?
> 
> I said the attitudes in MMSL are demeaning to women and promote hatred against them.
> 
> You said, not they aren't and no they don't.
> 
> How is that *not* telling me I am wrong?


Because of context. Your context is the literal definition of the word sl*t and emotional baggage that prevents you from acknowledging any other context but that of demeaning women. This is your opinion of the word, and your opinion isn't right or wrong - it is your opinion.

MMSL uses sl*t in glorifying female sexuality and desensitizing overly reverent men; hyperbole that VERY clearly states a woman has GREAT interest in sex to men who have every reason to believe their wives are asexual. It is a VITAL part of convincing the man that the problem is HIS behavior, not HER asexual behavior. That is language used to great effect to convince Nice Guys that, 1) she shouldn't be worshipped, 2) he needs to harden up and stop seeking approval, and 3) THAT SHE ACTUALLY WANTS SEX. NONE of which are intent on demeaning women. It is the same point behind a lot of "questionable" pua language. Language and mindset are linked. She is NOT to be worshipped. She is no better than he is, and subject to the same base human desires. Its purpose is not to lower her below him, but to understand that she isn't above him. She lusts as he lusts. She will cheat as he will cheat. She is a sexual being as he is a sexual being.



always_alone said:


> Or is that you really do see my perspective, but just think it's fine and dandy to demean women and promote hatred against them?


I really do see your perspective, its just that I don't consider it any better than mine. 



always_alone said:


> Either way, I'm not going to be cagey: I think you're interpretation is wrong.


And you would know from your vast experience as a man right?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But what we're seeing here are contradictory viewpoints, both of which can't be right.
> 
> You point to the great gain men receive from these books, but there are also tales of abysmal failure. Those don't ever seem to count in the view that bringing women down a peg or two yields results, and is just what men need.


These are not contradictory viewpoints. They are differences of perspective that are entirely subjective. That you feel demeaned or that you are offended, does not mean there was intent to offend. You're offended? O.K. Well, its not being said to offend you, and like many other things you might find offensive that I do not, I don't really have to care. I may grant you a small kindness out of a basic respect for persons, and try to avoid such offending behavior in your presence if it does not excessively infringe on my expression, but I'm sure as hell not going to avoid doing so in a book not written for you. You are sticking your nose in and claiming offense. AK has no imperative to oblige you. If you're still offended by a book not intended for you, even after admission from men that the language in this context has no intent to demean you... then frankly, so what you're offended? I'm offended by Chihuahuas.

What exactly does that "abysmal failure" look like? Is it much like the relationship that sent him looking into MMSL in the first place? Because the two look awfully alike to me and both point to divorce.

Do you have a desire for men to hold women above themselves such that you can't stomach men knocking them down from this perch of their own making? Because this "knock them down a peg" line is a recurring theme. Or did you dismiss the context again? Nice. Guy.


----------



## Racer

kipani said:


> ...
> Anyway, as for this crap about gender roles - don't even believe them. Seriously.. Don't. It'll be a mistake if you do.
> .


There are similarities and there are differences. How do you get laid? Major differences there alone with a huge one already being that the default is the guy will say yes... 

I'd love to go into any negotiation where I know the other party wants what I have to offer and if not him, there's a whole line behind him willing to try. You hold almost all the cards and know it.

And you already brought up porn... wouldn't you say the male perspective is typically different than the female one?

So don't at all say we look at things the same when it comes to sex. There are as many differences as similarities....


----------



## Conrad

always_alone said:


> Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right or effective.


So true.

People continue to log onto website references and stay for years helping others because there's nothing to it.


----------



## Conrad

U.E. McGill said:


> NMMNG is actually very prescriptive. There's a whole plethora of of things. In fact there's 46 prescribed exercises. The gent who wrote it is a licensed therapist. You get what out what you put into it. Do we blame the car when some one crashes it because they were text messaging?
> 
> It is no way misogynistic. The basic premise is, don't behave badly. Don't engage in covert contracts, and don't put up with bull****. You have the right to fight fair, and the right to be your own judge. It's not really about relationships with women per se, as he often sites same sex relationship woes.
> 
> MMSLP is also not about "putting women in their place". The basic premise? Get in shape. Take care of your home and business. Lead your kids, and lead your wife WHEN SHE ASKS YOU TO. Trust her to be a leader in her own right. Foreplay is an all day event, and it's up to you to get the sex you want. Ultimately, you have to do all these things and decide, is it worth it if she doesn't respond.
> 
> I get the feeling that very few of you critics have read the books. Keep in mind, any method taken out of context can result in very poor results. Both of these books are neither instant fixes nor for casual application.



Great summary


----------



## Blonde

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> MMSL doesn't care about why the guy is as he is. Its concerned with the what and how. It explains how some behaviors cause attraction issues and what behaviors send better signals. And its all packaged in such a way that promotes its aim - to stop holding women on a pedestal, stop thinking she has all the control; -stop being so cautious, helpful and nice - stop being so co-dependent. It says, "be a man" and as such is completely unapologetic for its language - its brazen to make to point.


At times you come across harsh to me. With your tearing women off their "pedestal" and not wanting to see them as any more delicate or sensitive. I can see you being a bull in a china shop with an attitude like that, not caring if you hurt someone with your words and dismissing a wife's or a child's feelings and concerns...

The talk about leveling, bringing her down from her pedestal makes me wonder what you do with MMSL's man as leader schtick?

Basically, if the M is in trouble Kay lays it SQUARELY at the feet of the H (which I agree with because of my understanding of a wife's subjection biblically, but a group of men I had quite a long history interacting with on a christian forum HATE the idea of men being "blamed". The gf's there tagged this aversion to taking any responsibility for M failings as IWM- it wasn't ME!!! It confuses me that the IWM club were also "red pill" fanboys ).

So what do you do with the fact that Kay blames men? Or to put in more gently... insists that men are responsible for all M problems?

The Eternal Captain Rule | Married Man Sex Life

Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Married Man Sex Life


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> At times you come across harsh to me. With your tearing women off their "pedestal" and not wanting to see them as any more delicate or sensitive. I can see you being a bull in a china shop with an attitude like that, not caring if you hurt someone with your words and dismissing a wife's or a child's feelings and concerns...
> 
> The talk about leveling, bringing her down from her pedestal makes me wonder what you do with MMSL's man as leader schtick?
> 
> Basically, if the M is in trouble Kay lays it SQUARELY at the feet of the H (which I agree with because of my understanding of a wife's subjection biblically, but a group of men I had quite a long history interacting with on a christian forum HATE the idea of men being "blamed". The gf's there tagged this aversion to taking any responsibility for M failings as IWM- it wasn't ME!!! It confuses me that the IWM club were also "red pill" fanboys ).
> 
> So what do you do with the fact that Kay blames men? Or to put in more gently... insists that men are responsible for all M problems?
> 
> The Eternal Captain Rule | Married Man Sex Life
> 
> Captain and First Officer When The Marriage is Slamming Into Icebergs | Married Man Sex Life


Blonde,

I'll take a crack at it. And, I'll post more if you want.

We're all wired first and foremost for survival.

This makes "safety" a very important emotional need for women.

So, who is she likely to desire?

Niceguy fanboy who waits on her every whim and desire?

Alpha badboy who looks after himself and marches to his own drummer.

Subconsciously, #2 is attractive, while #1 loses appeal over time.

If he isn't going to set his own direction and isn't stronger than her (which is the message #1 sends), she doesn't feel safe.


----------



## ocotillo

kipani said:


> Hey hey don't confuse feminists with feminazis. We're a totally different breed. We want equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> I - LOVE - nice guys. But I think with my brain, not my clam, or my heart. If a man disrespects me, I'll lose interest. That's just me though. People are different.
> 
> As for why nice guys finish last - It's true, we're biologically programmed to find aggression sexy - when we're younger. I'm almost 30 now and I don't care for aggression anymore. If a guy is aggressive with me nowadays, he'd get the finger. In the past, 10 years ago, I'd probably go HEHEHE HE'S SO SEXY, but now I'm... smarter.
> 
> Why womens sex drive drops - Uh, sex with same guy, plus we don't use porn as much. Guys always check out other girls and we figure they're probably fantasizing about them, which creates emotional distance for a lot of girls, since a whole lot of my girlfriends see that as mental cheating.
> 
> Then we begin window shopping, flirting, fantasizing about someone we work with or something. Being disrespected a lot by the guy you're with makes you totally lose interest in him, especially if something better comes along. In my case anyway and 90% of my girlfriends. Holy hell, lets not get into this. Our sex drives are just as strong as a mans though. But the monogamy kills it. Women cheat just as much as men do. Please, we're no different. Anyway, as for this crap about gender roles - don't even believe them. Seriously.. Don't. It'll be a mistake if you do.
> 
> And sometimes playing hard to get isn't gonna hurt a guy either.


That was illuminating. Thanks!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

U.E. McGill said:


> NMMNG is actually very prescriptive.
> 
> I get the feeling that very few of you critics have read the books. Keep in mind, any method taken out of context can result in very poor results. Both of these books are neither instant fixes nor for casual application.


I read MMSL. I listened to NMMNG audiobook during my commutes. Could the audiobook be much different from the book? I didn't find much prescriptive to it at all. The closest thing was avoiding covert contracts, but I found this concept to be quite fuzzy. Is this to say someone shouldn't be upset if they're giving a ton of affection and receiving none? No. So covert contract feel bogus to me. I'm not convinced that there is an understanding of a "deal". Its not, "she says she's too tired for sex, if I take some of the load off her, she'll give me sex", its "she says she's too tired for sex, if I take some of the load off her, she won't be so tired." No one realistically wants to trade her sex for doing the dishes. He still wants more than that. He wants to be desired too. He doesn't want empty sex for doing the dishes.

The covert contract thing is a little presumptuous - or the plight of nice guys is even more sad than I thought if its really this sort of trading in their minds.


----------



## Conrad

heartsbeating said:


> I have also wondered why we in the Ladies Clubhouse don't discuss growth or behaviors etc very often?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blonde

Conrad said:


> Blonde,
> 
> I'll take a crack at it. And, I'll post more if you want.
> 
> We're all wired first and foremost for survival.
> 
> This makes "safety" a very important emotional need for women.
> 
> So, who is she likely to desire?
> 
> Niceguy fanboy who waits on her every whim and desire?
> 
> Alpha badboy who looks after himself and marches to his own drummer.
> 
> Subconsciously, #2 is attractive, while #1 loses appeal over time.
> 
> If he isn't going to set his own direction and isn't stronger than her (which is the message #1 sends), she doesn't feel safe.


So, Ive been following Boston Bruin's thread. He admits on there he used to get angry and impatient with their preschool daughter. He has now figured out an association between that behavior and his wife "turning off" sexually.

So, alpha ******* with the 3 yod= major turnOFF.

Women want our children SAFE. Having an H who can be patient and nurturing is SAFER for the child IMO.


----------



## 45188

Racer said:


> There are similarities and there are differences. How do you get laid? Major differences there alone with a huge one already being that the default is the guy will say yes...
> 
> I'd love to go into any negotiation where I know the other party wants what I have to offer and if not him, there's a whole line behind him willing to try. You hold almost all the cards and know it.
> 
> And you already brought up porn... wouldn't you say the male perspective is typically different than the female one?
> 
> So don't at all say we look at things the same when it comes to sex. There are as many differences as similarities....




So I could meet you in a bar, say I wanted to screw, just for a night, no strings attached, and you'd say yes?

Yeah, blonde, a guy who doesnt take care of his kid isnt an alpha to me. Hes a bigggg fat vagina.


----------



## Racer

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The covert contract thing is a little presumptuous - or the plight of nice guys is even more sad than I thought if its really this sort of trading in their minds.


lol... It is. So the wife says "I do everything around here! I'm always exhausted, my head hurts, blah, blah, blah!" and you think "If I start busting my butt, she'll bust a nut..." Because in your head she always has a headache and is too tired for sex. So, for several days you really start doing a ton. Then you make a pass and get shot down. The tantrum comes and in your head; quid pro quo. You did something they wanted, it's their turn to give something you wanted. 

I didn't do all that stuff because it was something I wanted to do. I didn't do it because of duty. I did it purely for the reaction I thought she'd have without telling her what that was = Covert contract.

And the book has exercises you are supposed to do. Sexual moratorium, no porn, letting something go like 'your thing' you take pride in and think people notice, trying 'this', etc. It's filled with them to help it sink in that how you think the world works is not at all how it does work. People don't think better or worse of you because you ask for their help for instance and a exercise to go along with it to prove that point..

And lol... along 'prescriptive'. "The Game" has missions. Step by step pua.


----------



## ocotillo

Conrad said:


> Blonde,
> We're all wired first and foremost for survival.
> 
> This makes "safety" a very important emotional need for women.
> 
> So, who is she likely to desire?
> 
> Niceguy fanboy who waits on her every whim and desire?
> 
> Alpha badboy who looks after himself and marches to his own drummer.


I think that's an interesting observation and I guess some of it revolves around exactly how you're defining "Niceguy fanboy" and "Alpha badboy." 

At tragedies like the Aurora shooting for example, why did some men shield their wives, girlfriends and children with their bodies while others abandoned them and ran like hell?

Military organizations have been collecting personality profiles of recipients of high awards for valor and bravery for a long, long time and the alpha personality is actually _underrepresented_ in this group.


----------



## 45188

Yeah. Alphas are greedy and selfish. They're the type you make a few mistakes with before you find a real man.


----------



## Racer

kipani said:


> So I could meet you in a bar, say I wanted to screw, just for a night, no strings attached, and you'd say yes?


But it doesn't work like that does it? You don't 'meet me' in a bar. You are in a bar, I am in a bar. It is very rare a women will walk up to me and say "Hey, u wanna screw?" Nope. Maybe in the penthouse forum, but seldom in reality unless she's seriously plastered (in which case 'rape' accusations crosses my mind when you sober up so I'm gonna pass on that too having that 'fun' experience with that situation in my past <== another difference between men and women). 

Reality: Usually, I have to be attracted to you. Then I have to make a conscience choice to walk up and say hi taking a risk. "20 seconds of insane courage" because I've got no idea if you even find me attractive, might like me, etc. I just know I find you attractive and can only hope for the best because just sitting there is not going to create a relationship of any sort. So there's the risk to my frail ego; I don't want to feel like I'm not attractive, and that's what rejection or a brush off does. Guys do this over and over facing that rejection until we are eventually numb. Each rejection makes it harder and harder to face the next. We are as emotionally complex and frail as women; We have that in common. 

But in the 'courting' phase, the guy is the one taking that risk with his ego. Generally, you sit back and wait playing a much more passive game like smiling at me from across the room I hope is a sign that you want me to introduce myself. It is rare that a woman will approach and risk it. And when they do, they are also hurt when rejected; Which I have done.

And btw; Since I'm married, it's much easier to approach. Because I'm not thinking getting laid, or girlfriend or relationship. I'm just thinking you look like fun to strike up a conversation with and it's all I'm looking for.


----------



## Conrad

kipani said:


> Yeah. Alphas are greedy and selfish. They're the type you make a few mistakes with before you find a real man.


Yes, that's why Aaron Hernandez gets so much fan mail and offers for companionship since his indictment for murder.


----------



## Conrad

ocotillo said:


> I think that's an interesting observation and I guess some of it revolves around exactly how you're defining "Niceguy fanboy" and "Alpha badboy."
> 
> At tragedies like the Aurora shooting for example, why did some men shield their wives, girlfriends and children with their bodies while others abandoned them and ran like hell?
> 
> Military organizations have been collecting personality profiles of recipients of high awards for valor and bravery for a long, long time and the alpha personality is actually _underrepresented_ in this group.


Of course, because he's risking something more than rejection from an attractive woman.

In other words, he's taking care of himself by being cautious when caution is called for.

Rejection from a (possibly) goofy woman isn't near as risky as facing a Kalishnikoff.


----------



## always_alone

I really feel like everything I say is being twisted beyond recognition, and so before I sign off, here is my last clarification of what I'm trying to say:

1. Self-improvement is marvelous. Everyone can always benefit from it, and should be encouraged to do so.

2. Having a sexless marriage sucks, and having strategies to help solve the problem is wonderful, especially if they actually work.

3. MMSL, much like it's PUA sibling, may succeed in building men up and giving them confidence, but it's rooted in negative gender stereotypes that are not accurate and are sometimes offensive. 

4. Adopting those more offensive attitudes and tactics would be an utter turn-off to many women, and so may very well be counterproductive. 

5. Many men, too, report that the tactics do not at all help their situation, and so it might be wise to exercise some caution when wholesale endorsing this approach.

6. Objecting to putting women down is *not* the same as saying they should be on a pedestal, or that men shouldn't look after their needs, or that anyone cares about crude language.

It is saying that you do not have to put others down, in order to boost yourself up. Choosing to do so reveals your core values and attitudes.

And if that's what you want, well, so be it.

I'm outta here.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Conrad said:


> Yes, that's why Aaron Hernandez gets so much fan mail and offers for companionship since his indictment for murder.


I doubt a high percentage of women are hybristophiliacs.


----------



## Conrad

TiggyBlue said:


> I doubt a high percentage of women are hybristophiliacs.


This thread has been pretty open about base instincts.

No need to stop now.


----------



## Blonde

Conrad said:


> For a stepfather, it's a bit more complicated.
> 
> All they REALLY wanted was HIM.
> 
> The harder you push for the connection, the more it's withheld.




That sounds really hard! Hopefully you have found some strategies that work in your relationship, Conrad.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Conrad said:


> This thread has been pretty open about base instincts.
> 
> No need to stop now.


Well if hybristophiliacs represent women's innate attraction for 'alpha's' then couldn't the hot wife complex say the same about mens base instincts?


----------



## Conrad

TiggyBlue said:


> Well if hybristophiliacs represent women's innate attraction for 'alpha's' then couldn't the hot wife complex say the same about mens base instincts?


It might.

I'm not the one claiming to be offended.

I'm open to all of it.

I think if doormat guys are moving into fulfilling marriages based on solid advice, it's beneficial.


----------



## Blonde

always_alone said:


> I really feel like everything I say is being twisted beyond recognition, and so before I sign off, here is my last clarification of what I'm trying to say:


Not "like-ing" that you are leaving.

Liking because I value your perspective FWIW.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> That sounds really hard! Hopefully you have found some strategies that work in your relationship, Conrad.


We have.

But, the turning point was her showing up and saying the following words, "I don't want THEM, I want YOU."

I had enough courage to let her discover that for herself.

That made all the difference.

AND, it would have been impossible without the mentors here.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> At times you come across harsh to me. With your tearing women off their "pedestal" and not wanting to see them as any more delicate or sensitive.


Why on earth would anyone want to be viewed as delicate or sensitive because of their genitalia? I swear to god that women are the worst anti feminists there are. When I am going for a tech lead job, trust me when I tell you, I am damned glad that no one assumes that I am delicate and sensitive simply because I have a vagina!


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> Why on earth would anyone want to be viewed as delicate or sensitive because of their genitalia? I swear to god that women are the worst anti feminists there are. When I am going for a tech lead job, trust me when I tell you, I am damned glad that no one assumes that I am delicate and sensitive simply because I have a vagina!


Ha. I thought you denied raising the feminist meme when we had this discussion earlier..

I dislike the brand of feminism which denies that there are differences and attempts to promote androgyny.

I believe women *are *more vulnerable than men s/t our anatomy and childbearing. And I LIKE my husband making an effort to be sensitive.

As Conrad observed and I agree, safety is a primary EN of mine.

While I consider myself something of a biblical feminist advocate, I'm also quite sure I don't fit in the PC feminist circle...


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> Ha. I thought you denied raising the feminist meme when we had this discussion earlier..


I did not. I denied that feminism is what you have made it up in your mind to be.



> I dislike the brand of feminism which denies that there are differences and attempts to promote androgyny.


Yah. That. There is no attempts to promote androgyny. Simply a rejection that being feminine is what you you are indicating. I am far more offended, to the degree that I get offended which I don't, by being referred to as basically weak and sniveling that I every will by being referred to as highly sexual in the pursuit of my marriage.

I wonder who is the happier for their vision of femininity?



> I believe women *are *more vulnerable than men s/t our anatomy and childbearing. And I LIKE my husband making an effort to be sensitive.


I don't. I believe that childbirth is one of the greatest testaments of our strength.



> As Conrad observed and I agree, safety is a primary EN of mine.
> 
> While I consider myself something of a biblical feminist advocate, I'm also quite sure I don't fit in the PC feminist circle...


Meh. You don't even know what feminism is.


----------



## ConanHub

WOW! From some of the descriptions alphas are greedy, selfish, and cowardly. Maybe I'm not alpha. I might not cover my wife if someone opened fire in a theater, it would be because I was too busy killing the bastard doing the shooting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> I
> Meh. You don't even know what feminism is.


And, that settles that.

When we say women tend to be judgmental and harsh to one another?

Nothing to that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> And, that settles that.
> 
> When we say women tend to be judgmental and harsh to one another?
> 
> Nothing to that.


THAT was judgmental and harsh?


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> THAT was judgmental and harsh?


How would you respond if I told you that "you don't know what feminism is"?

She's only been posting on her understanding of feminine empowerment in the context of a Christian relationship for 50 pages.

Nothing to see here.

Sheesh


----------



## ocotillo

ConanHub said:


> WOW! From some of the descriptions alphas are greedy, selfish, and cowardly. Maybe I'm not alpha. I might not cover my wife if someone opened fire in a theater, it would be because I was too busy killing the bastard doing the shooting.


The alpha pesonality in clinical psychology is not quite the same as it is in pop psy. 

But I'd say that you've expressed a noble sentiment and one that I share with you. I trust that you realize the technical disparity you would be up against even if you happened to have a sidearm?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> How would you respond if I told you that "you don't know what feminism is"?


I would think that you think I don't know what feminism is? I am not sure of your point.


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> I would think that you think I don't know what feminism is? I am not sure of your point.


I'd say it was disrespectful to your views.

But, your mileage may vary.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> I'd say it was disrespectful to your views.
> 
> But, your mileage may vary.


To be truthful, I think the word "disrespectful" is frequently wrongly used. Someone upthread made reference to how other people in the world regard the habit of USians of getting offended at the drop of a hat. I would have to agree. I wonder at being willing to share your views but being unwilling to suffer dissent. In my mind THAT is disrespectful. Having a view does not make it a very good view. Discussing views more than Blonde's particular view.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I have leaned much from reading this thread. 

Mostly I've learned that we need a standard definition of what it means to be "alpha." 

Also that I no longer have any idea of whether or not I am a feminist. :scratchhead:


----------



## Conrad

NobodySpecial said:


> To be truthful, I think the word "disrespectful" is frequently wrongly used. Someone upthread made reference to how other people in the world regard the habit of USians of getting offended at the drop of a hat. I would have to agree. I wonder at being willing to share your views but being unwilling to suffer dissent. In my mind THAT is disrespectful. Having a view does not make it a very good view. Discussing views more than Blonde's particular view.


I would suggest offer an opposing view - with examples - rather than blanket condemnation.


----------



## Fozzy

GettingIt said:


> I have leaned much from reading this thread.
> 
> Mostly I've learned that we need a standard definition of what it means to be "alpha."
> 
> Also that I no longer have any idea of whether or not I am a feminist. :scratchhead:


How about we need less reliance on labels as an end-point and just use them as a starting point for understanding?


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> How about we need less reliance on labels as an end-point and just use them as a starting point for understanding?


Do you think it would be possible to just get rid of the labels, and use regular old well-known adjectives instead?


----------



## Fozzy

jld said:


> Do you think it would be possible to just get rid of the labels, and use regular old well-known adjectives instead?


Agreed. I vote "jerk" or "wuss".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Racer said:


> lol...
> And lol... along 'prescriptive'. "The Game" has missions. Step by step pua.


I guess it could be a case of selective listening on my part. FW suggested it to me in one of our little spats, so I bought the audio book and was listening only to see what she was talking about. Its possible I missed things or don't recall it correctly because I didn't really identify with it.


----------



## ConanHub

ocotillo said:


> The alpha pesonality in clinical psychology is not quite the same as it is in pop psy.
> 
> But I'd say that you've expressed a noble sentiment and one that I share with you. I trust that you realize the technical disparity you would be up against even if you happened to have a sidearm?


Sure. However the best way to protect someone from a rabid dog is to put it down.


----------



## over20

ConanHub said:


> WOW! From some of the descriptions alphas are greedy, selfish, and cowardly. Maybe I'm not alpha. I might not cover my wife if someone opened fire in a theater, it would be because I was too busy killing the bastard doing the shooting.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Alphas are the men that stand up in that theatre to give up their life (possibly) to save the rest of the people laying on the ground.
Alpha's don't think, they act accordingly.


----------



## over20

kipani said:


> Hey hey don't confuse feminists with feminazis. We're a totally different breed. We want equal rights, not special rights.
> 
> I - LOVE - nice guys. But I think with my brain, not my clam, or my heart. If a man disrespects me, I'll lose interest. That's just me though. People are different.
> 
> As for why nice guys finish last - It's true, we're biologically programmed to find aggression sexy - when we're younger. I'm almost 30 now and I don't care for aggression anymore. If a guy is aggressive with me nowadays, he'd get the finger. In the past, 10 years ago, I'd probably go HEHEHE HE'S SO SEXY, but now I'm... smarter.
> 
> Why womens sex drive drops - Uh, sex with same guy, plus we don't use porn as much. Guys always check out other girls and we figure they're probably fantasizing about them, which creates emotional distance for a lot of girls, since a whole lot of my girlfriends see that as mental cheating.
> 
> Then we begin window shopping, flirting, fantasizing about someone we work with or something. Being disrespected a lot by the guy you're with makes you totally lose interest in him, especially if something better comes along. In my case anyway and 90% of my girlfriends. Holy hell, lets not get into this. Our sex drives are just as strong as a mans though. But the monogamy kills it. Women cheat just as much as men do. Please, we're no different. Anyway, as for this crap about gender roles - don't even believe them. Seriously.. Don't. It'll be a mistake if you do.
> 
> And sometimes playing hard to get isn't gonna hurt a guy either.




You are generalizing that All married women get bored from screwing their DH's year after year. That is a false assumption. Monogamy is designed to learn and grow with your partner year after year, ups and downs and come out stronger in the end. Don't listen to everything your friends have to say. The fact that women don't view porn as much is another myth. Porn is very woman friendly now a days. The assumption that married women's drives deescalate as they age and are married is another assumption. There are millions of us married women whose sex drive is just as high or higher than our husband's.

The one true thing you said is Monogamy can kill a sex drive, IF and only IF both parties don't make the effort to keep it aflame.


----------



## ocotillo

over20 said:


> Alphas are the men that stand up in that theatre to give up their life (possibly) to save the rest of the people laying on the ground.
> Alpha's don't think, they act accordingly.


No they are not. That is not the personality type that sacrifices their life to save others. They don't rush into burning buildings with children trapped inside, they don't fall onto live grenades and they don't step in front of a bullet meant for you.


----------



## over20

Please help me understand where you are coming from? I was thinking of the Police, undercover officers, my own Dh who would give his life in a situation where his family and other's were going to be seriously harmed.


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> Agreed. I vote "jerk" or "wuss".


:rofl:


----------



## jld

over20 said:


> Please help me understand where you are coming from? I was thinking of the Police, undercover officers, my own Dh who would give his life in a situation where his family and other's were going to be seriously harmed.


I think this is what one poster meant when she said we need a standard definition of "alpha." Different people seem to define it differently.

I would call a man like your dh a responsible man, a mature man, a _man_, really, in my language.


----------



## over20

ocotillo said:


> No they are not. That is not the personality type that sacrifices their life to save others. They don't rush into burning buildings with children trapped inside, they don't fall onto live grenades and they don't step in front of a bullet meant for you.


What kind of man would rescue other's? :scratchhead: I like to call them a real life hero....what would you call them?


----------



## over20

jld said:


> I think this is what one poster meant when she said we need a standard definition of "alpha." Different people seem to define it differently.
> 
> I would call a man like your dh a responsible man, a mature man, a _man_, really, in my language.


Thank you, Alpha surely has different meanings amongst people across the globe. I forget on TAM that there are other's outside of my own USA who might view ideas so very differently. I have a lot to learn.


----------



## jld

over20 said:


> Thank you, Alpha surely has different meanings amongst people across the globe. I forget on TAM that there are other's outside of my own USA who might view ideas so very differently.* I have a lot to learn.*


We all do. Truly, we all do.


----------



## ocotillo

over20 said:


> Please help me understand where you are coming from? I was thinking of the Police, undercover officers, my own Dh who would give his life in a situation where his family and other's were going to be seriously harmed.


"Alpha" and "Beta" are not synonyms for brave and cowardly or strong and weak. Police officers, fire fighters and other first responders generally have a strong sense of obligation towards fellow human beings, which is not an alpha trait.

The personality type most closely associated with the hero is actually a subset of the beta, sometimes called the beta sociopath. This is a person willing to break the rules, but whose sense of obligation towards their fellowman trammels that behavior.

This is a very soft science and there will obviously be exceptions, but like I've said, military organizations have studied this for a long time.


----------



## over20

Thank you for explaining your response. What would you see as Alpha then, more of a logical/analytical man?


----------



## ocotillo

over20 said:


> Thank you for explaining your response. What would you see as Alpha then, more of a logical/analytical man?


The terms are primarily about group dynamics and the acquisition and exercise of power within the group. It really depends on what type of society we're talking about. In modern ones, especially those that try to be democratic, we're probably talking about above average intelligence, personal charisma, a huge amount of ambition and maybe even a fair amount of guile, but not necessarily bravery or strength. Most politicians are well past their physical prime.


----------



## over20

If I am understanding you correctly and you concur, the terms Alpha/Beta and what they represent, are defined differently from nation to nation or society to society?

I am logging out and will respectfully follow up tomorrow


----------



## NobodySpecial

Conrad said:


> I would suggest offer an opposing view - with examples - rather than blanket condemnation.


Fair enough. Blonde, I apologize. I confess I am not going to review the entirety of feminist history and claim only that your assumption that femininity that does not include options beside assertions of androgyny are misguided. The history is there if you want it.


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> Fair enough. Blonde, I apologize. I confess I am not going to review the entirety of feminist history and claim only that your assumption that femininity that does not include options beside assertions of androgyny are misguided. The history is there if you want it.


As I mentioned before, I wrote a research paper for a nursing class on the evolution of the relationship between nursing and feminism. Long paper, but trust me I have looked at feminist history 

70's feminists were contemptuous toward nursing as a "female ghetto"

2010 there is a stream of feminism which embraces feminine characteristics -which make good nurses

I am of the stream of feminism which loves and embraces femininity and is not afraid to admit that I am also uniquely vulnerable as a female in ways men are not. (the biblical "weaker vessel" of 1 Pet 3:7 is NOT a design flaw)


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't. I believe that childbirth is one of the greatest testaments of our strength.


Pregnancy makes us extremely vulnerable and dependent. More DV happens during pregnancy than any other time.

Having young children makes us quite dependent and can trap us in a difficult situation.

I don't "hate" that vulnerability. I embrace it. For most of my adult life- to the extreme of not using BC. H and I practiced Quiver Full. I've been pregnant 11 times and have 8 surviving children.

I am extremely pro-life to the point that I am a "one issue" voter. Makes me very very sad that women have been led to assault to the very core of what it means to be uniquely woman and dispose of their own children in utero... Abortion is the ultimate embrace of androgyny and self rejection of femininity IMO.

So, rad-fem, I am *NOT!!!*


----------



## Racer

Blonde said:


> ..
> I am extremely pro-life to the point that I am a "one issue" voter.


Touchy subject. Your beliefs are fine, I'm also fine with other beliefs. I'm not going to argue on the subject, but the approach of it instead. It is of those issues that seriously bothers me as a man because it's rad-feminist thinking in my opinion.

Ever notice the father has zero say in it either way? He just has to live with the consequences of a woman's choice for the rest of his life regardless of his belief system. It is as much his creation as it is hers, however women have taken away his voice or means to become part of that discussion. There are only ramifications and he has to live with whatever she chooses. 

Is that the equality women look for? I just believe it's another way to devalue men and our opinions as invalid because 'it isn't the same for us'. 

Yet when it comes to men saying we're certainly different and it isn't the same, the argument changes to paint us in a much different light. 

And you wonder why we have so many colorful adjectives to describe women?


----------



## Blonde

Racer said:


> Ever notice the father has zero say in it either way? He just has to live with the consequences of a woman's choice for the rest of his life regardless of his belief system. It is as much his creation as it is hers, however women have taken away his voice or means to become part of that discussion. There are only ramifications and he has to live with whatever she chooses.


I agree, but that sword cuts both ways. Many MANY times it is the BF who pushes for and pays for the abortion (parents too). He liked the sex but does not care for the consequences.

The girl, a lot of times, would really just like to have the baby. The pressure on her to abort is immense.

My preference is old fashioned morals and values where sex happens after you get M when a pregnancy can be celebrated instead of regretted.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> As I mentioned before, I wrote a research paper for a nursing class on the evolution of the relationship between nursing and feminism. Long paper, but trust me I have looked at feminist history
> 
> 70's feminists were contemptuous toward nursing as a "female ghetto"
> 
> 2010 there is a stream of feminism which embraces feminine characteristics -which make good nurses


What constitutes "feminine characteristics" seems to continue to be something that cannot be agreed on.




> I am of the stream of feminism which loves and embraces femininity and is not afraid to admit that I am also uniquely vulnerable as a female in ways men are not. (the biblical "weaker vessel" of 1 Pet 3:7 is NOT a design flaw)


Well we start from a very different perspective. As an atheist, I am not bound by a religious interpretation of either feminism or femininity, and perceive that is a better position from which to start offering advice or context to the populace at large until one knows of their limiting context. Interestingly enough when my husband laughingly googled christian feminism. One of the main headers of the description was women as spiritually weak. Nothing within the description of how feminism offered an alternative to that view.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Reading the alpha/beta line of discussion, I'm inclined to think that people are including a number of traits that aren't specific to alpha or beta. Hero behavior can be alpha or beta. The notion that an alpha is completely selfish at the expense of others is faulty stereotype.

We should not associate the traits of a good or bad person to either personality type. There are good and bad people who are alphas, and good and bad people who are betas. Further, the terms are relative, or at least, more of a sliding scale - most people are blend - a point on the scale. An alpha in one group may be a beta in another group... so I tend to think of it in a comparative sense: a person is "more alpha than" another person.

The differentiating characteristics of more alpha personalities are greater confidence - certainty regardless of situation (thus tendency toward greater risk taking, and the appearance of arrogance or c*ckiness), greater projection of energy (charisma that draws people to them), and greater leadership (they know who they are, what they want, and are decisive and direct). 

Specifically, greed and selfishness are not a traits isolated to alpha behavior. A beta can be just as selfish as the popular perception of an alpha - but its expressed differently. The caretaking beta may appear selfless, yet his actions are motivated by a selfish payoff from having done them. The selfish beta helps in order to be rewarded or better perceived. An alpha, if he chooses to help, does so because he wants to for its own sake or expediency - taking care of HIS responsibilities - not to please or be rewarded. An alpha may very well be a defender of the weak and the direction he leads may take others into account, again, per his responsibility as a leader. They hold people accountable and don't shrink from confrontation or get worked up by it.

Being alpha does not mean thinking you're the only person who matters.


----------



## Lon

IMO, alpha isn't a a measure of personality at all, it is simply the result of a social construct.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Blonde said:


> Pregnancy makes us extremely vulnerable and dependent. More DV happens during pregnancy than any other time.
> 
> Having young children makes us quite dependent and can trap us in a difficult situation.


This is not a female state. YOU felt dependent and vulnerable perhaps. But there is no evidence of my experience across all my family, sisters, mother, cousins, friends, self that pregnancy MAKES us any such thing.

You may feel free to feel that way for you personally. Know thyself. And be pleased with who you are. But it is not a reflection of any definition or even commonality of femininity.



> I don't "hate" that vulnerability. I embrace it. For most of my adult life- to the extreme of not using BC. H and I practiced Quiver Full. I've been pregnant 11 times and have 8 surviving children.
> 
> I am extremely pro-life to the point that I am a "one issue" voter. Makes me very very sad that women have been led to assault to the very core of what it means to be uniquely woman and dispose of their own children in utero... Abortion is the ultimate embrace of androgyny and self rejection of femininity IMO.
> 
> So, rad-fem, I am *NOT!!!*


I am so much more than just a baby machine. I am glad that that is one part of my biological reality. I am glad that I have other positive capacities as well.


----------



## over20

Blonde said:


> Pregnancy makes us extremely vulnerable and dependent. More DV happens during pregnancy than any other time.
> 
> Having young children makes us quite dependent and can trap us in a difficult situation.
> 
> I don't "hate" that vulnerability. I embrace it. For most of my adult life- to the extreme of not using BC. H and I practiced Quiver Full. I've been pregnant 11 times and have 8 surviving children.
> 
> I am extremely pro-life to the point that I am a "one issue" voter. Makes me very very sad that women have been led to assault to the very core of what it means to be uniquely woman and dispose of their own children in utero... Abortion is the ultimate embrace of androgyny and self rejection of femininity IMO.
> 
> So, rad-fem, I am *NOT!!!*


Blessings to you and your large family! Very refreshing to hear of other large families out there!! I did like feeling dependent on Dh when I was pregnant. It really brought out his tender side that showed me how much he cared. My dependency encouraged his protection I guess.


----------



## NobodySpecial

over20 said:


> Blessings to you and your large family! Very refreshing to hear of other large families out there!!


Big families are awesome! Though there are days that I think they are better for the kids than the parents. I think it was tough on my Mom. For us kids? Awesome! I love my sibs.


----------



## over20

True! It says a lot about a couple who can raise such a large family though......I love to watch 19 kids and counting! That marriage is very strong!!


----------



## NobodySpecial

over20 said:


> True! It says a lot about a couple who can raise such a large family though......I love to watch 19 kids and counting! That marriage is very strong!!


Is that a tv show? We don't have tv. The Duggars make me sick. Is that the same show? Claiming God's will while stitching your uterus back up so you can get more sponsors. Yah I think that is sick. Now THAT is pretty UN pc for this board I am starting to think. 

I would not necessarily agree that many children a strong marriage makes. I come from a long line of poor, religious families with many, many children. There are down sides. Health wrecked at young ages. Female children pressed into rearing of younger generations of kids. Marriage meant surviving another day with no forward thought. Pretty damned depressing.

We were lucky. My father got a college education through the GI bill. Later they scraped nickles for him to get an advanced degree that provided more security. Mom came from sort of money. (Back in the day when an Irish Catholic marrying a French Canadian Catholic was considered a "mixed marriage". His poor showing on the social front was a bit of a problem early in their marriage as well!) So she had education. 

Big families can be a huge blessing. But they are not the definition of a huge blessing. I get accused of being a robot. I am all about the outcome for the entire family. As I said, we got lucky. We have a very close family. But the outcome was different for many of my aunts and uncles, as well as greats and great greats. It does offer its own challenges.


----------



## over20

Yes it is a Tv show. We all have our own opinions on that lifestyle and that's fine. Just FYI, the father buys and sells residential anc commercial real estate and investments to support the family. They "buy used and save the rest" to stay out of debt. Regardless if it is Pc or not there are some families out there like that and that is fine. We all live differently.

True, some marriages are stronger with one or no children vs a lot of children.


----------



## ocotillo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Reading the alpha/beta line of discussion, I'm inclined to think that people are including a number of traits that aren't specific to alpha or beta. Hero behavior can be alpha or beta. The notion that an alpha is completely selfish at the expense of others is faulty stereotype.
> 
> We should not associate the traits of a good or bad person to either personality type. There are good and bad people who are alphas, and good and bad people who are betas. Further, the terms are relative, or at least, more of a sliding scale - most people are blend - a point on the scale. An alpha in one group may be a beta in another group... so I tend to think of it in a comparative sense: a person is "more alpha than" another person.
> 
> The differentiating characteristics of more alpha personalities are greater confidence - certainty regardless of situation (thus tendency toward greater risk taking, and the appearance of arrogance or c*ckiness), greater projection of energy (charisma that draws people to them), and greater leadership (they know who they are, what they want, and are decisive and direct).
> 
> Specifically, greed and selfishness are not a traits isolated to alpha behavior. A beta can be just as selfish as the popular perception of an alpha - but its expressed differently. The caretaking beta may appear selfless, yet his actions are motivated by a selfish payoff from having done them. The selfish beta helps in order to be rewarded or better perceived. An alpha, if he chooses to help, does so because he wants to for its own sake or expediency - taking care of HIS responsibilities - not to please or be rewarded. An alpha may very well be a defender of the weak and the direction he leads may take others into account, again, per his responsibility as a leader. They hold people accountable and don't shrink from confrontation or get worked up by it.
> 
> Being alpha does not mean thinking you're the only person who matters.


Yes. I think we're all using subtely different defintitions of basic terms

I'll dig out the article on heroism I was paraphrasing and give some direct quotes.


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> Big families are awesome! Though there are days that I think *they are better for the kids *than the parents. I think it was tough on my Mom. For us kids? Awesome! I love my sibs.


My kids are very close to each other and the older ones have frequently advocated for their younger sibs which has worked out well IMO, and grown me as a person and a parent.

While I think there has been some hurt in comparing their parents with helicopter parents, my kids are also remarkably independent and mature (Resident Assistants by sophomore year). 
NOT *my *kids: Millennials Now Bringing Their Parents Along On Job Interviews

When you have 8 kids, they are almost like a "union" negotiating for... better conditions. :yawn2:


----------



## Blonde

NobodySpecial said:


> =As I said, we got lucky. We have a very close family.


I wish we were closer 

But they ALL came home for Christmas. 

Please don't quote for privacy (I will delete, but just want to share the Christmas family pic)








​Several of them are interested in the west coast and the 21 yo (with the 6'4" Chinese fiance) was lobbying by telephone for H and I to consider it. I am so tired of this very very looooooooong cold winter this year!!! Another blizzard today


----------



## over20

I love your picture of your beautiful family!!!!!! How precious!!! They are all so very good looking!!!! You are such a great MOM!!


----------



## Conrad

Thanks for the pic Blonde.

Amazing stuff.

Are they good to each other?


----------



## jld

Yes, what a lovely family! And you are very pretty, Blonde!


----------



## Blonde

over20 said:


> I love your picture of your beautiful family!!!!!! How precious!!! They are all so very good looking!!!! You are such a great MOM!!


5 D, 3 S, 3 M + a fiance, and 1 grandchild + 1 in the oven

and a *very strong* blonde gene LOL--> my screen name.


----------



## Blonde

Conrad said:


> Thanks for the pic Blonde.
> 
> Amazing stuff.
> 
> Are they good to each other?


Why did my children turn out so good? | A Wife's Submission


----------



## over20

Blonde said:


> Why did my children turn out so good? | A Wife's Submission


I am so happy for you!! You have a lot of wisdom to pass unto us here on TAM as parents and wives in a marriage with a large family!!


----------



## jld

Did you write that article, Blonde? Okay, maybe it's obvious. 

Thanks for sharing it with us!


----------



## Blonde

jld said:


> Did you write that article, Blonde? Okay, maybe it's obvious.
> 
> Thanks for sharing it with us!


When I wrote that article, H was carrying on having an affair with the janitress behind my back 

Used to blog jld. ALL of it is my musing. Now TAM is my outlet (and a private FB group of a few GF's from another now defunct forum). I closed the blog but keep it up archived in hopes that it might help some other women who have been hurt by the "wife submission" cult of Christianity...

Sheesh I've taken this off topic, Ocotillo....

Sorry.


----------



## Conrad

Blonde said:


> When I wrote that article, H was carrying on having an affair with the janitress behind my back
> 
> Used to blog jld. ALL of it is my musing. Now TAM is my outlet (and a private FB group of a few GF's from another now defunct forum). I closed the blog but keep it up archived in hopes that it might help some other women who have been hurt by the "wife submission" cult of Christianity...
> 
> Sheesh I've taken this off topic, Ocotillo....
> 
> Sorry.


We'll live... so will Oco


----------



## FoodFrenzy

ocotillo said:


> In the Men's Clubhouse section there is a "sticky" entitled _The Man Up and Nice Guy Reference_ with a generous number of links.
> 
> I've spent some time reading what's freely available on the internet. It's interesting, but I have this one observation:
> 
> There is not one woman I know who would agree with any of it. This includes my wife, my mother, my sisters, and my best friend growing up. And these are not uneducated women --not by a long shot.
> 
> Most would find the greater implications and ideology extremely offensive, but then every single one of them is a feminist to the core.
> 
> So I'm genuinely curious. What do the women of TAM think? Do you accept the starting premises as valid? Are you comfortable with all the implications?


I haven't read the books, but I have been looking into the other references available online. As a woman, I am a little torn on them, but overall agree with the general outcome they are trying to promote.

I also consider myself a feminist. However, one of my biggest problems with modern feminism is that, just like when it comes to race-equality, gender-equality seems to want to equate "equal" with "the same." But men and women aren't the same. That isn't to say there aren't outliers, but in general, women tend to have certain tendencies, and men different tendencies. I think true gender equality can only occur when we honor and respect gender differences.

In general, (straight) women like strong, confident men. Unfortunately, I feel like modern feminism, in its attempt to make everything "equal" has lost sight of the strengths of men and women, and therefore has homogonized our culture in such a way that it is damaging. Men are afraid to say what they want for fear of being a macho ---holes, and I don't think most men have a clear picture of their role in society anymore. Women are afraid to vulnerable and show weakness because they are somehow expected to be everything now - soft caring mothers, sexual goddess wives, and hardened, assertive professionals. 

Traditional gender roles were unequal, but that was due to a lack of RESPECT for women. I don't think a woman should have to act like a man to be respected and valued. I like being treated like a lady... and I like men who feel secure enough in themselves to be brave and confident and say what they want. I don't think there's any harm in that.


----------



## jld

I totally agree, FoodFrenzy. What was lacking was men's respect for women. If men had always respected women, there would never have needed to be a feminist movement.

But it was not like that. Howard Zinn told, in his autobiography, that during the Civil Riots Movement of the 50s and 60s here in America, Black men and women would go and protest during the day. But then, at night, when they were both tired, the men would still expect the women to make dinner and do the laundry and other household chores. 

So when some of the gains in civil rights were made, the women went to help with the feminist rights movement. Their work was not done, you know?

But it would not have had to be like that. Men could have been considerate. They could have treated women the way they would have liked to be treated.

Maybe that, to me, is the concern with MMSL. Is it treating women the way the men would like to be treated if they were female? I think the part about making your wife jealous sounds awful. I am already insecure. I would fall apart if my husband did something like that, actually seeking to make me jealous. And I would see it as a sign of insecurity, which is not appealing to me at all.

Again, I recommend The Way of the Superior Man. Much healthier, much wiser, much more wholesome, imo. If you can get past the New Agey feel.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> Maybe that, to me, is the concern with MMSL. Is it treating women the way the men would like to be treated if they were female? I think the part about making your wife jealous sounds awful. I am already insecure. I would fall apart if my husband did something like that, actually seeking to make me jealous. And I would see it as a sign of insecurity, which is not appealing to me at all.


It would backfire royally if a man tried that sh*t with me.I already have a "if you wanna go then go" mindset when it comes to keeping people in my life.Mindf**k style games like the jealousy bit would really cause that part of me to surface in a big way. In the end,he'd likely end up being the insecure one.

I have healthy jealousy.Just a little touch goes a long way with my husband.Sometimes I'll make a big deal out of a woman checking him out just to make him feel good even if I'm feeling no jealousy at all. Works every time,he gets a little extra enthusiasm in his step and I can tell he's feeling good. The best part,he doesn't have to create scenarios or play games in order to make me jealous.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blonde, you've got a very beautiful family!

Thanks for posting that pic.

It reminds me of SA's and GTDad's families. I love large families because our family is very large,lol.
We were also very close knit, but many migrated all over the world to take up jobs.

It's a very beautiful pic, but which one is Blondie?


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> It would backfire royally if a man tried that sh*t with me. *I already have a "if you wanna go then go" mindset when it comes to keeping people in my life.*Mindf**k style games like the jealousy bit would really cause that part of me to surface in a big way. In the end,he'd likely end up being the insecure one.


I think that is very healthy. I would like to get there.

I will twist myself into a pretzel to keep people in my life, even apologizing for things I did not do just to keep the peace. It is ridiculous. It is so needy. I am so ridiculously scared of conflict, and feel such attachment to people.

And what is sad, is that because of my fear of losing people, of feeling the sadness when that happens, I will not tell them what I really think. And that for sure is not healthy, feeling scared into quietness. We all learn when everyone speaks freely. At least we know where everyone stands that way.

Dh does not take advantage of this, though. I think the one place in life I am secure is in my marriage. And it is really all thanks to the character of my husband.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> It's a very beautiful pic, but which one is Blondie?


Lol! I had to ask myself that same question last night!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> I think that is very healthy. I would like to get there.
> 
> I will twist myself into a pretzel to keep people in my life, even apologizing for things I did not do just to keep the peace. It is ridiculous. It is so needy. I am so ridiculously scared of conflict, and feel such attachment to people.
> 
> And what is sad, is that because of my fear of losing people, of feeling the sadness when that happens, I will not tell them what I really think. And that for sure is not healthy, feeling scared into quietness. We all learn when everyone speaks freely. At least we know where everyone stands that way.
> 
> Dh does not take advantage of this, though. I think the one place in life I am secure is in my marriage. And it is really all thanks to the character of my husband.


I still have my moments like that.It still eats at me inside when people choose to leave my life bc I won't accept their abuse. I wish they'd just stop and think about what they're doing before they close the book and walk away. 

But the only thing that comforts me is knowing if they really loved me they wouldn't play games and they wouldn't punish me with their absence just bc I spoke my feelings.


----------



## Conrad

ScarletBegonias said:


> I still have my moments like that.It still eats at me inside when people choose to leave my life bc I won't accept their abuse. I wish they'd just stop and think about what they're doing before they close the book and walk away.
> 
> But the only thing that comforts me is knowing if they really loved me they wouldn't play games and they wouldn't punish me with their absence just bc I spoke my feelings.


Just be careful to eliminate the word "you" from your vocabulary.

"I'm really disappointed with how that turned out"

vs.

"You really screwed that up"

Makes all the difference in the world, even if it means the same thing.


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> I still have my moments like that.It still eats at me inside when people choose to leave my life bc I won't accept their abuse. I wish they'd just stop and think about what they're doing before they close the book and walk away.
> 
> But the only thing that comforts me is knowing if they really loved me they wouldn't play games and they wouldn't punish me with their absence just bc I spoke my feelings.


I don't think I will be healthy until I can stand alone, and bear the loneliness. I hate to be alone. I feel so scared and sad when I am alone. And there is at least a small part of me that thinks if I am alone, it is because I was wrong somehow and everybody else was right.

You are right to just let people walk away from you. It is the best. It takes so much courage, though, to be willing to do that, to not reach out and beg them to stay. I think so, anyway. It is respecting them, and letting them feel the consequences of their choices, too.

But it is so painful. So painful when I truly love them. But I just cannot force people to love me back. And I wish I did not have a need for approval.

Sheesh, I better stop emoting here.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Conrad said:


> Just be careful to eliminate the word "you" from your vocabulary.
> 
> "I'm really disappointed with how that turned out"
> 
> vs.
> 
> "You really screwed that up"
> 
> Makes all the difference in the world, even if it means the same thing.


"I feel" statements are good too. Works wonders when communicating w/DH. "I feel sad when this happens..." 

My mother is VERY big on "You" statements.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> I don't think I will be healthy until I can stand alone, and bear the loneliness. I hate to be alone. I feel so scared and sad when I am alone. And there is at least a small part of me that thinks if I am alone, it is because I was wrong somehow and everybody else was right.
> 
> You are right to just let people walk away from you. It is the best. It takes so much courage, though, to be willing to do that, to not reach out and beg them to stay. I think so, anyway. It is respecting them, and letting them feel the consequences of their choices, too.
> 
> But it is so painful. So painful when I truly love them. But I just cannot force people to love me back. And I wish I did not have a need for approval.
> 
> Sheesh, I better stop emoting here.


I feel like everyone has this struggle to one degree or another.Most people seek approval and need it. I guess it's just helpful to learn how to balance that need so you don't end up holding your thoughts and feelings hostage in order to get that approval.


----------



## Conrad

ScarletBegonias said:


> "I feel" statements are good too. Works wonders when communicating w/DH. "I feel sad when this happens..."
> 
> My mother is VERY big on "You" statements.


Many moms are.


----------



## WyshIknew

Mrs Wysh is a "You always do this."

"You never do this."

Like a red rag to a bull for me, always gets her a mouthful of 'abuse'.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I've been trying for years to eliminate the "you always" and "you never" sentences from my vocab when I get too angry and flustered to communicate like an adult. Getting pretty good at keeping them out of the conversation but it's difficult.

It's tough to keep those inside in the heat of the moment.


----------



## WyshIknew

Yeah I know she is just venting and what she means is "You often forget"

But two tired people do not make a good mix at times!


----------



## jld

Conrad said:


> Many moms are.


Sadly.


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> I've been trying for years to eliminate the "you always" and "you never" sentences from my vocab when I get too angry and flustered *to communicate like an adult. *Getting pretty good at keeping them out of the conversation but it's difficult.
> 
> It's tough to keep those inside in the heat of the moment.


This is a challenge for me with dh. I just let it all hang out with him, because he doesn't hold anything against me. He forgives everything, because, he says, "I hear your words, but I know your heart."

Now that is nice of him, but so often, if I would just take a step back, and calm myself, and really think about whatever I am getting mad about, from his perspective, I would probably not blow up. 

Instead, I could say, Help me understand why you said that, or did that, or whatever has me all provoked. And I bet if I would do that, whatever he did that made me mad would suddenly seem perfectly reasonable. 

But since I don't take the time to do that, I just throw a fit. And then I have to recover from it. 

Even if dh doesn't get hung up on that stuff, and just accepts it as part of life with jld, it would not have to be that way. Maybe. If I could discipline myself to seek to understand first, and not just emote first.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> Even if dh doesn't get hung up on that stuff, and just accepts it as part of life with jld, it would not have to be that way. Maybe. If I could discipline myself to seek to understand first, and not just emote first.


That was part of my bpd therapy. learning to think and understand the feelings first,make sure it's reality based,then share if needed.


----------



## ocotillo

FoodFrenzy said:


> Traditional gender roles were unequal, but that was due to a lack of RESPECT for women.


I don't disagree with a word you said, but would ask a few questions: Why do you think this lack of respect existed? Do you think it was it just a vague feeling or was it justified in various ways? 

Have you ever read anti-suffrage arguments from the 19th century explaining why women would be unable to make rational voting decisions? Have you ever read any of the ancient myths explaining how women like Eve, Pandora, Helen of Troy, etc., brought catastrophe on whole groups of people? 

There is a common theme in all of this stuff: That women don't have a huge amount of respect for abstract principle and when it comes to a tug of war between principle and feelings, the latter is going to win out.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

On MMSL promotion of jealousy, its important to keep in mind the situation where it is meant to be applied. The woman in the scenario has lost the hots for her husband and is in the detaching process. She has no jealousy because she can't see much value in him anymore. A little jealousy is healthy imo. It can drive us to avoid neglecting our partner and actively work to maintain the relationship.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> I don't disagree with a word you said, but would ask a few questions: Why do you think this lack of respect existed? Do you think it was it just a vague feeling or was it justified in various ways?
> 
> Have you ever read anti-suffrage arguments from the 19th century explaining why women would be unable to make rational voting decisions? Have you ever read any of the ancient myths explaining how women like Eve, Pandora, Helen of Troy, etc., brought catastrophe on whole groups of people?
> 
> There is a common theme in all of this stuff: That women don't have a huge amount of respect for abstract principle and when it comes to a tug of war between principle and feelings, the latter is going to win out.


The outcome I like most about the feminist movement is the social habit of judging people based on their own qualities and characteristics. The notion that women, as a group, cannot think in practical terms and are governed solely by feelings has been demonstrated to be patently false in the same way it has been demonstrated that they can have varying degrees of ability in math and science just like any male. 

I think that in things like politics and the work place, this goes over largely well. Can this person do this job? Skill in those areas is fairly easily demonstrated. It does not translate well to relationship solutions because people desperately want to categorize behaviors and attitudes based on gender. I think there ARE things that are biologically gender specific, clearly. But, to quote Barbosa, those are guidelines more than actual rules.

It gets old to read over and over all the things that I supposedly am because I'm a woman. All objective evidence to the contrary. But since I am female, I apparently cannot see the objective evidence so awash in emotions as I am!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> On MMSL promotion of jealousy, its important to keep in mind the situation where it is meant to be applied. The woman in the scenario has lost the hots for her husband and is in the detaching process. She has no jealousy because she can't see much value in him anymore. A little jealousy is healthy imo. It can drive us to avoid neglecting our partner and actively work to maintain the relationship.


I understand that.I think I have trouble seeing how it would work.Too much of being in my own head most likely.

If I didn't see much value in a man and lost the hots for him,I welcome him having other women flocking so he wouldn't hurt as badly when I left him. That's how I felt about my ex. When he started talking about other women being interested in him my first thought was "good for him!"

It's tough to realize there are women who feel their attraction rekindled just bc other women are interested in the man.


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> If I didn't see much value in a man and lost the hots for him,I welcome him having other women flocking *so he wouldn't hurt as badly when I left him. *


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I love that!!!


----------



## naiveonedave

SB - It works, been there and have seen it. Mrs. Naive totally changed in the 2 minutes she was gone to the restroom and a woman I didn't know started chatting to me. I was oblivious t9 the attention and did nothing to start or maintain it, but it made her jealous, very obviously so and go her to initiate the 1st time in over a year.....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> I understand that.I think I have trouble seeing how it would work.Too much of being in my own head most likely.
> 
> If I didn't see much value in a man and lost the hots for him,I welcome him having other women flocking so he wouldn't hurt as badly when I left him. That's how I felt about my ex. When he started talking about other women being interested in him my first thought was "good for him!"
> 
> It's tough to realize there are women who feel their attraction rekindled just bc other women are interested in the man.


Its a psychological value play. The tendency to want what is prized by others. Its often used by marketing. 10 out of 10 people like Superflakes!! Social pressure - "this is cool, that sucks" - small influences on your opinion.

Its not so much that the goal is to make someone feel the negative vibes of jealousy, as it is to demonstrate that other people are interested - and there's a reason. In certain circumstances, it can remind one of the why that person has appeal, and trigger a little bit of... "wait, he's/she's mine" and some competitiveness. It can address complacency.

Not precise, but one parallel I've experienced is when I've been talking to a girl and I begin to notice one-sided conversations. I'm seeking to talk to her, but she's not seeking me. Invariably, I stop initiating contact, go about doing what I do without her... and after a little while of not talking much, she's suddenly all about me again and it smells of jealousy - like she has the feeling I must be talking to someone else. Whatever her thoughts on it were, my dialing down contact and doing things without her seems to drive her to pursue me again. She's now calling me, she's texting me first, her number of texts skyrockets in relation to mine etc. I've experienced this over and over. If I'm being dismissed, I cut way back on contact, keep my texts very short and to the point, and go out with other people. Then all of a sudden they want to talk to me a lot again.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> SB - It works, been there and have seen it. Mrs. Naive totally changed in the 2 minutes she was gone to the restroom and a woman I didn't know started chatting to me. I was oblivious t9 the attention and did nothing to start or maintain it, but it made her jealous, very obviously so and go her to initiate the 1st time in over a year.....


But you were not trying to make that happen, dave. MMSL seems to actively encourage it.

Okay, I'll admit, it is probably good for some of us to see other women express admiration for our men. I know I have a tendency to take mine for granted.

It does kind of scare me how admiring other women are of dh. But I trust him _completely_. And _he_ is the one I would hold accountable if anything untoward happened.


----------



## jld

But DA8, don't you want her to talk to you just because she's into you, just for yourself?

I am drawn to dh. I know other people say good things about him, but that is not what keeps me with him, fundamentally. It is him, himself.

Isn't that what you want from a woman?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its a psychological value play. The tendency to want what is prized by others. Its often used by marketing. 10 out of 10 people like Superflakes!! Social pressure - "this is cool, that sucks" - small influences on your opinion.
> 
> Its not so much that the goal is to make someone feel the negative vibes of jealousy, as it is to demonstrate that other people are interested - and there's a reason. In certain circumstances, it can remind one of the why that person has appeal, and trigger a little bit of... "wait, he's/she's mine" and some competitiveness. It can address complacency.
> 
> Not precise, but one parallel I've experienced is when I've been talking to a girl and I begin to notice one-sided conversations. I'm seeking to talk to her, but she's not seeking me. Invariably, I stop initiating contact, go about doing what I do without her... and after a little while of not talking much, she's suddenly all about me again and it smells of jealousy - like she has the feeling I must be talking to someone else. Whatever her thoughts on it were, my dialing down contact and doing things without her seems to drive her to pursue me again. She's now calling me, she's texting me first, her number of texts skyrockets in relation to mine etc. I've experienced this over and over. If I'm being dismissed, I cut way back on contact, keep my texts very short and to the point, and go out with other people. Then all of a sudden they want to talk to me a lot again.


It makes it seem like those women are borderlines  Back away and they fall over themselves getting you to return.


----------



## naiveonedave

Yes, but the concept is the same. if I really needed help or things were going slow, maybe some would have initiated more. 

I won't do that, I feel its wrong. But the concept is the same. Newly married men see this all the time, I forget the term, but I agree that women, in general, follow what other women do. So newly married men, get attention from women.


----------



## naiveonedave

the key here, is that the current man has a not so interested woman. Jealousy is an avenue to make her interested again, and it works. Maybe not in all cases, but I have seen it work for me and for other guys.

And it can be abused, no doubt about it.


----------



## jld

But permanently, dave?


----------



## Blonde

ocotillo said:


> I don't disagree with a word you said, but would ask a few questions: Why do you think this lack of respect existed? Do you think it was it just a vague feeling or was it justified in various ways?
> 
> Have you ever read anti-suffrage arguments from the 19th century explaining why women would be unable to make rational voting decisions? Have you ever read any of the ancient myths explaining how women like Eve, Pandora, Helen of Troy, etc., brought catastrophe on whole groups of people?
> 
> There is a common theme in all of this stuff: That women don't have a huge amount of respect for abstract principle and when it comes to a tug of war between principle and feelings, the latter is going to win out.


Women tend to be more oriented toward relationship. Adam was "alone" Eve was created in relationship and has never been without it.

Only women get pregnant and birth children. Females (not just human females) have maternal instincts which involve self sacrifice and caretaking. 

Women tend to go for more collaborative/relational solutions than physical aggression/war

My perspective on Eve was reformed by reading Katherine Bushnell, btw.

Instead of viewing the consideration of feelings with contempt, I think some men might benefit by learning from their women.


----------



## naiveonedave

I think that using jealousy as a ploy after things are 'back on track' is akin to manipulation. I won't seek it, I will operate within our boundaries, but I won't flat out not talk to other females. If that makes sense?

Getting the back on track is a good use of it, imo.....


----------



## jld

Blonde said:


> Instead of viewing the consideration of feelings with contempt, I think some men might benefit by learning from their women.


:iagree:


----------



## Racer

ScarletBegonias said:


> If I didn't see much value in a man and lost the hots for him,I welcome him having other women flocking so he wouldn't hurt as badly when I left him. That's how I felt about my ex. When he started talking about other women being interested in him my first thought was "good for him!".


On the flip side of that though are all those women who stay for the various reasons like the financial, good father, not a bad person... they just aren't attracted to him in a romantic sense. My wife is like that. So it's sort of back in my hands to up my attraction...

And since she's one of those 'mine' people who also tends to be competitive and covet what others are trying to win... Adding a skootch of jealousy by letting her witness other women showing signs of interest is not a bad thing at all. It's still all about her own ego, but it puts a slightly new perspective in there that I'm some sort of prize she doesn't want anyone else to win. 

I don't tell her or brag that other women hit on me like I'm trying to do it intentionally. I simply allow other women around me and make them laugh with her present. I don't know if they are interested or not (sort of blind to that stuff), but my wife claims she can tell... and that's the point. Only she has to see it as some sort of threat whether that's real or imagined.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

naiveonedave said:


> women, in general, follow what other women do. So newly married men, get attention from women.


It stings a little knowing a generalization of females is we follow each other blindly like this.

The concept of wanting a man more just bc other women want him seems so foreign from where I'm sitting.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I think that using jealousy as a ploy after things are 'back on track' is akin to manipulation. I won't seek it, I will operate within our boundaries, but I won't flat out not talk to other females. If that makes sense?
> 
> Getting the back on track is a good use of it, imo.....


I think it would be cruelty, not manipulation. Of course you should talk to other females. We learn a lot from people of the opposite sex.

I guess I would just rather see attraction be internal, rather than relying on external sources. Jmo. And thanks for your response.


----------



## Racer

Racer said:


> I simply allow other women around me and make them laugh with her present..


Which brings back why the hell a married man would be reading a pua book. As a complete introvert, just talking to others was a problem. Insecurities, 'will they like me', sort of stuff. Those books and ones like NMMNG help you get past that so you don't feel like a fool just mingling thus allowing your fears to keep you from talking.. and just sitting there like some weird observer. I'm actually pretty good with a crowd now...

jld.. notice you've read Superior Man. Any good? I got it, just never read it.


----------



## Racer

ScarletBegonias said:


> It stings a little knowing a generalization of females is we follow each other blindly like this.
> 
> The concept of wanting a man more just bc other women want him seems so foreign from where I'm sitting.


It's not gender specific or even just people. Guys do that a lot too. So and so got a new __(boat, car, gun, house, etc.)__ then you look at your rundown pos and envy his stuff. I've seen my wife do that over fashion, jobs, etc. too. Sort of your own little competition against "them" to "win"....


----------



## sinnister

Lost in all of this is the end result. I'm the type that likes to know they why sometimes, if only to prevent the end result from happening again in the future.

But on the whole the why doesnt matter if you're a man sitting in relationship misery. The HOW you're going to turn it around does.

I'm willing to bet just based on this forum alone, that the men that use NMMNG and MMSLP are happier in their relationships than a guy like me who does not use them. That's the bottom line. 

I don't think any woman is really wrong to think that somehow these readings are detrimental to how women are portrayed. But does it matter? I'm not trying to be a jerk. Does it really matter? Based on the intended purpose of the material, it doesn't matter. The material is designed to take men who place the idea of woman above everything else in their lives so much so that it causes women to recoil from them - and make these men see that they are seeing things the wrong way.

The ideals of how men should be viewed are rampant throughout literature designed for the female audience. The more money the man makes, the more abs he has, the more he cooks and cleans, and gives you a break from the kids the better man he is. To me, that has nothing to do with being a good man but I'm not going to get bent out of shape because that stuff is out there. It's not geared towards me.

So nobody is saying your opinion is wrong. It's probably right. This is one of those rare times where competing opinions are justifiable. People wouldn't be reading if there weren't merits. (Even though I don't read/follow them myself).


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Racer said:


> It's not gender specific or even just people. Guys do that a lot too. So and so got a new __(boat, car, gun, house, etc.)__ then you look at your rundown pos and envy his stuff. I've seen my wife do that over fashion, jobs, etc. too. Sort of your own little competition against "them" to "win"....


True,very true. I guess that competitive nature is how progress happens so while some parts are obnoxious (ie:keeping up w/the Jones'/hey that chick wants him so I gotta have him,etc) other parts are actually useful. 

It also explains why I'm struggling to understand it.I'm not competitive.


----------



## jld

Racer said:


> jld.. notice you've read Superior Man. Any good? I got it, just never read it.


I'm only about half way through it, but I love what I have read so far. Highly recommended.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

sinnister said:


> I don't think any woman is really wrong to think that somehow these readings are detrimental to how women are portrayed. But does it matter? I'm not trying to be a jerk. Does it really matter? Based on the intended purpose of the material, it doesn't matter. The material is designed to take men who place the idea of woman above everything else in their lives so much so that it causes women to recoil from them - and make these men see that they are seeing things the wrong way.
> 
> The ideals of how men should be viewed are rampant throughout literature designed for the female audience. The more money the man makes, the more abs he has, the more he cooks and cleans, and gives you a break from the kids the better man he is. To me, that has nothing to do with being a good man but I'm not going to get bent out of shape because that stuff is out there. It's not geared towards me.
> 
> So nobody is saying your opinion is wrong. It's probably right. This is one of those rare times where competing opinions are justifiable. People wouldn't be reading if there weren't merits. (Even though I don't read/follow them myself).


Doesn't it make you wonder why people can't rise above those things though? Why do we continue accepting literature that tells us our man/woman is only good if he/she does xyz? 

I am not one who has gotten offended by the books.I haven't read them bc I don't want to become offended...which is inevitable since I'd be reading it from a female viewpoint  I hope whatever is in the books isn't geared toward taking the niceness,sweetness and kindness out of the nice guys bc that's the best part of a good man,to me.


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> I hope whatever is in the books isn't geared toward taking the niceness,sweetness and kindness out of the nice guys bc that's the best part of a good man,to me.


:iagree:


----------



## Racer

ScarletBegonias said:


> True,very true. I guess that competitive nature is how progress happens so while some parts are obnoxious (ie:keeping up w/the Jones'/hey that chick wants him so I gotta have him,etc) other parts are actually useful.
> 
> It also explains why I'm struggling to understand it.I'm not competitive.


I'm also not really very competitive at least on a materialistic level. But I do find myself envious on that 'experiences' type stuff. Think bucket list of regrets of things you haven't done or tried or passed on that "they did"... 

To slip it back into NMMNG, it tries to help guys to 'go for it' on that stuff too and stop talking themselves out of it. So taking two weeks unpaid off work and going to Panama as a hurricane relief volunteer isn't the end of the world. All those excuses for why you shouldn't are softened; Your wife won't really hate you (probably be a bit mad though), your job probably won't disappear, and so on. 

NG's spend a lot of time in future damage control mode by foreseeing all this possible negatives; Thus trying to avoid them and in the process, doing absolutely nothing in their lives because it is the 'safe path'.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Racer said:


> I'm also not really very competitive at least on a materialistic level. But I do find myself envious on that 'experiences' type stuff. Think bucket list of regrets of things you haven't done or tried or passed on that "they did"...
> 
> To slip it back into NMMNG, it tries to help guys to 'go for it' on that stuff too and stop talking themselves out of it. So taking two weeks unpaid off work and going to Panama as a hurricane relief volunteer isn't the end of the world. All those excuses for why you shouldn't are softened; Your wife won't really hate you (probably be a bit mad though), your job probably won't disappear, and so on.
> 
> NG's spend a lot of time in future damage control mode by foreseeing all this possible negatives; Thus trying to avoid them and in the process, doing absolutely nothing in their lives because it is the 'safe path'.


Well that is the most positive explanation I've read thus far. Thank you for that


----------



## naiveonedave

SB - the jealousy follower thing is a generalization. It does not apply to all woman or all the time, but, in my experience, can be useful to help a married man get his wife to be turned on by him more than has been occuring in the recent past. 

I think men and woman are more driven by their hormones and stuff than we give credit too...


----------



## naiveonedave

jld - I agree, internal would be best, but if that ain't getting it done, jealousy is an option that can be used and there is enough proof it works. My example a few pages back shocked me when it happened. I don't think my wife even knew why she did what she did. But she clearly marked her turf, so to speak.


----------



## Conrad

naiveonedave said:


> jld - I agree, internal would be best, but if that ain't getting it done, jealousy is an option that can be used and there is enough proof it works. My example a few pages back shocked me when it happened. I don't think my wife even knew why she did what she did. But she clearly marked her turf, so to speak.


Watch what they actually do - not what they say.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> jld - I agree, internal would be best, but if that ain't getting it done, jealousy is an option that can be used and there is enough proof it works. My example a few pages back shocked me when it happened. I don't think my wife even knew why she did what she did. But she clearly marked her turf, so to speak.


Well, maybe human nature just does not allow for us to shoot for the best at all times. Sometimes just keeping things together temporarily by questionable measures gives us time to reflect on what we really want.

Sheesh, I sound like your lawyer, dave.


----------



## jld

Conrad said:


> Watch what they actually do - not what they say.


It just _pains me_ to admit that there is some truth to this.


----------



## Conrad

jld said:


> It just _pains me_ to admit that there is some truth to this.


jld,

I've been called misogynistic for posting that from time to time.

How many pathetic beaten men have I seen type the following line, "I had no idea she was still upset about X... and the problems were oh so fixable"

Well, yes.. the problems likely were fixable.

But, they likely aren't even close to what she said they were.

The main problem is almost always that she has lost attraction and respect for her husband.

And, yes, it can be fixed.

But, it WILL NOT be fixed by him listening better and trying to "make up" for some slight that happened years ago.

THAT will make him appear even more weak.... and he's likely already done plenty of that.


----------



## sinnister

ScarletBegonias said:


> Doesn't it make you wonder why people can't rise above those things though? Why do we continue accepting literature that tells us our man/woman is only good if he/she does xyz?
> 
> I am not one who has gotten offended by the books.I haven't read them bc I don't want to become offended...which is inevitable since I'd be reading it from a female viewpoint  I hope whatever is in the books isn't geared toward taking the niceness,sweetness and kindness out of the nice guys bc that's the best part of a good man,to me.


The literature is saying that for these men, the characteristics that make them sweet are what is killing them in their relationships. Some men can temper being sweet with having a backbone. These men cannot.

That is the difference. The literature is telling these men what they need to hear. Some of us don't need to be bludgeoned to death over the head with these words. These men do.


----------



## Conrad

sinnister said:


> The literature is saying that for these men, the characteristics that make them sweet are what is killing them in their relationships. Some men can temper being sweet with having a backbone. These men cannot.
> 
> That is the difference. The literature is telling these men what they need to hear. Some of us don't need to be bludgeoned to death over the head with these words. These men do.


I had an example today.

Previously, I'd have taken an hour at work to solve her problem... simply because she doesn't want to deal with it.

Not acceptable.

If she wants me to make this kind of thing go away, I need access to the checking account and funds necessary to make the decisions.

In other words, I need the authority.

AND... she needs to give it to me after thinking about it. Not simply because "something" is bothering her.


----------



## Tron

Conrad said:


> I had an example today.
> 
> Previously, I'd have taken an hour at work to solve her problem... simply because she doesn't want to deal with it.
> 
> Not acceptable.
> 
> If she wants me to make this kind of thing go away, I need access to the checking account and funds necessary to make the decisions.
> 
> In other words, I need the authority.
> 
> AND... she needs to give it to me after thinking about it. Not simply because "something" is bothering her.


Wait a minute here!

Aren't you that guy with the W who came on here b1tching about how her man wouldn't support her and her kids from 2 previous M's in their house while you lived someplace else with yours? 

Are you telling us for all that, she wouldn't even let you sign on her checking account. I'm shocked!!!


----------



## heartsbeating

Feeling emotionally safe.... it took me time to recognize the part I played in the dynamic my husband and I had reached. Since capturing through posts, a few moments in time of his journey, I now look back and see many of the lessons were also mine to be had. We were mirroring each other but in ways I couldn't see at the time. He was just quicker on the up-take than me. 

I've been told that I have a strong personality and considered assertive - which has surprised me because I know that my tendency is to avoid confrontation. While I initially wrote in this thread about my husband setting boundaries for himself with my brother... turns out, I needed to do the same thing for myself. I think it's surprising how much of our identity can be attached to our FOO (Family Of Origin - discovered that term here after wondering what FooFighters had to do with all of this stuff), anyway so we begin to shake things up including the identity we have formed and that can be simultaneously scary, confronting and liberating. Perhaps the scariest thing (and one of the most freeing) was letting go of the outcome. When I started to behave and express differently with my FOO, I was doing so without expectation of them. There have been emotional and challenging moments as a result... but I haven't lost any sleep. And I guess I attribute that to knowing my thoughts, feelings and behaviors have been aligned. 

My husband and I assert more with each other. Sometimes it results in disagreements but overall, it's healthy and respectful. I didn't even realize that I used to shut-down. That's been something I have worked on... and he's helped me; we've helped each other. Over the past year I've expressed openly at work in ways I never have before. As a result, new experiences and growth occurred (including a slight promotion).

I feel emotionally safe with my husband. In part because he sets boundaries, expectations, expresses his needs etc. (while still being a good guy), and I trust that; I can be vulnerable and there's support to grow. While marriage isn't needed for this to happen, it's pretty cool that it can. 

I'm learning to give less of a damn of what people think - to align those thoughts, feelings and actions, regardless of outcome. Without having read the books mentioned, to me that's the element of selfishness that isn't really selfish. There's still room for grace, empathy, compassion and consideration within relationships. In a nutshell, it's much easier to avoid all this sh*t than have to deal with it... but dealing with it is much more rewarding. Or something like that.


----------



## Conrad

heartsbeating said:


> Feeling emotionally safe.... it took me time to recognize the part I played in the dynamic my husband and I had reached. Since capturing through posts, a few moments in time of his journey, I now look back and see many of the lessons were also mine to be had. We were mirroring each other but in ways I couldn't see at the time. He was just quicker on the up-take than me.
> 
> I've been told that I have a strong personality and considered assertive - which has surprised me because I know that my tendency is to avoid confrontation. While I initially wrote in this thread about my husband setting boundaries for himself with my brother... turns out, I needed to do the same thing for myself. I think it's surprising how much of our identity can be attached to our FOO (Family Of Origin - discovered that term here after wondering what FooFighters had to do with all of this stuff), anyway so we begin to shake things up including the identity we have formed and that can be simultaneously scary, confronting and liberating. Perhaps the scariest thing (and one of the most freeing) was letting go of the outcome. When I started to behave and express differently with my FOO, I was doing so without expectation of them. There have been emotional and challenging moments as a result... but I haven't lost any sleep. And I guess I attribute that to knowing my thoughts, feelings and behaviors have been aligned.
> 
> My husband and I assert more with each other. Sometimes it results in disagreements but overall, it's healthy and respectful. I didn't even realize that I used to shut-down. That's been something I have worked on... and he's helped me; we've helped each other. Over the past year I've expressed openly at work in ways I never have before. As a result, new experiences and growth occurred (including a slight promotion).
> 
> I feel emotionally safe with my husband. In part because he sets boundaries, expectations, expresses his needs etc. (while still being a good guy), and I trust that; I can be vulnerable and there's support to grow. While marriage isn't needed for this to happen, it's pretty cool that it can.
> 
> I'm learning to give less of a damn of what people think - to align those thoughts, feelings and actions, regardless of outcome. Without having read the books mentioned, to me that's the element of selfishness that isn't really selfish. There's still room for grace, empathy, compassion and consideration within relationships. In a nutshell, it's much easier to avoid all this sh*t than have to deal with it... but dealing with it is much more rewarding. Or something like that.


Sounds like you guys are making good time.

Progress makes everyone feel good - especially guys, as we've discussed.


----------



## ocotillo

Blonde said:


> Women tend to be more oriented toward relationship. Adam was "alone" Eve was created in relationship and has never been without it.
> 
> Only women get pregnant and birth children. Females (not just human females) have maternal instincts which involve self sacrifice and caretaking.
> 
> Women tend to go for more collaborative/relational solutions than physical aggression/war
> 
> My perspective on Eve was reformed by reading Katherine Bushnell, btw.
> 
> Instead of viewing the consideration of feelings with contempt, I think some men might benefit by learning from their women.


Excellent response.

I just want to be clear (In case I haven't been..) that the intent of this thread was not to pull the Henry Higgens, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" schtick. 

This thread was entirely the result of a conversation I had with my wife. We were sitting up in bed one night having one of those, "Look how long we've been married! What would we have done differently if we had known than what we know now" type of conversations.

I showed her some of the stuff I had been reading and things went from there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> I welcome him having other women flocking so he wouldn't hurt as badly when I left him.


Then it works out best for him either way, which is also a point of the book. It says if she still doesn't respond (ie has no desire to keep him), then he's set up well to find someone else.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> It makes it seem like those women are borderlines  Back away and they fall over themselves getting you to return.


I'm inclined to think some of bpd is like an amplified version of what all/most/many women feel. Dating one certainly brought a lot of behaviors into sharp focus.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm inclined to think some of bpd is like an amplified version of what all/most/many women feel. Dating one certainly brought a lot of behaviors into sharp focus.


Most behavior is on a continuum.

We are all capable of exhibiting those traits.

Emotionally mature people have them under better control.

Emotional trauma (at a young age) makes it extraordinarily difficult to get past that stuff.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm inclined to think some of bpd is like an amplified version of what all/most/many women feel.


Yes,this is true. That's why it's so easy for a borderline to justify their feelings and actions.The thoughts and actions are kinda normal but the extreme nature of those thoughts and actions are not.DH gets sucked into that trap sometimes when I tell him I'm feeling triggered and having a moment. "everyone feels that way when xyz happens sweetie.You're fine." uh,no.I'm not fine and it's not normal so stop enabling me LOL


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> But DA8, don't you want her to talk to you just because she's into you, just for yourself?
> 
> I am drawn to dh. I know other people say good things about him, but that is not what keeps me with him, fundamentally. It is him, himself.
> 
> Isn't that what you want from a woman?


I think attraction is more complex than that. Hence what I always refer to as "holding my value" or "not selling out" - doing otherwise appears needy/desperate/codependent and is unattractive regardless of other things about me.

As the idea goes, I should know she was into me - hence the relationship to begin with. Something of the dynamic of the relationship changed at the cost of attraction. Now what that is I don't know exactly, but I know that once I've introduced more distance, most of the time a girl would start putting out effort again. It reclaims my value and doesn't allow neglect. Paying attention to how much effort she's putting in has been a major focus of mine the last few years. I won't be with someone who places me on the backburner again.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> It stings a little knowing a generalization of females is we follow each other blindly like this.
> 
> The concept of wanting a man more just bc other women want him seems so foreign from where I'm sitting.


Yeah I can see the reason you wouldn't want to believe it, and I probably wouldn't believe it myself if I didn't ALWAYS experience more interest from women when I'm attached than when I'm not.

Its like women want to show they're better than whoever the guy is with. I don't know.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah I can see the reason you wouldn't want to believe it, and I probably wouldn't believe it myself if I didn't ALWAYS experience more interest from women when I'm attached than when I'm not.
> 
> Its like women want to show they're better than whoever the guy is with. I don't know.


oh I believe it,it just makes me  to know it's like this for lots of women.


----------



## Conrad

ScarletBegonias said:


> oh I believe it,it just makes me  to know it's like this for lots of women.


I sell my wife's lotion and body products to women at trade shows.

The biggest sales come when a group of women are shopping and you have the long silence then one pipes up and says, "I want one"

Then the discussions start as their natural competitiveness takes over as they work to please the salesguy.

At times, it has the feel of an auction.


----------



## Conrad

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think attraction is more complex than that. Hence what I always refer to as "holding my value" or "not selling out" - doing otherwise appears needy/desperate/codependent and is unattractive regardless of other things about me.
> 
> As the idea goes, I should know she was into me - hence the relationship to begin with. Something of the dynamic of the relationship changed at the cost of attraction. Now what that is I don't know exactly, but I know that once I've introduced more distance, most of the time a girl would start putting out effort again. It reclaims my value and doesn't allow neglect. Paying attention to how much effort she's putting in has been a major focus of mine the last few years. I won't be with someone who places me on the backburner again.


It seems to be part of the DNA to work at de-prioritizing the partner.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> uh,no.I'm not fine and it's not normal so stop enabling me LOL


omg would I have loved to have heard something like that. It was the hardest thing in the world to show empathy and not be an enabler of the exaggerated thoughts. It was like if I didn't enable and respond the way she sought, then I lacked empathy or worse - seemed dismissive and even controlling.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> omg would I have loved to have heard something like that. It was the hardest thing in the world to show empathy and not be an enabler of the exaggerated thoughts. It was like if I didn't enable and respond the way she sought, then I lacked empathy or worse - seemed dismissive and even controlling.


I now feel enabling is dismissive and lacking empathy.It doesn't show any real respect for how hard the bpd'er works to stay on track. 

Anyway,in relation to original topic, an untreated BPDer is a nice guy's worst enemy.  truth.


----------



## Conrad

ScarletBegonias said:


> I now feel enabling is dismissive and lacking empathy.It doesn't show any real respect for how hard the bpd'er works to stay on track.
> 
> Anyway,in relation to original topic, an untreated BPDer is a nice guy's worst enemy.  truth.


Enabling behavior is simply someone who wants to stay out of trouble and get what they want.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Conrad said:


> Enabling behavior is simply someone who wants to stay out of trouble and get what they want.


This isn't a parent/child relationship.No one gets in trouble. I think you misunderstand me when I say enabling. When I say it I mean he tries to soothe me while I'm upset by telling me it's ok for me to feel the way I feel bc it's normal. My upset isn't aimed at him.He's not in trouble and he usually gets what he wants from me simply bc he's a good guy.


----------



## heartsbeating

GettingIt said:


> You'd see this woman on the chin up bar--I'm on it several times a week--and in the free weights section even more often! Getting strong is very empowering; the appeal is how it makes me feel far more than how it makes me look (okay, I'd be lying if I didn't admit I like that my husband finds it hot.)
> 
> Take a deep breath and jump in--and you won't be by yourself. ASK those buff guys for help. I've learned so much by talking to and watching others, and I've shared my knowledge with plenty of people in return. And when you do become and old hand in the free weights area, look for other women who seem like they might be interested, but are feeling intimidated, and see if you can shepherd them along.
> 
> Another thing that might help you feel less intimidated--spend time learning about body building online. There are a lot of good resources out there (including trainers, if you can afford one) that won't make it seem like you're starting "cold." Before I add in a new lift or exercise, I'll often watch some youtube videos of it being done.
> 
> I'm the only woman at my gym who does olympic lifts--but adding them in has seriously upped my game. I recommend them!
> 
> Sorry for the hijack--glad to know other gals out there like strength training!


I had to return to your post to declare I FINALLY DID IT!! 

Not being familiar with this gym, I asked reception to point me in the direction of where things were. She mentioned the change rooms, the studios, and where I could find Body Pump. I thanked her but said I was after the free-weights area instead (haha... *gulp*). And there it was. A sea of machines and weights and dudes. 

I walked towards the area and almost detoured to the Body Pump class at the last minute. But I was determined to do this. With my planned work-out on a sheet of paper, I started looking to the equipment needed. Then, I spotted a female trainer so approached her for help and she walked me around and showed me what was where. I was so thankful. 

Then... I got to it. No big deal. 

Time for hyper-extensions. There was a guy in his 40s sitting behind this, all of a couple of feet away, resting. I walked up and he looked to me. Realizing how close this was, I played out a humorous dialogue real quick in my head and recognized that would only add to how I was feeling and/or be misinterpreted. Maybe I ought to just say 'excuse me'...? and by now I've over-thought the whole thing, so instead, I put my towel down, said nothing and did the exercise. The first few times, I could almost feel myself blushing upon seeing his feet and legs from my upside down facing backwards position, knowing full well my booty was in his immediate and close line of vision. Decided to concentrate on my goals and forget about him sitting there. Finished the set, then back to my squats. I'd like to think it was coincidental that he set up next to me for push-ups. Or perhaps I was just noticing because of feeling awkward. Back to hyper-extensions again. This time, thankfully, without anyone sitting directly behind me. 

I know that sometimes I'm a ridiculous person... but nonetheless, I did it! No doubt it will get easier from here.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Man up & Nice Guy - What Do The Women Think?*



heartsbeating said:


> I had to return to your post to declare I FINALLY DID IT!!
> 
> Not being familiar with this gym, I asked reception to point me in the direction of where things were. She mentioned the change rooms, the studios, and where I could find Body Pump. I thanked her but said I was after the free-weights area instead (haha... *gulp*). And there it was. A sea of machines and weights and dudes.
> 
> I walked towards the area and almost detoured to the Body Pump class at the last minute. But I was determined to do this. With my planned work-out on a sheet of paper, I started looking to the equipment needed. Then, I spotted a female trainer so approached her for help and she walked me around and showed me what was where. I was so thankful.
> 
> Then... I got to it. No big deal.
> 
> Time for hyper-extensions. There was a guy in his 40s sitting behind this, all of a couple of feet away, resting. I walked up and he looked to me. Realizing how close this was, I played out a humorous dialogue real quick in my head and recognized that would only add to how I was feeling and/or be misinterpreted. Maybe I ought to just say 'excuse me'...? and by now I've over-thought the whole thing, so instead, I put my towel down, said nothing and did the exercise. The first few times, I could almost feel myself blushing upon seeing his feet and legs from my upside down facing backwards position, knowing full well my booty was in his immediate and close line of vision. Decided to concentrate on my goals and forget about him sitting there. Finished the set, then back to my squats. I'd like to think it was coincidental that he set up next to me for push-ups. Or perhaps I was just noticing because of feeling awkward. Back to hyper-extensions again. This time, thankfully, without anyone sitting directly behind me.
> 
> I know that sometimes I'm a ridiculous person... but nonetheless, I did it! No doubt it will get easier from here.


Congrats! Now you need to start working on your grimmace, and grunting.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> Congrats! Now you need to start working on your grimmace, and grunting.


Ha! :smthumbup:


----------

