# Married Man Sex Life Primer (AKA MMSLP) and you.



## Hardtohandle (Jan 10, 2013)

Just started reading this book

I understand why everyone who read this book now says weightlifting and getting in shape is helpful. 

I just started reading the book yesterday, I'm on page 79, part 6.10 ( no quick fix ). 

For those that don't know 
From what I am reading now and understand it talks about Alpha and Beta Traits and what to do, to improve those traits. 

It also goes into a simple point rating system, like many guys and girls would say how do you rate that person on a 1 to 10.. 

Nutshell you have to be a higher point on the scale then your significant other. If your a higher point, then they want you. If your lower and don't look to improve your rating to be equal they will look some place else..

I would suggest you don't read it if your still crying over your ex and have no control. The first few chapters will definitely open up some old wounds and it can be tough for some. As an example the author mentions* " I love you but not in love with you"* and other comments how crying and begging making you weaker. For me it was like *"Ugg, I shouldn't have done that" *

But over all I honestly think there should be a thread on this book with suggestions related to the book as well. 

But I see I need to start making a move to working out as I have some Alpha going but this is one I am lacking. Again just another trait in the Alpha column to check off.

I downloaded it to my Mac and my Iphone with the kindle app.


----------



## NeverSawThisComing (Aug 12, 2013)

It's only 1 week since DDay of my WW's affair. I spent all day with the book yesterday and finished it (although I skim-read the sex stuff as that's not going to be useful for me for some time if you know what I mean).

I found some parts were indeed difficult to read, but I definitely needed a jolt and a plan to start implementing immediately.

Today I compiled an action plan to begin immediate work on my sex rank.

Personally (for me at least) I think it's bitter medicine that should be taken as early as possible.


----------



## Chaparral (Jul 17, 2011)

There have been a few detractors here but almost all that read it feel like some one just turned the lights on. I just wish every guy would read it before every thing hit the fan.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

It altered my view of the alpha/beta thing to the extent that it did "turn a lightbulb on" that it is unavoidably a part of who we are.

Like anything, it can be taken too far.

You get out of life what you put in.

I have heard from many women that a sense of humour and being trustworthy is a far more attractive trait than a sixpack, but I can guarantee that one gets you laid more than the other


----------



## OhGeesh (Jan 5, 2010)

One of my least favorite books "Sex rank" geesh what a teenage mindset.


----------



## NeverSawThisComing (Aug 12, 2013)

OhGeesh said:


> One of my least favorite books "Sex rank" geesh what a teenage mindset.


Ok then, lets replace the term "Sex Rank" with "Being a Good Catch". Problem solved. Work on the fundamentals like fitness, body shape, career, ensure you have a good mix of alpha and beta traits, and now you're a better catch. Your wife is more likely to keep finding you attractive if you're a better catch. 

Seems pretty logical to me.


----------



## Iver (Mar 8, 2013)

This can't be true...just be a nice guy and good things will come your way...just wait for it...


(this is sarcasm by the way)


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Jul 17, 2013)

Iver said:


> This can't be true...just be a nice guy and good things will come your way...just wait for it...
> 
> 
> (this is sarcasm by the way)


LOL sadly many men believe that....what they forget is self-respect....being a good guy does not mean doormat or a puppy waiting to be pet....it means strong with self-respect but not abusive or arrogant..confident...I downloaded a copy of this book from amazon and am going to read it...remember if you are a "good guy" but a damned doormat you are useless...and no one will respect you..not your wife not other men no one....


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

The oversimplification of complex issues, as well as a "one size fits all" tone of the book being discussed makes it difficult to point out some of the positive aspects/advice contained within it. This book, and that forum in general, along with an extreme willingness of some members of TAM to resort to "2x4ing" in every situation, are the most common reasons stated by people leaving the forum or abandoning their threads. The limited critical reviews of this book point out the authors lack of citation, circular reasoning, and limited/simplified understanding of the works he uses as a reference material, as being its biggest downfalls. I try to always point out to those who cite this book as gospel that if the answers to a perfect relationship were in this book, TAM wouldn't exists, and the author would be a millionaire. There are some useful tid bits in this book, but as with most things in life, they should be taken with a pinch of salt.

For instance, the authors assertion that a "body agenda" exists, dismisses the possibility for co-equal relationships. He claims that in a crisis, the man leads, the woman follows, and I feel that is a gross oversimplification of how modern relationships function. 

Anyhow, my two cents...


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

OhGeesh said:


> One of my least favorite books "Sex rank" geesh what a teenage mindset.


Hmmm, I know quite a few women that when they get together they "rank" men they see or know. I think its human nature and just like masturbation those that say they never have are lying.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Paladin said:


> The oversimplification of complex issues, as well as a "one size fits all" tone of the book being discussed makes it difficult to point out some of the positive aspects/advice contained within it. This book, and that forum in general, along with an extreme willingness of some members of TAM to resort to "2x4ing" in every situation, are the most common reasons stated by people leaving the forum or abandoning their threads. The limited critical reviews of this book point out the authors lack of citation, circular reasoning, and limited/simplified understanding of the works he uses as a reference material, as being its biggest downfalls. I try to always point out to those who cite this book as gospel that if the answers to a perfect relationship were in this book, TAM wouldn't exists, and the author would be a millionaire. There are some useful tid bits in this book, but as with most things in life, they should be taken with a pinch of salt.
> 
> For instance, the authors assertion that a "body agenda" exists, dismisses the possibility for co-equal relationships. He claims that in a crisis, the man leads, the woman follows, and I feel that is a gross oversimplification of how modern relationships function.
> 
> Anyhow, my two cents...


Interesting.

The author Athol Kay readily ackowledges that much of his research came from Dr. Helen Fisher, noted Anthropologist specializing in human behavior and sexuality. So I must conclude that you take great issue with her work as well, as aclaimed as it may be?


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

Paladin said:


> The oversimplification of complex issues, as well as a "one size fits all" tone of the book being discussed makes it difficult to point out some of the positive aspects/advice contained within it. This book, and that forum in general, along with an extreme willingness of some members of TAM to resort to "2x4ing" in every situation, are the most common reasons stated by people leaving the forum or abandoning their threads. The limited critical reviews of this book point out the authors lack of citation, circular reasoning, and limited/simplified understanding of the works he uses as a reference material, as being its biggest downfalls. I try to always point out to those who cite this book as gospel that if the answers to a perfect relationship were in this book, TAM wouldn't exists, and the author would be a millionaire. There are some useful tid bits in this book, but as with most things in life, they should be taken with a pinch of salt.
> 
> For instance, the authors assertion that a "body agenda" exists, dismisses the possibility for co-equal relationships. He claims that in a crisis, the man leads, the woman follows, and I feel that is a gross oversimplification of how modern relationships function.
> 
> Anyhow, my two cents...


I'm not the biggest fan, either. I think there is value in reading it, but 90% of what he advises can be broken down to the phrase "hit the weights and get a nice body". It's actually really good advice in my experience (but did you need to buy a book to understand it?). But most of the rest of the book is fluff.


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

bfree said:


> Interesting.
> 
> The author Athol Kay readily ackowledges that much of his research came from Dr. Helen Fisher, noted Anthropologist specializing in human behavior and sexuality. So I must conclude that you take great issue with her work as well, as aclaimed as it may be?


He oversimplifies her work, and she herself oversimplifies some issues, particularly when it comes to brain chemistry, and the connection said chemistry has to human behavior. Some of the criticism levied against her includes her use of sample sizes that are far too large for proper analysis (one large group of 30k responders vs many smaller groups to draw correlations from), self selection (her entire sample comes from chemistry.com are the members of that site a proper representation of society at large? etc.) and the fact that she does not actually measure the levels of serotonin, testosterone, oxytocin, and dopamine, but rather uses circular thinking and logic (sounds quite a bit like Mr Kay) to draw her conclusions about brain chemistry.

source: Journal of Evolutionary Psychology Evolutionary Psychology – 2010. 8(1): 110-112

Not to mention equating someones acclaim with authority would make Tom Leykis an expert on relationships, even though he has been divorced five times.


----------



## NatureDave (Feb 19, 2013)

Oh...so now you have to bring science and reasoning into it!

Thanks for the opinion, Paladin, you make very good points.

Go to another site (MB's) and you will see a similar blind devotion to one author's viewpoint and methods.

There are good, practical methods and advice from many authors, but there is no one-size-fits-all recipe for making marriages work or recovering from affairs.


----------



## CASE_Sensitive (Jul 22, 2013)

I agree that nothing should be accepted as 100% truth and you need to be realistic with your expectations. For me MMSLP was a refreshing, unexpected, direct response that went against the grain from the vast majority of self help and marital self help books out there. It's blunt, it's crass, it's simple, but for many including me, there are many things that ring true. I'm reading it, taking what I need from it and combining it with His Needs, Her Needs and trying to get a better understanding of how I can improve my marriage. Yes, there will direct opposing advice you get depending on the source, but I'm willing to listen and see what makes sense to me. 

My 2 cents


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

People age.. they get wrinkles. Going to the gym won't stop you from getting older..

Your spouse will also age..

Your spouse, as attractive as they might be, they more than likely aren't a supermodel, and they aren't a porn star. 

Jumping through hoops to make yourself attractive so you can be hot for your spouse, also feels a bit like you're being needy. Get in shape for yourself, not because you're feeling this need to compete with an OM or have to all of the sudden become a model because your spouse strayed.

What if sex wasn't the issue? Say it was more of the other needs being filled, like if the spouses AP is actually less attractive, but perceived as more alpha because they are in the work environment, for example a boss. They talk more, spend 'quality' time.. They become 'friends' etc.. It's not always about sex or six pack abs.

Just some random thoughts...


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Paladin said:


> He oversimplifies her work, and she herself oversimplifies some issues, particularly when it comes to brain chemistry, and the connection said chemistry has to human behavior. Some of the criticism levied against her includes her use of sample sizes that are far too large for proper analysis (one large group of 30k responders vs many smaller groups to draw correlations from), self selection (her entire sample comes from chemistry.com are the members of that site a proper representation of society at large? etc.) and the fact that she does not actually measure the levels of serotonin, testosterone, oxytocin, and dopamine, but rather uses circular thinking and logic (sounds quite a bit like Mr Kay) to draw her conclusions about brain chemistry.
> 
> source: Journal of Evolutionary Psychology Evolutionary Psychology – 2010. 8(1): 110-112
> 
> Not to mention equating someones acclaim with authority would make Tom Leykis an expert on relationships, even though he has been divorced five times.


The point is that based on what we have to go on at this time Helen Fisher is the recognized authority. You can criticize her methods and say that she is oversimplifying everything but there was no research before her and there really isn't anything out there strong enough to contradict her findings. And you are wrong about her research coming from Chemistry.com. She was hired by Match.com to build Chemistry.com in 2005 but her first book containing all her research was published in 2004. So her research could not have come from something that hadn't been started yet. When I say that Athol Kay has based his work on her research I am saying that Athol Kay has found the first and so far only expert in the field to provide a foundation for his conclusions. And as for simplifying, he needs to make it simple so that a broad base of readers can understand what he's saying. I read Helen Fisher's _Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love_ as part of my ongoing preparation for helping those with relationship issues. Have you read her groundbreaking book? Its not an easy read. So Mr. Kay had to restate her conclusions in a language more people could understand. Now I'm not saying that MMSL is the end all beat all for relationships but it is a worthwhile read and frankly addresses a lot of issues that many men have wondered about. Do I think its the only book that one should read? No. But it is definitely on my top three and one that I would recommend first in order to give people a basic understanding as to what it is they are dealing with.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Truthseeker1 said:


> LOL sadly many men believe that....what they forget is self-respect....being a good guy does not mean doormat or a puppy waiting to be pet....it means strong with self-respect but not abusive or arrogant..confident...I downloaded a copy of this book from amazon and am going to read it...remember if you are a "good guy" but a damned doormat you are useless...and no one will respect you..not your wife not other men no one....





Paladin said:


> The oversimplification of complex issues, as well as a "one size fits all" tone of the book being discussed makes it difficult to point out some of the positive aspects/advice contained within it. This book, and that forum in general, along with an extreme willingness of some members of TAM to resort to "2x4ing" in every situation, are the most common reasons stated by people leaving the forum or abandoning their threads. The limited critical reviews of this book point out the authors lack of citation, circular reasoning, and limited/simplified understanding of the works he uses as a reference material, as being its biggest downfalls. I try to always point out to those who cite this book as gospel that if the answers to a perfect relationship were in this book, TAM wouldn't exists, and the author would be a millionaire. There are some useful tid bits in this book, but as with most things in life, they should be taken with a pinch of salt.
> 
> For instance, the authors assertion that a "body agenda" exists, dismisses the possibility for co-equal relationships. He claims that in a crisis, the man leads, the woman follows, and I feel that is a gross oversimplification of how modern relationships function.
> 
> Anyhow, my two cents...


I think Truthseeker and Paladin are both on the right track.

I dislike anything that is one size fits all mentality.

To me, it all comes down to self respect and confidence (true confidence, not arrogance). If you have self respect, you generally will work on yourself and not let yourself slide into bad habits/situations. For every career driven guy, there's a mechanic who's also getting women.

It's obvious that the better you look, the more attention you're going to get. But it doesn't mean that if you do put on some weight your spouse is going to lose interest in you. That'll depend on the spouse. If they find their attraction at surface levels, then yes, they will lose interest. If they look at deeper traits, they won't.

The book also doesn't take into account personal preferences. I'm a thick guy. I'm close to the "magic ratio" or whatever the term is, but I'm also heavy. I spent a lot of year weight lifting (Did shot put, discuss and also swimming competitively) Each of my legs probably weighs 75 pounds LOL. But I don't have a six pack, more of a 1 pack now LOL. I've talked about dropping the weight that I've put on over the years and my wife doesn't want me to. She says she likes me the way I am because she likes "beefy guys". She's also said she'd divorce me if I had my chest waxed. Even though some women hate hair on men.

I myself like thicker women. I dated a couple women who would be considered "perfect" bodies based on stereotypical views. I didn't like sex with them as much because I felt like I would break them (I know, I know I wouldn't, but I didn't like slamming bone LOL). Plus I like curves SO MUCH MORE. I definitely like the Baby Got Back measurements.

"Yeah, baby ... when it comes to females, Cosmo ain't got nothin' to do with my selection. 36-24-36? Ha ha, only if she's 5'3"."

There's no ONE form of beauty/handsome. So how can ONE formula be the answer.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

russell28 said:


> People age.. they get wrinkles. Going to the gym won't stop you from getting older..
> 
> Your spouse will also age..
> 
> ...


And that is exactly the point that is primary in MMSL. Whatever you don't have enough of....add. I really don't like the simplification of Alpha/Beta. Men (and women) are much more complex. But I do understand why so many use those terms. Its so that people can understand the groups of traits that are being discussed. If you are too alpha, add beta. If you are too beta, add alpha. It sounds simplistic but the key is balance and that is one of the primary lessons MMSL tries to convey. As for going to the gym, making yourself more attractive etc. You're right that you should do these things not for your spouse but for yourself. And here is the really interesting part. It all has to do with building confidence. And confidence is attractive not to just your spouse but to everyone around you.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

Dad&Hubby said:


> I think Truthseeker and Paladin are both on the right track.
> 
> I dislike anything that is one size fits all mentality.
> 
> ...


Exactly this.. when I used to tell my wife I'd take her over a supermodel, it wasn't because she has a better looking stomach than Giselle... Fat, skinny, I never cared.. 

I wish I could still say the same, bit right now, in my current state of mind.. I'd knock my wife over to jump on Giselle...


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Dad&Hubby said:


> I think Truthseeker and Paladin are both on the right track.
> 
> I dislike anything that is one size fits all mentality.
> 
> ...


You're absolutely right. And the book does address this when it discusses sex rank. You like a certain type of woman. If we hit a bar and I said "wow look at that hottie" you might rank my 10 a 6 on your scale. But remember that the book deals primarily with those already in relationships and one could safely assume that you wouldn't be with your spouse if you weren't attracted to them in the first place.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

bfree said:


> And that is exactly the point that is primary in MMSL. Whatever you don't have enough of....add. I really don't like the simplification of Alpha/Beta. Men (and women) are much more complex. But I do understand why so many use those terms. Its so that people can understand the groups of traits that are being discussed. If you are too alpha, add beta. If you are too beta, add alpha. It sounds simplistic but the key is balance and that is one of the primary lessons MMSL tries to convey. As for going to the gym, making yourself more attractive etc. You're right that you should do these things not for your spouse but for yourself. And here is the really interesting part. It all has to do with building confidence. And confidence is attractive not to just your spouse but to everyone around you.


Many a WS suffers from low self esteem.. and low self respect.

Sometimes the confidence problem isn't with the BS, but with the WS. The BS might not be aware of the problem, because a WS can become good at hiding things.

Not everyone that cheats is looking for a person with a better set of abs..


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

russell28 said:


> Many a WS suffers from low self esteem.. and low self respect.
> 
> Sometimes the confidence problem isn't with the BS, but with the WS. The BS might not be aware of the problem, because a WS can become good at hiding things.
> 
> Not everyone that cheats is looking for a person with a better set of abs..


Yeah. Back in my "player" days I would often hang with a guy that looked a lot like George Constanza. This guy pulled women like crazy in spite of his looks. It was all about confidence.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Jul 17, 2013)

russell28 said:


> Exactly this.. when I used to tell my wife I'd take her over a supermodel, it wasn't because she has a better looking stomach than Giselle... Fat, skinny, I never cared..
> *
> I wish I could still say the same, bit right now, in my current state of mind.. I'd knock my wife over to jump on Giselle... *


Take a number...lol


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Jul 17, 2013)

A good rule of thumb for any self-improvement program is* "no one book contains the silver bullet to solve all problems".* Tony Robbins once said that even if he got one tidbit out of a book it was worth the read. The thing to do is survey the literature in the field and read multiple titles to see which patterns emerge. Some authors emphasize one thing or another but clear patterns of what to do will emerge. Self-improvement is a journey with many stops....


----------



## tribesman (Aug 17, 2013)

Did you get to the part in the book where you realize it's all meaningless and you will eventually die along with everyone else?


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

tribesman said:


> Did you get to the part in the book where you realize it's all meaningless and you will eventually die along with everyone else?


You have to go down with style though, and alpha dies like James Dean... not Michael Jackson, that was total beta..


----------



## Burned (Jul 13, 2013)

tribesman said:


> Did you get to the part in the book where you realize it's all meaningless and you will eventually die along with everyone else?


It's not "He who dies with the most toy's wins, it's he who wear's out those toy's before he dies wins"


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

tribesman said:


> Did you get to the part in the book where you realize it's all meaningless and you will eventually die along with everyone else?


I choose to focus on the journey, not the destination.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Jul 17, 2013)

bfree said:


> I choose to focus on the journey, not the destination.


We all have the same destination but some of us want a kick azz journey along the way.....:toast:


----------



## Hardtohandle (Jan 10, 2013)

I figured I would chime in since I started this thread. I didn't want to light a fuse and then walk away. Not that anyone is saying anything bad either.

I do agree about the one size fits all comment. Everyone is different. The world is filled with rich, in shape, good looking men and woman that get cheated on by their spouses. 

So yes I agree my ex didn't leave me for a six pack of abs. She left me for a 54 year old 5'2" man with no money or a good job and that didn't have six pack. 

In many ways today I am grateful she downgraded instead of upgraded as it would have killed me much more. At least now at a weight of 238 from 310 at 6"3" and having both kids wanting to stay with me as she lives in her small apartment that she can hardly pay 1800 a month for, I can look down a gloat a bit. 

I have more money today then when I was married.

For me I've taken several classes in interviewing and interrogation, I've taken our department homicide course that is pretty much used by many agencies country and world wide. 

Though I sort of understood the Alpha Beta thing I didn't grasp what might be something that were considered Alpha and Beta.

Again I know friends that could pick up and meet woman just about anywhere. It was amazing, where as I would have women tell me they liked me and I would understand it she was telling me she wanted to be friends.. I was slow in the uptake 20 years ago, what can I say.

Look getting into shape isn't a bad thing. Even if it takes a book to tell you or convince you that you will get 1 point out of it. There is nothing wrong with being healthy or trying to get into some shape. Who cares what motivates you as long as you do it and stick with it.


But I did Beta up when my wife was looking to leave. But it is probably that Beta that caused my kids to want to stay, at least my oldest. I think I won the youngest over just on account his older brother was here as was the dog, me and his grandmother. Plus I play xbox with him this other man doesn't. Let alone take him out anywhere. 

But I honestly like to hear both sides as that opens up my eyes as well. 

Look anything to make me a better man, father or a person I would be happy to hear about and try.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Hardtohandle said:


> *Look anything to make me a better man, father* or a person I would be happy to hear about and try.


I bolded the something great there Hardtohandle.

I don't worry about "actively" impressing my wife. In other words, it's not something I think about.

I DO focus on what you said.

I focus on being the best man and father I can be.

I figure, if I'm the best man and father I can be. My wife will swoon over me. 

Nothing is less sexy than a man TRYING to be sexy. LOL.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

Dad&Hubby said:


> I bolded the something great there Hardtohandle.
> 
> I don't worry about "actively" impressing my wife. In other words, it's not something I think about.
> 
> ...


According to the MMSLP this behaviour will be problematic in your relationship.

Some women are intelligent enough to see the bigger picture - just as some men are - but some are not and end up cheating.

Cheating is, in some circumstances, inevitable. The spouse has decided to cheat for a variety of reasons and a part of the MMSLP deals with the rationalisation hamster. It is in this way that traits you see as desirable are turned about by your wife and suddenly become "beta".

I guess this is where the accusation of circular logic comes in, as this "hamster" gives a reason for a woman to see *any* behaviour as "beta" and any behaviour by the OM as "alpha".

Of course, this is because she has decided to have sex with another man and uses anything and everything as justification for this.

My behaviour now is probably more beta than before my wife decided to have sex with another man, but she clearly has decided it is now *me* that is the "Alpha" - moreso even than before her affair. I have even seen the reverse hamster working as she uses small changes in my behaviour as excuses for a sea change in her opinion. There is neither logic nor an evolutionary basis for this change.

This is where Mr Kay's reasoning falls down. There is not a logical, repeatable, system here. It is all reverse justified. Like a religious zealot claiming a banana is evidence of intelligent design, rather than precisely the reverse - evidence of human adaptation.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Chris989 said:


> According to the MMSLP this behaviour will be problematic in your relationship.
> 
> Some women are intelligent enough to see the bigger picture - just as some men are - but some are not and end up cheating.
> 
> ...


Love the post Chris.

I guess this is where I say. I'm glad I didn't marry an idiot of a woman (the second time around LOL). And also that we make appreciating each other a priority. 

I hate the whole "Alpha/Beta/Nice Guy" thing. I think the only label that applies to these situations is doormat. I know Nice Guy is synonymous with doormat, but I just don't agree. I think I'm an EXTREMELY nice guy to my wife. But I'm DEFINITELY not a doormat. We both have zero qualms about calling the other out if we cross the line.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Chris989 said:


> According to the MMSLP this behaviour will be problematic in your relationship.
> 
> Some women are intelligent enough to see the bigger picture - just as some men are - but some are not and end up cheating.
> 
> ...


Let me reiterate that I really dislike the Alpha and Beta terminology. But since we're using it let me ask you this. How did your wife's affair end? If I recall correctly you took steps to break their affair correct? I believe you even went so far as to confront the OM yes? Friend, it doesn't get more alpha than that and that is probably the primary reason why your wife falls to worship at your alpha feet. Face it, you manned up and mate guarded. That is biological anthropology and evolution at its finest.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Dad&Hubby said:


> Love the post Chris.
> 
> I guess this is where I say. I'm glad I didn't marry an idiot of a woman (the second time around LOL). And also that we make appreciating each other a priority.
> 
> I hate the whole "Alpha/Beta/Nice Guy" thing. I think the only label that applies to these situations is doormat. I know Nice Guy is synonymous with doormat, but I just don't agree. I think I'm an EXTREMELY nice guy to my wife. But I'm DEFINITELY not a doormat. *We both have zero qualms about calling the other out if we cross the line*.


And according to Gary Chapman that is why you are NOT a nice guy. A true "nice guy" wouldn't say anything. He would sit and stew in silence rather than cause a conflict.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

bfree said:


> Let me reiterate that I really dislike the Alpha and Beta terminology. But since we're using it let me ask you this. How did your wife's affair end? If I recall correctly you took steps to break their affair correct? I believe you even went so far as to confront the OM yes? Friend, it doesn't get more alpha than that and that is probably the primary reason why your wife falls to worship at your alpha feet. Face it, you manned up and mate guarded. That is biological anthropology and evolution at its finest.


I have thought about this often (as you might guess), but this only happened because two other parties allowed it to.

The POSOM isn't beta - he's a coward. He wanted an easy lay. My wife stopped being an easy lay; he dumped her.

She waited 6 weeks to know it was finally over and things started to come unwound.

It wasn't my "alpha" action that made her snap out of it - it was the fact that the POSOM was a coward.

I could equally have turned up at his house and he ignore it - even fought for her (and he would have lost), but my wife only decided it was "alpha" in hindsight. 

"Alpha" is anything you want it to be. It's the winner you pick *after* the fight. That is all well and good, but when the winner is decided by others that is no longer in your control.

"Alpha" could be the guy with the best lawyers (aka most money), the guy with the most brains, the guy with the biggest dong. "Alpha" is the guy the woman decides she wants to be with. Doesn't that, in a way, make us all the ultimate "beta"?


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

I think it was Athol Kay that said that when faced with a cheating spouse, the beta man tends to become more beta and the alpha tends to become more alpha. I tend to agree. When I found out my wife was cheating on me, I became the opposite of a doormat. ..
yet she still didn't respect me. Why not? Because she had decided she was dumping me for OM, and her entire strategy revolved around not looking like the bad guy. I wasn't down with that strategy, therefore I became the bad guy in her eyes.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Chris989 said:


> I have thought about this often (as you might guess), but this only happened because two other parties allowed it to.
> 
> The POSOM isn't beta - he's a coward. He wanted an easy lay. My wife stopped being an easy lay; he dumped her.
> 
> ...


It only makes you beta if you care. Confidence is catnip to women. If you have the confidence to walk away she'll run after you. And you're right. Its all perception. If a woman can rationalize having an affair she can rationalize that you're more alpha than her AP. That's why you work on you for you not her or anyone else.


----------



## Burned (Jul 13, 2013)

I asked my stbxw once that if any of these other men wanted her then why haven't they come and taken her? Why haven't they come to confront me for supposedly treating her badly?

I said If I had wanted a woman so badly, I would do anything to get her, why aren't they?? I could even help OM pack her crap and help both of them move her out. 

I think it's more about they were afraid, afraid they were only fighting for sex, I would be fighting for my kid's, my wife, my life, my house, everything. I think that passion would have led to some problems for OM.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Burned said:


> I asked my stbxw once that if any of these other men wanted her then why haven't they come and taken her? Why haven't they come to confront me for supposedly treating her badly?
> 
> I said If I had wanted a woman so badly, I would do anything to get her, why aren't they?? I could even help OM pack her crap and help both of them move her out.
> 
> I think it's more about they were afraid, afraid they were only fighting for sex, I would be fighting for my kid's, my wife, my life, my house, everything. I think that passion would have led to some problems for OM.


They're cowards. Only a coward would go after another man's wife. They can act all tough but when it comes down to it all they wanted was easy sex. Once they have to work for it its not easy anymore and they go off to find another mark.


----------



## nuclearnightmare (May 15, 2013)

I read the book and liked it. I also like evolutionary psychology, finding the research and writings extremely interesting. The rational mind (the human) tends to win over the primal (the animal) in most people in most cases, I think. and a person with strong character is able to put the former in solid command over the latter.

His practical advice is pretty good, overall. I agree with others here that his advice could just as easily flow from the premise that a person's sense of their dignity - self respect - should be as strong as possible. Such a person - the ideal - shows zero tolerance toward acts of humiliation, infidelity being the prime example. The "180" is a pattern of behavior that someone with strong self-worth will naturally fall into in the face of infidelity - possibly even in the face of boundary crossing by their spouse. And 'practicing' high self-worth behavior can lead to a stronger sense of self in the long term, I think.


----------



## Burned (Jul 13, 2013)

I think my stbxw put's more effort into not looking like the "bad guy" than into anything else. Also she left me with the kids fulltime but still wants to play "super mom". Example- "My girls are now in highschool, I'm so proud of the way I've raised them" 
Uh, Honey I had a little something to do with that as well. 

She is all for show, I always thought If you have to tell people how you are then you usually aren't.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

Burned said:


> I think my stbxw put's more effort into not looking like the "bad guy" than into anything else. Also she left me with the kids fulltime but still wants to play "super mom". Example- "My girls are now in highschool, I'm so proud of the way I've raised them"
> Uh, Honey I had a little something to do with that as well.
> 
> She is all for show, I always thought If you have to tell people how you are then you usually aren't.


I detested Margaret Thatcher, but one of her great quotes was:

“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.”


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

bfree said:


> The point is that based on what we have to go on at this time Helen Fisher is the recognized authority. You can criticize her methods and say that she is oversimplifying everything but there was no research before her and there really isn't anything out there strong enough to contradict her findings.


I cite my source, a credible authority from the journal of evolutionary psychology, issue 8 volume 1 pages 110-112, who calls her findings into question in a valid academic fashion



> And you are wrong about her research coming from Chemistry.com. She was hired by Match.com to build Chemistry.com in 2005 but her first book containing all her research was published in 2004. So her research could not have come from something that hadn't been started yet.


I'm just assuming that you decided it was not worth your time to actually read the cited material. Athol Kay published his "work" in 2011, basing his "research" on conclusions made by Helen Fisher across multiple books. Her conclusions about brain chemistry and its relationship to personality types came from a pool of responders on chemistry.com, and had absolutely no scientific merit. 



> When I say that Athol Kay has based his work on her research I am saying that Athol Kay has found the first and so far only expert in the field to provide a foundation for his conclusions.


She is by far not the only expert, as she herself cites other researchers in her work. I also agree with you, Athol Kay cherry picked his source to provide a foundation for his conclusions.

The point I was making is simple. Quite a few people who could benefit greatly from the advice available to them on this forum end up leaving because they are reduced to a label by people citing MMSL. They are objectified and subjugated by being called doormat betas or neanderthal thug alphas. If they happen to suffer through being reduced to a label, they face being smacked around by the 2x4ers of the forum, and told to "man up" or "grow a pair." I wont even get started on what FWS have to deal with here.

Is there room here for the opinions expressed in MMSL? Yes. Should MMSL be at the top of the reading list? No. There are amazing threads on this forum that offer far more insight into the issues that are being discussed, threads like "understanding the pain" or any of the "noobs start here threads" 

Fisher is an informative writer with many worthwhile contributions to the discussion of relationships and human psychology. Her body of work is large and she uses various other research conducted by many people to reach some her her conclusions. Kay used what fit his argument, and ignored the rest.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Paladin said:


> I cite my source, a credible authority from the journal of evolutionary psychology, issue 8 volume 1 pages 110-112, who calls her findings into question in a valid academic fashion
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I asked before but you didn't answer. Have you read Helen Fisher's seminal work? Because I have and I've also read MMSL and I can tell you that most of Helen Fisher's work that he based his conclusions on was indeed from her 2004 book. And of course he is going to only use a fraction of Fisher's conclusions to base his work on and not include all of it. He had to approach his writing with his target audience in mind didn't he? In any case in my mind MMSL is a valuable resource but it doesn't stand alone. There are many books out there that can give various perspectives on relationship issues just as there are many different posters on TAM that can do the same. I think people here recommend MMSL when they feel it can address a particular issue or question that an OP seems to have just like people recommend _Not Just Friends_ by Shirley Glass when the issue involves a workplace affair. I don't think people are driven away by drum beating MMSL devotes. I agree that people can often experience one too many 2x4's by some well meaning but indelicate posters but you will get that when you have so many people on an open forum. I would also disagree that fWS receive poor treatment on TAM although I note that most will hold a poster's feet to the fire if they aren't being genuine and taking responsibility. I am pleased that you appreciate the _Understanding The Pain_ thread however as it was written by my good friend and mentor Beowulf. Incidentally he was the person that encouraged me to read both MMSL and Helen Fisher's _Why We Love_.

By the way your link didn't take me to the source you mentioned so I was unable to read the material.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

bfree said:


> And according to Gary Chapman that is why you are NOT a nice guy. A true "nice guy" wouldn't say anything. He would sit and stew in silence rather than cause a conflict.


I know this is splitting hairs and also me not looking at the phrase "Nice Guy" like others on this site and Gary Chapman.

No, a nice guy, looks out for the well being and desires of his wife. A nice guy opens doors for women. A nice guy tries to help people in times of need. A nice guy says hello to strangers and is friendly. 

Literally 

nice
[nahys]
adjective, nic·er, nic·est.
1. pleasing; agreeable; delightful: a nice visit.
2. amiably pleasant; kind: They are always nice to strangers.
3. characterized by, showing, or requiring great accuracy, precision, skill, tact, care, or delicacy: nice workmanship; a nice shot; a nice handling of a crisis.
4. showing or indicating very small differences; minutely accurate, as instruments: a job that requires nice measurements.
5. minute, fine, or subtle: a nice distinction. 

What everyone talks about is a doormat. Now I know using the term "nice guy" is to get attention to the issue of being a doormat. It's just something for me specifically. I have always and will always be a nice guy. I have been a doormat before but that was short lived and I will never be one again.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Burned said:


> I asked my stbxw once that if any of these other men wanted her then why haven't they come and taken her? Why haven't they come to confront me for supposedly treating her badly?
> 
> I said If I had wanted a woman so badly, I would do anything to get her, why aren't they?? I could even help OM pack her crap and help both of them move her out.
> 
> I think it's more about they were afraid, afraid they were only fighting for sex, I would be fighting for my kid's, my wife, my life, my house, everything. I think that passion would have led to some problems for OM.


Awesome post Burned. I love the question you asked your wife.

I wouldn't say they were afraid. It's just these OM are in it for an easy lay. It's really easy to prey on someone's weaknesses and desires for emotional validation. But when it comes down to actually FIGHTING for it. They'd rather just turn to the NEXT woman whom they can play the game with.

Why risk physical harm, arrest or worse on a cheap piece of a$$ when there's another cheap piece of a$$ right around the corner?


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

Dad&Hubby said:


> Awesome post Burned. I love the question you asked your wife.
> 
> I wouldn't say they were afraid. It's just these OM are in it for an easy lay. It's really easy to prey on someone's weaknesses and desires for emotional validation. But when it comes down to actually FIGHTING for it. They'd rather just turn to the NEXT woman whom they can play the game with.
> 
> Why risk physical harm, arrest or worse on a cheap piece of a$$ when there's another cheap piece of a$$ right around the corner?


Perfectly stated. When my partner was deep in the fog and wanted to have me and the POSOM both, I told her something along the lines of "open marriage doesnt work, but since you feel so strongly about it, lets all go see our MC together, the three of us, so we can discuss the practicality of living in a triangle." Well she posed the question to the POSOM, and he used every excuse known to man to make sure that didnt happen. Along with other little factors, her fog began to lift because POSOM refused to put any actual work into resolving the annoying problem of her having a husband. She didnt understand why a person who professed to love her, refused to do such a simple thing. After her fog lifted completely and we began the hard work of R, she was able to see that his refusal to do any work, along with his continued insistence that she was not suffering from mental illness (she had been dealing with depression and other mental health issues before the EA/PA began and informed him that she was sick on many occasions, but why should a little thing like that stop him from wanting in her pants?) was an indication of how badly he wanted a quick, effortless lay. I think its something the majority of POSOM have in common. Why work for it, when you can just find vulnerable effortless ***** at will?


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

bfree said:


> I asked before but you didn't answer. Have you read Helen Fisher's seminal work? Because I have and I've also read MMSL and I can tell you that most of Helen Fisher's work that he based his conclusions on was indeed from her 2004 book. And of course he is going to only use a fraction of Fisher's conclusions to base his work on and not include all of it. He had to approach his writing with his target audience in mind didn't he? In any case in my mind MMSL is a valuable resource but it doesn't stand alone. There are many books out there that can give various perspectives on relationship issues just as there are many different posters on TAM that can do the same. I think people here recommend MMSL when they feel it can address a particular issue or question that an OP seems to have just like people recommend _Not Just Friends_ by Shirley Glass when the issue involves a workplace affair. I don't think people are driven away by drum beating MMSL devotes. I agree that people can often experience one too many 2x4's by some well meaning but indelicate posters but you will get that when you have so many people on an open forum. I would also disagree that fWS receive poor treatment on TAM although I note that most will hold a poster's feet to the fire if they aren't being genuine and taking responsibility. I am pleased that you appreciate the _Understanding The Pain_ thread however as it was written by my good friend and mentor Beowulf. Incidentally he was the person that encouraged me to read both MMSL and Helen Fisher's _Why We Love_.
> 
> By the way your link didn't take me to the source you mentioned so I was unable to read the material.


This is more or less my take on MMSLP and NMMNG. I think both are excellent resources for any man who has 'let himself go' but I do not think they should be your 'design for life'.

One of the central components of the book MMSLP is running the MAP (Male Action Plan).

Sarcasm on/ Wow I never realised that there was this amazing force betaising me, the fact I've let myself go is not really my fault thank goodness.
Ya know, I never realised that losing weight, keeping myself fit, becoming a more active family man, dressing well, being as successful as I can and acting with confidence would be attractive to my wife and other women.
I really thought that pigging out on greaseburgers and fries and pizza, dressing like a slob, doing feck all around the house, playing WOW all night, leaving everything up to my wife and that about the only interaction I should have with my wife is once weekly roll on roll off sex was desireable./Sarcasm off

I think the really surprising and somewhat distressing thing is that so many men need to be told this.

And of course you could be the most perfect example of an ideal beta/alpha mix and your spouse could still commit adultery.

Looking after yourself in this instance means that you give yourself a far better chance with the next roll of the life dice.


----------



## russell28 (Apr 17, 2013)

Burned said:


> I think my stbxw put's more effort into not looking like the "bad guy" than into anything else. Also she left me with the kids fulltime but still wants to play "super mom". Example- "My girls are now in highschool, I'm so proud of the way I've raised them"
> Uh, Honey I had a little something to do with that as well.
> 
> She is all for show, I always thought If you have to tell people how you are then you usually aren't.


She's not proud of her girls.. she's proud of herself?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

*Re: Re: Married Man Sex Life Primer (AKA MMSLP) and you.*



WyshIknew said:


> This is more or less my take on MMSLP and NMMNG. I think both are excellent resources for any man who has 'let himself go' but I do not think they should be your 'design for life'.
> 
> One of the central components of the book MMSLP is running the MAP (Male Action Plan).
> 
> ...


You and I realize that keeping fit, dressing well, having confidence, etc is obvious but sadly not many men seem to see it as clearly. The MAP is for people who really need a regimented scheduled lifestyle to keep them moving forward. What we see as duh they see as enlightening. I don't really care so long as they start taking better care of themselves and begin to feel better.


----------



## Phenix70 (May 6, 2012)

Hardtohandle said:


> Just started reading this book
> 
> I understand why everyone who read this book now says weightlifting and getting in shape is helpful.
> 
> ...


How exactly is that going to work successfully in a relationship?
How can you both be a higher point rank than the other?
Because if you're the high rank, are you not yourself going to go looking for someone else?
Seems like a paradox to me.


----------



## Hardtohandle (Jan 10, 2013)

Phenix70 said:


> How exactly is that going to work successfully in a relationship?
> How can you both be a higher point rank than the other?
> Because if you're the high rank, are you not yourself going to go looking for someone else?
> Seems like a paradox to me.


I agree, but I think there is a morality in there somewhere. 

Look I'm no fashion plate. But I have been offered sex by woman and never took them up on it. I was thousands of miles away from my wife and I never did anything. No one would have ever known. 

It just not in my moral code. I seen what it did to my mother at the age of 12. I loved my wife too much to put her in that much pain. I couldn't stand to see my wife cry. Heck, when my wife cried during us fighting about her affair I felt bad. 

But as Bfree mentioned I am one of those guys that did let myself go. I fell into a rut at work and at home. We were penny wise but pound foolish. The kids had what they wanted and had no issues, but we should have done more things as a family.

Sadly and I say it openly admitting it, Today I am half way the man I should have been a year ago. I'm a 38 waist and a extra large in shirts. I haven't been this size since high school maybe.. 

I failed on my end. Does it equate to cheating on me and leaving me and the kids? I don't know.. I don't think so. Maybe others will think differently. Maybe she feels I would have never have changed if she never did this. 

Again I don't know because she won't speak to me or my older son who is 13 years old ( why him I have no clue beyond she is ashamed of what she did ). She also cut out her entire family as well. Which leads me to the belief she is ashamed.

Its funny because as a cop in a big city I have seen many things in my career, I've had fights with bad guys, ran toward gun battles, saved people from fires. I felt I didn't have to prove myself because I did what many people couldn't do. I have put myself in harms way for other and only afterwards did I reflect back and go "whoohoo" that was close or reflected with my partner on how it could have turned out bad.

I just didn't think I had to be Alpha with my wife. I figured she knew I would do what was needed to protect her and my family even at the cost of my own life. But I can see like was said some spouses get that and understand that, but others do not.. It just isn't enough for them for some reason..


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

Hardtohandle said:


> I agree, but I think there is a morality in there somewhere.
> 
> Look I'm no fashion plate. But I have been offered sex by woman and never took them up on it. I was thousands of miles away from my wife and I never did anything. No one would have ever known.
> 
> ...


This thread has made me re assess this book and your story provides a great example of why.

We are all looking at the "Alpha" definition and using confirmatory bias. Whatever fault "we" think we might have becomes the reason we weren't "Alpha" enough.

Ignore the traits *other* women would find madly attractive and "Alpha" qualities - be it providing for children, earning pots of dosh, running towards nutters with guns etc. etc. and instead find one that *might* be beta - a bit tubby, maybe watched too much football. 

How many examples have we seen of the POSOM being far more Beta than the BS? A woman runs off and finds a loser attractive and all of a sudden, their husband is "Beta"; the OM is judged as "Alpha" because he got the woman. Further confirmatory bias and the ultimate logical fallacy behind the whole book.


----------



## Phenix70 (May 6, 2012)

Chris989 said:


> This thread has made me re assess this book and your story provides a great example of why.
> 
> We are all looking at the "Alpha" definition and using confirmatory bias. Whatever fault "we" think we might have becomes the reason we weren't "Alpha" enough.
> 
> ...


I wonder about that too, especially when the OM is portrayed as "sensitive, caring & wanting to emotionally" help the WS, as well as being a good listener.
WTH?
Nothing "Alpha" about that, unless one considers those tactics as being "Alpha" because it enabled the OM to get the WS.
Or maybe the WS is just weak & all this "Alpha & Beta" stuff had nothing to do with the cheating.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Jul 17, 2013)

Hardtohandle said:


> *I agree, but I think there is a morality in there somewhere.
> 
> Look I'm no fashion plate. But I have been offered sex by woman and never took them up on it. I was thousands of miles away from my wife and I never did anything. No one would have ever known.
> 
> ...


:iagree: The WSs who complain abou the BS being neglectful, not there enough, whatever the excuse is - they are assuming they were a great spouse. The WS CHOSE to cheat and the BS CHOSE not to. Pretty simple concept. 

Also no one book will give you all the answers - as I stated earlier in this thread - even if you get one or two nuggets out of it - it is worth it.


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

So is this a book about how to change yourself so your wife won't cheat or leave you??


----------



## Healer (Jun 5, 2013)

bfree said:


> If you have the confidence to walk away she'll run after you.


True. And that fact makes me sick. I witnessed it first hand with my stbxww. What a twisted, f*cked up mentality.

This thread is triggering some anger with me.


----------



## Wiserforit (Dec 27, 2012)

Paladin said:


> I cite my source, a credible authority from the journal of evolutionary psychology, issue 8 volume 1 pages 110-112, who calls her findings into question in a valid academic fashion


Thanks. What you are up against is personalities that are mesmerized by jargon, and they'll even admit this without knowing so.

Who needs a book to tell them that being in shape makes you more attractive? We are bombarded with this in an infinite number of ways daily, and saw it our whole lives from the time we were adolescents onward.

So how can it be that this crowd elevates the book to cult status on the basis of saying something so obvious to anyone with a working brain? :scratchhead:

Because using jargon like "sex rank" tricks a shallow mind into thinking it is some new discovery and the attendance of all the other stupid, pretentious vocabulary at the same time fills you with the false pride of secret knowledge just the way cults and multi-level marketing schemes work. You see their eyes glaze over as they lovingly caress these precious terms, these badges of membership in the top echelon of the boob squad.

So they tell us that if we don't like the term "sex rank" to use a pre-existing term. Well, okay - then what value is there in this new term? None. It only has value as an innovation in jargon, not as a new concept. 

But it goes beyond jargon-hypnosis. Because there are rules like having a higher "sex rank" than the person you are with, which isn't even an objective standard that can be measured. It is utterly useless as a practical matter, and moves us away from useful criteria like whether we have compatible goals in life, or even whether we enjoy our time together. Instead it's "I need to be an 8 if she is a 7", which is stupid on the face of it. What long-lasting relationships have ever told us, and I mean EVER told us that they made it because one was an 8 and one was a 7? 

The fact there is an endless train of guys on this forum whose wives cheated on them with people who are the opposite of the "Alpha" standard ought to shake some sense into people that this is a gross over-simplification of relationship issues.

But it doesn't. That is the power of jargon and salesmanship in an arena where people are looking for answers. Look what Charles Manson could do with people who are predisposed to embrace someone with "answers".


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wiserforit said:


> So how can it be that this crowd elevates the book to cult status on the basis of saying something so obvious to anyone with a working brain? :scratchhead:


I used to smoke. Do you smoke? Know someone that does? Smoking causes cancer. Everyone knows that. And yet the tobaco companies aren't exactly going broke are they?

I have been drunk and got behind the wheel. Ever get into the car after having a few drinks? Know someone who has? Everyone knows that drinking and driving kills people every day. Yet it continues to happen all the time.

Face it. People do things every day that they know is bad. Its human nature. Just because you and I know that being in shape is a good thing doesn't mean everyone is in shape does it? Some people need motivation in order to make changes in their lives. If a book helps them become motivated to become better men and women why are you railing against it? As far as I'm concerned the more people that are in shape and healthier the better our society is as a whole. After all, I don't want my health insurance premiums to go up just because someone else got fat and needed heart surgery or a gastric bypass.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

bfree said:


> I used to smoke. Do you smoke? Know someone that does? Smoking causes cancer. Everyone knows that. And yet the tobaco companies aren't exactly going broke are they?
> 
> I have been drunk and got behind the wheel. Ever get into the car after having a few drinks? Know someone who has? Everyone knows that drinking and driving kills people every day. Yet it continues to happen all the time.
> 
> Face it. People do things every day that they know is bad. Its human nature. Just because you and I know that being in shape is a good thing doesn't mean everyone is in shape does it? Some people need motivation in order to make changes in their lives. If a book helps them become motivated to become better men and women why are you railing against it? As far as I'm concerned the more people that are in shape and healthier the better our society is as a whole. After all, I don't want my health insurance premiums to go up just because someone else got fat and needed heart surgery or a gastric bypass.


I think it's because the book is often offered as "The Answer"; it can easily send a betrayed - or soon to be betrayed - spouse down the wrong path.

Whilst they are getting their Testosterone ("T") levels checked, ensuring their waist is in the correct ratio to their forearms and nose flair and judging each of their decisions on what is really "Alpha", their wayward is out banging another dude's brains out whom happens to have a handy flat and loose morals. Hence, he is the "Alpha" - whatever his T levels, eyebrow height and ability to choose a restaurant without a woman's input.

You see, it might well be a good book in terms of promoting a healthy lifestyle, but when it is framed in pseudo science and snake oil sales mumbo jumbo it becomes misleading and, hence, potentially dangerous.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Chris989 said:


> We are all looking at the "Alpha" definition and using confirmatory bias. Whatever fault "we" think we might have becomes the reason we weren't "Alpha" enough.
> 
> Ignore the traits *other* women would find madly attractive and "Alpha" qualities - be it providing for children, earning pots of dosh, running towards nutters with guns etc. etc. and instead find one that *might* be beta - a bit tubby, maybe watched too much football.
> 
> How many examples have we seen of the POSOM being far more Beta than the BS? A woman runs off and finds a loser attractive and all of a sudden, their husband is "Beta"; the OM is judged as "Alpha" because he got the woman. Further confirmatory bias and the ultimate logical fallacy behind the whole book.


I think we in danger of making what is a complex idea - human attraction between the sexes - too digital; where Alpha becomes 'traits I wish I had' and Beta 'traits I wish I could lose'. It's understandable on CWI that a BH will feel emasculated by the betrayal that has been brought upon them, but to me that doesn't automatically make them anymore Beta than before the betrayal.

We're getting too hung up on these labels. Take the situation where a loss of connection has occurred because the H is working hard to provide for his family (Beta). But it also means he's earning more money (Alpha). The loss of quality time leads to the loss of attraction. The solution is date nights and behaving a little more the way they did whilst courting - neither Alpha or Beta.

My big take out from the book was about reinforcing my position in the family as a leader. I liked the Pilot/co-pilot analogy as it is very true of our marriage. The majority of the time I have the controls, but am happy to relinquish the controls in areas where my wife is better suited. We trust each other's abilities and neither has a problem deferring to the other as situations demand.

Take listening - Beta or Alpha? Frankly I don't know. I do know that listening is a prime leadership skill. You cannot be a leader of men (and women) without the ability to listen. So, I'm not going to get hung up on the Alpha/Beta thing; it isn't the answer to every problem.

I also found the section on fitness tests interesting (though the thread on the subject on TAM is far superior) http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/18347-fitness-tests.html

An example from my own life as to why I don't get hung up on Alpha/Beta:

I had been separated (geographically) from my wife and son for a few months. This obviously put strain on our marriage and on my wife in particular as she had become effectively a single mother. Three days after my return, on the eve of a family trip, she and I got in a massive argument and she stated she wasn't going to come. Amongst other things in a colourful and inventive tirade she stated I was "the worst father in the world". In quieter moments I do tease her for being a 'reckless exaggerator' (Calvin & Hobbes referrence). So, I don't take her exact words to heart, but I do listen.

Firstly I kept calm during the onslaught - Alpha
Me: If you don't want to come, don't come. But we (son & I) are still going - Alpha
Her: [Immediate backtrack - who will feed him, etc)
Me: Me. I'm his father, remember? - Beta?
Her: [More non-hurdles which I brushed aside]

This is why I don't waste any time wondering whether I'm too Alpha or Beta; or when I should be one or the other. My stance throughout was 'Alpha' but the entire 'debate' was about child-rearing which is about as Beta as you can get. 

My wife wanted me to prove my mettle. If I had canned the trip I would have admitted I'm a poor father. She would have lost respect for me and therefore attraction. So, that outcome was avoided by showing leadership, being the head of the family, which my wife could rightly question due to my absence. Alpha or Beta didn't cross my mind at any stage. 

Now I only read the book after this incident but it did help explain what that exchange was really about. Useful even retrospectively as I didn't have a clue what the hell was going on in real time 

Sex Rank
It seems like one of the more contentious ideas in the book. True, it sounds a bit juvenile as I have never been one to grade women I see/meet (or hang out with people who did). I did ask my wife what she'd give me out of ten - an 8. Nice. I said I'd give her the same, though she's closer to a 9 for me when she's all fancied up when we go out. Perhaps some PUA might only rate us as 6's. I frankly couldn't give a fvck as we're only trying to be attractive to eachother. My take-out from this is that we both find each other equally attractive after 11 years of marriage, so we'll both be mindful to keep it that way.

The book is just a tool. Take what will help you, reject the rest if it doesn't fit with your world view.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Chris989 said:


> I think it's because the book is often offered as "The Answer"; it can easily send a betrayed - or soon to be betrayed - spouse down the wrong path.
> 
> Whilst they are getting their Testosterone ("T") levels checked, ensuring their waist is in the correct ratio to their forearms and nose flair and judging each of their decisions on what is really "Alpha", their wayward is out banging another dude's brains out whom happens to have a handy flat and loose morals. Hence, he is the "Alpha" - whatever his T levels, eyebrow height and ability to choose a restaurant without a woman's input.
> 
> You see, it might well be a good book in terms of promoting a healthy lifestyle, but when it is framed in pseudo science and snake oil sales mumbo jumbo it becomes misleading and, hence, potentially dangerous.


Show me where this book is portrayed as "the answer?" Because I've been here longer and I've never seen it. It is offered as a tool just like _Not Just Friends_, _His Needs Her Needs _etc. Some tools work for some and other tools work for others. But all are valuable in their own way. Did you know that Athol Kay began his journey here on TAM? He was a poster just like us and his need for answers led him to do the research that eventually culminated in MMSL. As far as psuedo science, not sure where that is coming from. In point of fact all science is psuedo science because all scientific knowledge is eventually replaced by newer and fresher perspectives. Smoking good...no smoking bad. Drinking good...no drinking bad...no drinking ok again. We can only use what we know at the time to base our beliefs on.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Chris989 said:


> Whilst they are getting their Testosterone ("T") levels checked, ensuring their waist is in the correct ratio to their forearms and *nose flair* and judging each of their decisions on what is really "Alpha", their wayward is out banging another dude's brains out whom happens to have a handy flat and loose morals. Hence, he is the "Alpha" - whatever his T levels, eyebrow height and ability to choose a restaurant without a woman's input.


 But Chris it's a book to improve marriages that are going stale. It's not - "Cast Iron ways to affair proof your marriage irrespective of the boundaries, integrity, morals and selfishness of your spouse"


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

bfree said:


> Show me where this book is portrayed as "the answer?" Because I've been here longer and I've never seen it. It is offered as a tool just like _Not Just Friends_, _His Needs Her Needs _etc. Some tools work for some and other tools work for others. But all are valuable in their own way. Did you know that Athol Kay began his journey here on TAM? He was a poster just like us and his need for answers led him to do the research that eventually culminated in MMSL. As far as psuedo science, not sure where that is coming from. In point of fact all science is psuedo science because all scientific knowledge is eventually replaced by newer and fresher perspectives. Smoking good...no smoking bad. Drinking good...no drinking bad...no drinking ok again. We can only use what we know at the time to base our beliefs on.


There are certain respondents who present the book as the be all and end all. I see I should not respond further on this subject - after all you have "been here longer". (edit: not sure what you mean by that as you seem not to have and I am not really disagreeing with you in any case but...meh)


----------



## wilderness (Jan 9, 2013)

Wiserforit said:


> Thanks. What you are up against is personalities that are mesmerized by jargon, and they'll even admit this without knowing so.
> 
> Who needs a book to tell them that being in shape makes you more attractive? We are bombarded with this in an infinite number of ways daily, and saw it our whole lives from the time we were adolescents onward.
> 
> ...


I'm not a huge fan of the book, either. However, I don't think this post is entirely fair. Based on my experiences with women, my opinion is that it is prudent- maybe even essential- for a man to have a higher sex rank than a woman he is in a relationship with. It shifts the balance of power in the favor of the man, and that is where it needs to be if the relationship is going to work out. That's especially true in modern society, where throwaway marriages and no fault divorces are the norm. The problem I have with the book is that it really doesn't define the term 'sex rank' and it certainly doesn't give any type of a detailed explanation of how to improve it...other than to work out and get in shape.

I've had my sex rank go up and down in my life. Higher sex rank= higher confidence. This is a good thing, even if one has a cheating spouse. And no, I don't think increasing sex rank while the spouse is cheating will bring her back in most cases. Nor do I think increasing sex rank will prevent woman from cheating in most cases. But it's still the prudent thing to do, imo.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Azteca,

I agree with you about the alpha/beta terminlogy. Its too simplistic but I understand the reasons why it is used to illustrate points. Plus even when using the terminology more alpha is not necessarily better and in fact as I've stated before its all about balance and that is the primary idea that the book tries to get across. If anyone reads that book and sees it all as "add more alpha" then they really haven't read it well. Even when you go to his site you can see there is just as much information about adding comfort (beta) to your relationship as there is about "manning up (alpha)." The sex rank things is really being taken out of context. The idea is not to up your sex rank so it reaches some arbitrary level or number. Its all about staying attractive for your spouse and not letting yourself go. And its just as important for women as men. Why do women wear makeup? Why do they wear tight fitting clothes? Why do they get their hair done? Its all about staying attractive. All Athol is saying is to make sure you are working as hard to be attractive to your spouse as he/she is working to be attractive to you. Its not even about the beauty in general. Its about the work that goes into it. If my wife worked very hard to be/stay beautiful to me and I in turn got fat, wore stained T-shirts and walked around in my torn boxers how would she feel? Like she was trying and I was not? That is the lesson with sex rank.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

azteca1986 said:


> But Chris it's a book to improve marriages that are going stale. It's not - "Cast Iron ways to affair proof your marriage irrespective of the boundaries, integrity, morals and selfishness of your spouse"


I agree - I thought it was very good in many ways. I easily get side tracked into a polarised view on things. I think that's Beta. Or Alpha. Either way, I annoy even myself sometimes


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Chris989 said:


> There are certain respondents who present the book as the be all and end all. I see I should not respond further on this subject - after all you have "been here longer". (edit: not sure what you mean by that as you seem not to have and I am not really disagreeing with you in any case but...meh)


My point was that I've been here a long time and haven't seen it. If you do I would really appreciate you pointing it out for me so I can understand your objections.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

bfree said:


> Azteca,
> 
> I agree with you about the alpha/beta terminlogy. Its too simplistic but I understand the reasons why it is used to illustrate points. Plus even when using the terminology more alpha is not necessarily better and in fact as I've stated before its all about balance and that is the primary idea that the book tries to get across. If anyone reads that book and sees it all as "add more alpha" then they really haven't read it well.


If your aim is to have a fulfilling marriage and bring up your children well you'll have to find balance. Each trait has positive and negative aspects. Money, status and the respect of your peers has to be ballanced with the ability of telling bedtime stories with accompanying amusing voices. Comforting your wife and enjoying a dynamic sex life. It's all about balance





> The sex rank things is really being taken out of context. The idea is not to up your sex rank so it reaches some arbitrary level or number. Its all about staying attractive for your spouse and not letting yourself go. And its just as important for women as men. Why do women wear makeup? Why do they wear tight fitting clothes? Why do they get their hair done? Its all about staying attractive. All Athol is saying is to make sure you are working as hard to be attractive to your spouse as he/she is working to be attractive to you. Its not even about the beauty in general. Its about the work that goes into it. If my wife worked very hard to be/stay beautiful to me and I in turn got fat, wore stained T-shirts and walked around in my torn boxers how would she feel? Like she was trying and I was not? That is the lesson with sex rank.


I agree. Nothing in the book is the be all and end all. The models are simplistic, but that's the nature of a book that has to have mass appeal to be a commercial success.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

The book was great at cheering me up while dealing with the trauma of infidelity.

The fitness test part was the most critical for me, I have failed every fitness test ever thrown at me, because of ignorance. 

IMO Alpha = psychopath while Beta = a man with no higher purpose

I think "The Way of The Superior Man" is a better book. In it the more important concept is raised which is that a man should have a core purpose that is higher then his relationship. This is what is lacking in all of the beta's around this place as far as I can tell. 

When a man has a passion that he goes after with intent, when he is focused on what he wants and doesn't let anything get in his way, he is unshakeable. 

Alpha or Beta, a man with no passion is a walking corpse. 

When my marriage failed I felt like my entire world was crashing down on me.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Disenchanted said:


> The book was great at cheering me up while dealing with the trauma of infidelity.
> 
> The fitness test part was the most critical for me, I have failed every fitness test ever thrown at me, because of ignorance.
> 
> ...


You're right. That is an excellent book and philosophy.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Jul 17, 2013)

Disenchanted said:


> The book was great at cheering me up while dealing with the trauma of infidelity.
> 
> The fitness test part was the most critical for me, I have failed every fitness test ever thrown at me, because of ignorance.
> 
> ...


Is that book new agey? It seems interesting....


----------



## Vanguard (Jul 27, 2011)

I bought it. I was underwhelmed.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Truthseeker1 said:


> Is that book new agey? It seems interesting....


If by "new agey" you mean some stupid lame attempt (a la Madame Blavatsky) to bring Eastern religions to the West I would say no it is not.


----------



## Truthseeker1 (Jul 17, 2013)

Disenchanted said:


> If by "new agey" you mean some stupid lame attempt (a la Madame Blavatsky) to bring Eastern religions to the West I would say no it is not.


I mean tlike Robert Bly's Iron John - which was the rage about 15-20 years ago...


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Not familiar with it, sorry.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Truthseeker1 said:


> I mean tlike Robert Bly's Iron John - which was the rage about 15-20 years ago...


Sounds like a "New Agey" toilet. :rofl:


----------



## Wiserforit (Dec 27, 2012)

bfree said:


> Just because you and I know that being in shape is a good thing doesn't mean everyone is in shape does it? Some people need motivation in order to make changes in their lives. If a book helps them become motivated to become better men and women why are you railing against it?


It's a false analogy, coupled with false reasoning. I really dislike the "analogy war" form of argumentation instead of talking about the subject. Your argument is like an ox in a flower store. 

If you would like to talk about the book, just let me know. I already explained that the book promotes rules that are contradicted daily on this forum. If there are contradictions, they aren't rules. If they are contradicted to this extent, then they aren't even generally true. 



wilderness said:


> The problem I have with the book is that it really doesn't define the term 'sex rank' and it certainly doesn't give any type of a detailed explanation of how to improve it...other than to work out and get in shape.


Exactly so. If it cannot even define the term, it cannot be measured, and it cannot be implemented. "Work out" can be implemented. 

You see that clearly but then say this:



> maybe even essential- for a man to have a higher sex rank than a woman he is in a relationship with. It shifts the balance of power in the favor of the man, and that is where it needs to be if the relationship is going to work out. That's especially true in modern society, where throwaway marriages and no fault divorces are the norm.


First of all, I object to the position that the man has to have greater power in a relationship than a woman. Look at me, maybe the man most opposed to feminism on this forum, saying so. Equality and treamwork. If you are a doormat, you are not an equal. Advising someone to be an _equal_ instead of a _superior_ is preferable in my opinion. 

I also disagree with the superficiality of the approach to exercise. It isn't all about looks. For me it has to do with keeping up with me hiking, swimming, playing frisbee, chasing the dogs and kids around the yard - having an active lifestyle. Driving machines in the wilderness takes a real athlete, and we do this just about every day, and I can't stand being with people who are motor morons in the woods. I take the farm girl over the model every time. I dislike the whole "vanity first" approach to exercise. 

But secondly, one of the great things about having no definition for a term means you can't argue with someone who is deploying it. If you can't define sex rank then you cannot observe who has a higher sex rank, and it is silly to say that you should have a higher undefinable trait than someone else. 

This again comes down to traditional terms behind the pretentious ones. Your mate should find you attractive. Now we ARE talking about something you can measure. Because your spouse is in charge of what she finds attractive. If your spouse finds someting unattractive in you - and this is everything from physical appearance to attitude, employment, political positions, etc. - then you are in trouble.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Wiserforit said:


> First of all, I object to the position that the man has to have greater power in a relationship than a woman. Look at me, maybe the man most opposed to feminism on this forum, saying so. Equality and treamwork. If you are a doormat, you are not an equal. Advising someone to be an _equal_ instead of a _superior_ is preferable in my opinion.


Absolutely agree with this. I'm a feminist up to the point of equality. A man who felt he had to 'keep the upper hand' in a relationship through sex rank would strike me as insecure. 



> This again comes down to traditional terms behind the pretentious ones. Your mate should find you attractive. Now we ARE talking about something you can measure. Because your spouse is in charge of what she finds attractive. If your spouse finds someting unattractive in you - and this is everything from physical appearance to attitude, employment, political positions, etc. - then you are in trouble.


I'm only interested in sex rank as some kind of measure of attractiveness. There's no objective way to measure sex rank, so there's only so much the concept can do for you. If it is only a measure of looks, it's both shallow and disregards our human qualities, our character and our principles. So, sex rank isn't a key part of the book for me.



> If you would like to talk about the book, just let me know. I already explained that the book promotes rules that are contradicted daily on this forum. If there are contradictions, they aren't rules. If they are contradicted to this extent, then they aren't even generally true.


I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. What are the potential pitfalls the book promotes? What do you agree with?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wiserforit said:


> If you would like to talk about the book, just let me know. I already explained that the book promotes rules that are contradicted daily on this forum. If there are contradictions, they aren't rules. If they are contradicted to this extent, then they aren't even generally true.


I'd love to discuss it if I knew what you were talking about. I'm fairly familiar with Athol's book and blog. Maybe you misunderstood something?


----------



## Wiserforit (Dec 27, 2012)

azteca1986 said:


> I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate. What are the potential pitfalls the book promotes? What do you agree with?


First, I place communication above all else in a relationship. It doesn't even seem to be on his radar. It's all about Game, which is actually based upon a premise of deception. Can we tell our wives that we are exercising to increase our sex rank above theirs so that we can obtain power over them and dominate the relationship? 

I do it because I like exercise. It also has direct benefits. Hiking the hills allows me to see where all the game animals are on a regular basis and keep our freezer full. 

I disagree with the Red Pill/Blue Pill false dichotomy and the assertion that you cannot trust what women say they want from men. You have the wrong woman if that's the case. He objects to feminist doctrine, but has the wrong solution. My solution is _don't marry one_. And we shoud be listening very carefully to our wives and working on honest communication instead of operating from a false premise that you cannot trust what women tell you they want. 

He is not a licensed psychologist and that's not to invalidate what would otherwise be good advice: it is to point out that his premise about disagreeing with everything the last 50 years has to say about marriage advice is bankrupt because he hasn't actually studied in a professional setting to see what that advice actually is. It's a straw man, misdirected towards the professionals when he is really speaking to the politically correct feminist pop-culture memes. 

He came from an evangelical background, and now he's an evangelical with this. The book is expressing a religion with a scientific patina, much the same way Scientology pretends to be a science. Is he a scientist with proper training behind his whole Alpha = Dopamine, Beta = oxytocin kinds of assertions? No, he isn't. His theory has not been subjected to peer review. It's a pop-culture book. So don't tell me you are practicing science when you aren't. I publish in my field. He doesn't. 

People are going to object and say well, I liked his advice so who cares if he is parading around as a scientist when he clearly isn't, and his material is not subject to scientific review? For one thing, placebo effect - but in a much stronger sense. If you are working on yourself _at all_, there are going to be benefits. That does not mean this is the best advice amongst the plethora of advice out there. 

I see clear contradictions. For example, I agree that oxytocin is released during sex. Scientific fact. We are supposed to "take" our woman and leave her in a puddle of steaming goo. Put out major Alpha. Except ooops! It is the BETA traits in you that supposedly release her oxytocin. So this is a pretty glaring contradiction, and if you have these kinds of silly and major contradictions then what good is the theory?

The people this is most beneficial for are people like him who were such doormats that almost anything would improve their situation. But you don't need this book to get that kind of self-respecting advice and you don't have to embrace the pseudo science either.

I hear what you are saying about sex rank not being a major part of the book for YOU. But it sure is for HIM. And for the guys that are posting it all over this forum. It's all alpha all the time, sex rank talk and personally it would make my wife ill, not horny.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wiserforit said:


> First, I place communication above all else in a relationship. It doesn't even seem to be on his radar. It's all about Game, which is actually based upon a premise of deception. Can we tell our wives that we are exercising to increase our sex rank above theirs so that we can obtain power over them and dominate the relationship?
> 
> I do it because I like exercise. It also has direct benefits. Hiking the hills allows me to see where all the game animals are on a regular basis and keep our freezer full.
> 
> ...


It is obvious that you did misunderstand much of what Athol wrote and what he is saying in general. While it is true that he came from an evangelical backgroud you do realize he is an atheist right? And you must have missed the part where he talks about alpha and beta balance. As for Game being a deception I suppose its true if your goal is to pick up women in bars. However when Game theory (such as it is) is used to understand why your wife is or is not attracted to you there is no deception at all. Or as Athol's wife Jennifer says "Jennifer: I’ve often been asked if me knowing about Athol using Game makes it less effective. I don’t think it does. I don’t see it as manipulation as much as I see it as motivation…it’s not a bad thing for me if he knows what makes me attracted to him and he does those things."

But rather than sit here and contradict each and every thing you wrote I'll let Athol Kay do it himself:


Why You Need The Blue Pill Too | Married Man Sex Life

How To Fair Warning a Husband That Doesn’t Listen (Before Things Are Too Late To Fix) | Married Man Sex Life

Read, Think, Stay | Married Man Sex Life

Dr Helen Fisher: Casual Sex Doesn’t Exist | Married Man Sex Life

Your Love Your Love Is My Drug (And It’s Called Dopamine) | Married Man Sex Life


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

I started a thread on this months ago and gave up in the end; I tried to assert that the scientific method should be applied to anything purporting to be science, but this was lost in the noise.

I gave up before others did because life is too short, but the book is quite seductive and I do think there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

Try as I might, I have failed to find reputable scientific studies to either confirm or deny Mr Athol's writing; I did begin to mine the information on here that goes back for years but gave up as I found what little faith in humanity I had was being flushed down the toilet of life.


----------



## Wiserforit (Dec 27, 2012)

bfree said:


> It is obvious that you did misunderstand much of what Athol wrote and what he is saying in general. While it is true that he came from an evangelical backgroud you do realize he is an atheist right?


No, I did not misunderstand at all. Yes, I know he is an atheist, and you are the one misrepresenting me.

What he has shown is a predilection for facllacious logical "reasoning", which was why moving from one evangelical type of background to another evangelical background is to be expected of him.

His presentation of MMSL is just the same as any other religion: assert it, rather than applying the scientific method. he would subject it to peer review if it were science. He knows it cannot withstand peer review any more than religion can or else he would already have done it and used that to promote the book into the stratosphere.



> And you must have missed the part where he talks about alpha and beta balance.


I absolutely did not. You have made this without the slightest foundation, which is why you could not quote me saying anything of the kind. In fact, I spoke to his theoretical nonsense about beta releasing oxycontin in females, basically doping them up with beta. 




> As for Game being a deception I suppose its true if your goal is to pick up women in bars. However when Game theory (such as it is) is used to understand why your wife is or is not attracted to you there is no deception at all. Or as Athol's wife Jennifer says "Jennifer: I’ve often been asked if me knowing about Athol using Game makes it less effective. I don’t think it does. I don’t see it as manipulation as much as I see it as motivation…it’s not a bad thing for me if he knows what makes me attracted to him and he does those things."


I took Game Theory as well as a lot of other mathematics this guy probably doesn't even have an inkling exists in graduate school. The whole patronizing approach towards women I find distasteful and despite my loathing for feminism I need a woman with self-respect, dignity, and is my intellectual equal, or I am not playing any kind of marriage Game with her. His requires a player (woman) who is not his equal and holy crikey what do you expect her to say about the appearance of manipulation? You expect her to talk against her husband's book and cut his sales off at the ankles? What could be more damning than having your own wife say anything negative about your relationship book? She is the most biased person next to himself. 





> But rather than sit here and contradict each and every thing you wrote I'll let Athol Kay do it himself:


You didn't contradict anything I wrote. You made up two straw men out of thin air, and then told me that his wife agrees with his book. 



> Why You Need The Blue Pill Too | Married Man Sex Life


Thanks for that, and the others because I meant to point out the other major contradictions. He starts out by saying not to take the blue pill - it's the worst advice you could ever have...

then he says, oh: you need the blue pill too!! 

This is exactly the kind of contradictory deceit we see in so-called Game literature, and why it is impossible to have an honest discussion with them. 

What can we say about people who read those internal contradictions "don't take the blue pill...take the blue pill" and buy into it anyway?

If you are even aware of it, then it is intellectually dishonest to counter disagreement with his emphatic statements by saying "well you are wrong because he disagrees with himself too..." :scratchhead:


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Wiserforit,

You seem to be hung up on the science behind the book but Mr. Kay never claimed to be a scientist nor did he claim that his "method" was in any way scientific. All he did say was that much of his conclusions were based on the work of Dr. Helen Fisher. Something Dr. Helen Fisher said seems to express the ways that both you and I see this.

"You can know every single ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake and still sit down and eat it and feel the joy."

You are more interested in the ingredients and method of making the cake. I on the other hand understand how the cake is made but I can set that aside while I enjoy the taste.

Athol started out as a poster here on TAM and his search for answers led him to some conclusions that he found helpful. He was encouraged by others here on TAM to start a blog so he could share his ideas. And while writing his blog he was encouraged by his readers to compile a book based on his writings. The fact is that his writings have helped many men and women to take control of their lives and improve their marriages. In the end I believe that is all that truly matters.

We will have to agree to disagree I guess.


----------



## Wiserforit (Dec 27, 2012)

bfree said:


> Wiserforit,
> 
> You seem to be hung up on the science behind the book but Mr. Kay never claimed to be a scientist nor did he claim that his "method" was in any way scientific.


Calling it the "Science of Attraction" isn't a claim that it is science? I wasn't born yesterday. My eyes are working just fine. 

Calling me "hung up" for inspecting his own assertion is pretty manipulative. As if I was weird and crazy for checking into an author's primary claim. 




> "You can know every single ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake and still sit down and eat it and feel the joy."
> 
> You are more interested in the ingredients and method of making the cake. I on the other hand understand how the cake is made but I can set that aside while I enjoy the taste.


WTF. More silly analogies instead of talking about the text. You are like a butterfly lost in a cave, with little bacteria on the wings who wish they were angels. I'm more like a retired boxer. 



> Athol started out as a poster here on TAM and his search for answers led him to some conclusions that he found helpful. He was encouraged by others here on TAM to start a blog so he could share his ideas. And while writing his blog he was encouraged by his readers to compile a book based on his writings. The fact is that his writings have helped many men and women to take control of their lives and improve their marriages. In the end I believe that is all that truly matters.


Thank you. You admit it is irrelevant to you whether his so-called science has one whit of truth to it. 

We do not have any study on the effectiveness of this book in marriages. Anecdotal evidence, but the only kind you are willing to accept is positive anecdotal evidence, and discount entirely any negative.

That's the way cults work. 




> We will have to agree to disagree I guess.


Yes. We agree on that.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

If you are married to a bi polar, a histrionic or a BPD woman then Athol's book is for you.

If you want to pick up a bi polar, histrionic or BPD woman, then study game.

If you want a relationship with a healthy person throw that shi!t out and find a woman who wants to work on herself and is focused on that and then get to work on yourself _with her_.

_This_ is a real book.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

lol.


----------



## Iver (Mar 8, 2013)

If your marriage is in a rut or your wife doesn't seem interested in you and you're 50 lbs. overweight Athol's advice would be to lose the weight.

Is this going to be an automatic fix to what is troubling your marriage? Of course not. 

But what it will do is make you more attractive which will improve the situation you are in. Now is that such a bad thing?

Yes, it is quite obvious but as pointed out earlier millions of people smoke, drink & drive, don't wear their seat belt as well even when it's obvious they shouldn't. 

Millions of people actually do need to be informed that being overweight is hurting their marriage. 

I don't see his writings aimed at reeling in a cheating spouse but more aimed at revitalizing a marriage that is floundering.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Disenchanted said:


> If you are married to a bi polar, a histrionic or a BPD woman then Athol's book is for you.
> 
> If you want to pick up a bi polar, histrionic or BPD woman, then study game.
> 
> ...


Or if you have been freshly adulterated (is that a correct term?), been told ILYBNILWY or any of the other things that occur here, then MMSLP is a good wake up call and serves a purpose by pointing out what should be glaringly obvious facts.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> Or if you have been freshly adulterated (is that a correct term?), been told ILYBNILWY or any of the other things that occur here, then MMSLP is a good wake up call and serves a purpose by pointing out what should be glaringly obvious facts.


I'm not sure where you're coming from here? Had I read MMSLP when I got the "ILYBNILWY" speech it wouldn't have made any difference. At that point I had been hitting the gym every day for quite a while and was already pretty "alpha". The problem was, my ex wife had decided to bang somebody else. I'm afraid that had nothing to do with me.

Maybe it would have given me some confidence that I *was* doing the *right* things, but my kids would still be in the same house and our finances would not have stretched to another house in the same area.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Chris989 said:


> I'm not sure where you're coming from here? Had I read MMSLP when I got the "ILYBNILWY" speech it wouldn't have made any difference. At that point I had been hitting the gym every day for quite a while and was already pretty "alpha". The problem was, my ex wife had decided to bang somebody else. I'm afraid that had nothing to do with me.
> 
> Maybe it would have given me some confidence that I *was* doing the *right* things, but my kids would still be in the same house and our finances would not have stretched to another house in the same area.


I should have added more but I sometimes forget. I often post in a 'in general' mode.

Each situation, although there is undoubtedly a 'script' is different with different individuals.

From what I remember of your situation your wife had a thing at the time for a different racial type, I think it was black guys?

You were battling against shet odds from the start. Alpha/beta or any of the other explanations/rationales probably wouldn't have helped you.

I merely meant that (in general) the book is useful for guys that have let themselves go a bit, got complacent, overweight and took things with their wives for granted.

On another note have you updated your thread lately Chris? Last I remember you were both still in the same home and she was desperate to keep you.

Did you finally get that financial 'thing' sorted out fully? The one that was a stumbling block to you moving on?

Is this why you are still home?


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

It cheered me up. Especially with all the "she can be replaced talk" and "everything in a relationship boils down to sex rank". That was fun and put a smile on my face when nothing else would.

A year later, I've run the MAP. I am in great shape physically, I have a new expensive wardrobe, I get crazy attention from women everywhere I go and I still pretty much hate myself.

I need to work on inner game, which is to say, I'm not interested in some hollow shell of a relationship but it'll be a while before I can let myself be vulnerable to a woman. If sex drive is all animalistic impulse then I will never let myself be that vulnerable to a woman again.

For anyone who hasn't read the book but wants a 5 paragraph synopsis, here it is:

Dread | Chateau Heartiste


----------



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

I am more bemused by Athol's MMSLP than anything else. Yes, it is a book designed for the everyday reader, so it is heavy on labels, acronyms and "science" in order to allow the everyday laymen to understand Athol's points. IMHO, the bottom line is that if you use your common sense and what you learned by interacting with people throughout your life, you KNOW how to make a strong marriage that has ALL the important components for man and woman. 

Here is sex rank as I believe Athol to think it is meant to be. Again, back to more common sense.

Career > Job
Good muscle tone > soft, flabby body
Confidence > lack of confidence
Having self respect > having no self respect
Standing up for yourself > letting everyone walk all over you
Spending quality time with your spouse > avoiding your spouse in favor of doing something else
Having a confident demeanor when making moves on your spouse > begging for sex
Showing you are capable of doing for yourself > needing your spouse for everything
More money > less money
Taking pride in personal appearance > dressing like a slob
Good hygene > poor hygene
Leading an active life > being a couch potato.
Smart > Dumb (but probably better to say Educated > Ignorant)

How did I do? Did I get most of it? I think I did and I didn't need Athol to tell me this. Also, what will make the "sex rank" nebulous is not what it is made of but how each individual will weight this basket of goods. Some traits are more important to some people than others. It's up to you to find someone who is compatible with you that shares your values, ideals and outlook on life.

Bottom line for me is that if people think they need MMSLP, then have at it. But if you have enough common sense and understand people then I think you would be wasting your money.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> *Each situation, although there is undoubtedly a 'script' is different with different individuals.*
> 
> "..You were battling against shet odds from the start. Alpha/beta or any of the other explanations/rationales probably wouldn't have helped you.."
> 
> "..*the book is useful for guys that have let themselves go a bit, got complacent, overweight and took things with their wives for granted..*"


Quoted^^^ For^^^ Truth.

Ah yes, Mr. Wysh,
The conventional wisdom of the British.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> How did I do? Did I get most of it?
> 
> *I think you pretty well nailed it.*
> 
> ...


----------



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

Thanks bfree. I think the crux of the situation has more to do with execution than ignorance. Sure, there are people that have no clue about healthy eating and need a basic book. Others who are trying to pack on muscle or get into competitive bodybuilding need more nuanced information that may not be obvious. But IMHO, when it comes to relationships, for the most part the interactions should be more obvious. I think the books dealing with relationships become more useful when you are dealing with a personality quirk or an actual mental condition like autism, bi-polar, chronic depression, etc. When things are not clear cut because you were probably not introduced to these issues growing up, you definitely will need some additional insight. 

I know some in this thread do not like your analogies, but I don't get bothered by them TBH. I've used them myself, and the reason why is because people seem to shroud marriage and LTR's in some mysterious cloak that is unlike anything else we have experience with before. I think that's patently false, and that there is no more mystery being in a marriage than there is dealing with anyone else. We all know that if you do not stand up to a bully when you are a kid, you will continue to be bullied. This is no different than being in a marriage where if you do not stand up to your spouse who is trying to take and control more and more things, you will continue to be marginalized. It never worked to nice your way out of harms way with a bully. Why would someone think that you can nice your way out of dealing with an angry spouse that is resenting you more and more as time goes on?

Deep down, we know a lot more than we care to admit. Hell, most of the threads started in CWI or GRI are more for emotional support than to truly get answers, although almost all of them are started as if they are seeking answers.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Disenchanted said:


> I need to work on inner game, which is to say, I'm not interested in some hollow shell of a relationship but it'll be a while before I can let myself be vulnerable to a woman. If sex drive is all animalistic impulse then I will never let myself be that vulnerable to a woman again.
> 
> For anyone who hasn't read the book but wants a 5 paragraph synopsis, here it is:
> 
> Dread | Chateau Heartiste


My man, if your aim is to have a relationship of substance, I'd ignore every piece of advice in that article. It's tragic.

Firstly, even mentioning 'Soulmates' is a major warning sign. Ridiculous schoolgirl mush. My wife is not my missing half, she does not 'complete' me. I'm a fully rounded individual in my own right. As is she.

Secondly, I realise the article is aimed at men in the dating scene, but all it advocates is the playing of silly games and manipulation. I mean really? Is that anyway to conduct a relationship?

_"The key for the man is to adopt a posture of blase emotional distance alternated with loving tenderness. Too much of either and she’ll run off."_
Yeah, because without contrived and premeditated emotional manipulation there's no reason for her to remain interested in you 
The whole article reeks of insecurity. Men are encouraged to purposely de-stabilise their SO in order to maintain their attraction, because apparently they have no other redeeming qualities. No authenticity. No integrity. Just silly kids games.

_Make a blatant but plausibly deniable move on one of her friends when she’s not around. The news will get back to her. Milk it._
This reminds me of an exchange between my wife and I:

Wife: My [ex-fiance] tried to make me jealous. It was so pathetic.
Me : Have I made you jealous?
Wife: No.

Boys & Men is all that comes to mind. I'm not entirely sure what 'Inner Game' is to be honest (and happy to be enlightened) but from what I can understand there's nothing so irresistible as being; authentic, comfortable with yourself and confident. I don't think that article will get you there.

Best of luck on your journey.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

Disenchanted said:


> It cheered me up. Especially with all the "she can be replaced talk" and "everything in a relationship boils down to sex rank". That was fun and put a smile on my face when nothing else would.
> 
> A year later, I've run the MAP. I am in great shape physically, I have a new expensive wardrobe, I get crazy attention from women everywhere I go and I still pretty much hate myself.
> 
> ...


I particularly like this advice from the rather bizarre link you posted:

*"Have an affair and make sure she finds out about it."*

That is one classy site right there. I know there are a few others on here who read the "advice" on there and it explains an awful lot.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

azteca1986 said:


> My man, if your aim is to have a relationship of substance, I'd ignore every piece of advice in that article........



Believe me I'm not advocating that bullsh!t. LOL


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

azteca1986 said:


> I'm not entirely sure what 'Inner Game' is to be honest (and happy to be enlightened)


Inner game is just another word for self esteem.

Two "fully rounded individuals " as you say (I would say people with healthy self esteem) need neither that article nor MMSLP. MMSLP nor that article do anything for self esteem, though MMSLP would have you believe that all you need to do is up your sex rank and play games.

That was my point. Funny how that got misconstrued.


----------



## Hartbrok (Jul 16, 2013)

Iver said:


> This can't be true...just be a nice guy and good things will come your way...just wait for it...
> 
> 
> (this is sarcasm by the way)





Truthseeker1 said:


> LOL sadly many men believe that....what they forget is self-respect....being a good guy does not mean doormat or a puppy waiting to be pet....it means strong with self-respect but not abusive or arrogant..confident...I downloaded a copy of this book from amazon and am going to read it...remember if you are a "good guy" but a damned doormat you are useless...and no one will respect you..not your wife not other men no one....


A hard lesson, and one that I'm working furiously on.

Forgiveness can be a character flaw, if it's not tempered with reason. Ask me how I know...........:banghead:


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Disenchanted said:


> Believe me I'm not advocating that bullsh!t. LOL


Ha ha. I'm clearly having a thick moment.



Disenchanted said:


> Inner game is just another word for self esteem.
> 
> Two "fully rounded individuals " as you say (I would say people with healthy self esteem) need neither that article nor MMSLP. MMSLP nor that article do anything for self esteem, though MMSLP would have you believe that all you need to do is up your sex rank and play games.
> 
> That was my point. Funny how that got misconstrued.


Okay. Thanks.

I'm lucky that like Chris989 I grew up with a fantastic role model in my father. I can recognise what it takes to be a man of substance as I got to see one on a daily basis.

I do not lack confidence or self esteem, but I did get a lot from the book. My background is in advertising. So, through my eyes I can clearly see the book creates _resonance_ with some people.

Most advertising deals with the 'unknown thought'. Interesting for a fleeting second, but quickly forgotten as it fails to touch you.
The best advertising (after word of mouth) is the 'unthought known'. It effectively and lucratively tells you something you already know. It talks with insight.

Now, Athols' book is pulp. It in no way resembles a scientific journal. It did resonante with me. If I could sum up my feelings on finishing the book it would be:

Why the fvck did I stop dating/court/seducing my wife? We used to really enjoy that. We _lived_ for that. Why did we stop?

So, I found it a wake-up call, with some useful pointers on how to get things back on track.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Plan 9 from OS said:


> Thanks bfree. I think the crux of the situation has more to do with execution than ignorance. Sure, there are people that have no clue about healthy eating and need a basic book. Others who are trying to pack on muscle or get into competitive bodybuilding need more nuanced information that may not be obvious. But IMHO, when it comes to relationships, for the most part the interactions should be more obvious. I think the books dealing with relationships become more useful when you are dealing with a personality quirk or an actual mental condition like autism, bi-polar, chronic depression, etc. When things are not clear cut because you were probably not introduced to these issues growing up, you definitely will need some additional insight.
> 
> I know some in this thread do not like your analogies, but I don't get bothered by them TBH. I've used them myself, and the reason why is because *people seem to shroud marriage and LTR's in some mysterious cloak that is unlike anything else we have experience with before. * I think that's patently false, and that there is no more mystery being in a marriage than there is dealing with anyone else. We all know that if you do not stand up to a bully when you are a kid, you will continue to be bullied. This is no different than being in a marriage where if you do not stand up to your spouse who is trying to take and control more and more things, you will continue to be marginalized. It never worked to nice your way out of harms way with a bully. Why would someone think that you can nice your way out of dealing with an angry spouse that is resenting you more and more as time goes on?
> 
> Deep down, we know a lot more than we care to admit. Hell, most of the threads started in CWI or GRI are more for emotional support than to truly get answers, although almost all of them are started as if they are seeking answers.


Yes yes yes! Exactly! I absolutely despise it when I hear people talk about "my soulmate" or say "its meant to be." What drivel. Most of it is common sense but the society we live in tries to complicate everything. I never used to use analogies. I was always a direct in your face kind of guy. But people never understood (or wanted to understand) what I was saying so I started using analogies. Frankly I hate it that Athol Kay had to write a book in order to get people to look in the mirror. And although I enjoy his writing style I hate it that he has to talk using phrases like alpha and beta. But people nowadays just don't seem to get it. I think its a disconnect we now have from one another and there is less generational contact. Used to be that your mother and father handed down wisdom that they were taught by their mothers and fathers. Used to be that if you had a problem that you needed to talk about you went to your barber, your pastor or your bartender if not your best friend. Those days are unfortunately gone and now we're left with....heck I don't even know what we're left with but it isn't good.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

bfree said:


> heck I don't even know what we're left with but it isn't good.


We're left with what is called "no fault laws".

And yup, it sux.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Disenchanted said:


> We're left with what is called "no fault laws".
> 
> And yup, it sux.


Yup, somebody is at fault damnit!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I read the book and was posting at the website for awhile. I was trying to get down a few layers of understanding, but it never came. There were some good points, but they were the obvious ones, like Wiserforit has been saying.

My main objection to the book is that it is supposed a marriage tool, yet the book speaks NOTHING about LOVE. AT ALL. There is no where in the book that discusses love on any level. 

How is a marriage book that doesn't even discuss love helpful at all?


----------



## Iver (Mar 8, 2013)

bfree said:


> ...Used to be that your mother and father handed down wisdom that they were taught by their mothers and fathers. Used to be that if you had a problem that you needed to talk about you went to your barber, your pastor or your bartender if not your best friend. Those days are unfortunately gone and now we're left with....heck I don't even know what we're left with but it isn't good.


The book provides people with a framework in which to operate - it sums up some obvious "truths" like being fit, dressing nicely and being confident and in charge is better for the health of your marriage than being fat, slobby, depressed and a doormat.

Kinda obvious but there are waaay to many people who have no idea, no clue whatsoever on what makes a good relationship. 

His idea of a Captain (Husband) and First Pilot (wife) is pretty traditional actually and I'd be the first to say it won't work for everyone. But. It works for enough people that it's a valuable concept to understand, especially for the legions of clueless guys looking for some relationship help. 

As for the sex rankings? It's not scientific but like someone said about pornography - "I can't describe it but I know it when I see it."


----------



## Iver (Mar 8, 2013)

I copied this from Cheateau Heartiste. What the writer goes through in his typical scenario...well I confess that was hitting pretty close to home. That's why I like what MMSL & Athol Kay have to say because it resonated with me pretty strongly. (FYI I'm not now and never have been a fat slob )

Relationship Game Week: A Reader’s Journey | Chateau Heartiste

I changed our relationship dynamic after learning about game. I stopped always asking her what she wants and started being decisive while playing up the mysterious angle.

Here was a typical scenario back then:

HER: “I’m hungry.”

ME: “What do you want to eat?”

HER: “I don’t know…”

ME: “How about McDonalds?”

HER: “I dunno.”

ME: “How about Taco bell?”

HER: {shrugs}

ME: “KFC? I know you really like the original recipe chicken dinner…”

HER: “well yeah…”

ME: “OK, great, let’s go!”

Drives to the KFC drive-thru.

ME: I’ll have the Zesty Crispy Chicken Wrap…what do you want, honey?”

HER: “I don’t want to eat here.”

ME: “What? I thought you said…”

HER: “I never said I wanted KFC.”

ME: “But…what do you want then? Whatever you want, just let me know, and we’ll go there!”

HER: “It’s too late, you’ve already ordered here.”

ME: “Fine then. So what do you want?”

HER: “Nothing, just take me home. I’ll figure out what I’m going to eat later. {Said in a grouchy tone}.

ME: “Why do you have to be like that?

HER: “Be like what? I never said I wanted KFC!”

ME: “Well what do you want then?”

HER: “Don’t worry about me already! Just get YOUR food and take me home!”

ME: “I’ve asked you how many times to tell me what you want and I’ll take you there! Why do you always have to act like this?”

HER: “Act like what? Nevermind already! It’s obvious you don’t really care about what I want…it’s only about what you want! I didn’t want KFC and yet you’re trying to make like it’s all my fault just because I don’t want to eat here! I never wanted to eat here in the first place!!!!”

ME: “$*%^([email protected]#($)(#&!!!!!”

Same scenario, now:

HER: “I’m hungry”

ME: “So am I. Let’s go.”

HER: “Go where?”

ME: “You’ll see.”

HER: “C’mon, tell me…”

ME {Rolling my eyes and turning away from her, getting ready to head out with or without her.}: “Are you gonna sit here and play twenty questions like a spoiled little princess or are you gonna come along and eat with me?”

HER {Now she starts getting ready to go.}: “C’mon…why don’t you tell me…”

At that point, I could take her to a fine-dining restaurant or McDonalds, it doesn’t matter.

What mattered was that I passed her sh!t test and played the role of the ‘provider.’

I stopped treating my wife like I was an enslaved sycophant willing to do whatever the goddess desired and started treating her like the kid sister with the backhanded compliments, light-hearted teasing, and over-the-top sarcasm to deal with her ****-tests…all within the “frame” of subconsciously reinforcing the notion that I’m attractive to other women.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

Iver said:


> I copied this from Cheateau Heartiste. What the writer goes through in his typical scenario...well I confess that was hitting pretty close to home. That's why I like what MMSL & Athol Kay have to say because it resonated with me pretty strongly. (FYI I'm not now and never have been a fat slob )
> 
> Relationship Game Week: A Reader’s Journey | Chateau Heartiste
> 
> ...


I tend to find in "real life" that this sort of thing is tolerated by a certain sort of woman and enacted by a certain sort of man.

I also tend to find that those types do not appear in my wide circle of friends. Each to their own, but I would rather treat women like people rather than easily manipulated walking vaginas.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Chris989 said:


> I tend to find in "real life" that this sort of thing is tolerated by a certain sort of woman and enacted by a certain sort of man.
> 
> I also tend to find that those types do not appear in my wide circle of friends. Each to their own, but I would rather treat women like people rather than easily manipulated walking vaginas.


I think the 'trick' if it can be called a trick is to be decisive and confident without being an arse about it.

My wife rather likes me to make decisions for us so long as I take notice of her opinions when making decisions.

I love her to bits but on a recent holiday I asked her to choose which restaurant we were going to eat at some evenings.

It was a bloody nightmare, we wandered from restaurant to restaurant with her umming and aahing about what was on the menu.

She is much happier when I make such decisions.

I did tell her recently that I was too soft on her. She laughed, so guess she doesn't think so.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> She is much happier when I make such decisions.
> 
> I did tell her recently that I was too soft on her. She laughed, so guess she doesn't think so.


And that's the thing I hate about this information. In my experience, women say one thing and want another. There is absolutely no use whatsoever in discussing this with any of them.

My last GF told me she loved it when I dominated her. She said that plainly to me. She loved that she could just relax and let me take care of everything for her, she felt totally at ease when I was in charge.

She was a very assertive girl in her own life but really enjoyed having a little leadership.

Now if I told her "I'm going to dominate you" she would have been absolutely horrified at the thought.

There's like some kind of cognitive dissonance going on and I prefer to think of it as a sign of un-wellness.

If any GF got as b!tchy as the one in the Chateau post above I'd like to think I would drop her off on the corner and tell her to get effed.

If we can't even freaking agree on a place to eat I don't really want to deal with the histrionics.

Thanks anyway.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Gawd, I don't dominate her.

She is just a little more happy if I take the more traditional male role.

But she can and does make decisions, will question my decisions if she thinks they are daft and will come up with suggestions when she thinks of them.

She is my equal not my slave.

What we do works for us, and apart from some ups and downs early in our marriage has worked for nearly 25 years of marriage.

Everybody elses mileage may vary.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

*Re: Re: Married Man Sex Life Primer (AKA MMSLP) and you.*



Faithful Wife said:


> I read the book and was posting at the website for awhile. I was trying to get down a few layers of understanding, but it never came. There were some good points, but they were the obvious ones, like Wiserforit has been saying.
> 
> My main objection to the book is that it is supposed a marriage tool, yet the book speaks NOTHING about LOVE. AT ALL. There is no where in the book that discusses love on any level.
> 
> How is a marriage book that doesn't even discuss love helpful at all?


You know what Athol Kay, Helen Fisher, and many others would say? Love is simply chemical responses in the brain.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

bfree said:


> You know what Athol Kay, Helen Fisher, and many others would say? Love is simply chemical responses in the brain.


Of course it is, but everybody reacts differently to the same stimulus.

Some people get drunk easily, some can run a long way. Others feel love in different ways. All caused by "chemical responses". Our whole bodies are one big mess of "chemical responses".

Humans never, ever, give a 100% reliable "chemical A causes reaction B". You might give a prediction, based on lots of scientifically proven controlled research. 

If everybody reacted in the same way, then you could predict side effects with 100% accuracy every time.

Pointing out that love is a "chemical response" underlines the contention that these authors use a label of "science" to prevent further examination of their theories and fool a certain subset of the population.


----------



## just got it 55 (Mar 2, 2013)

OK Fella’s Listen up I have 40 years in my Relationship / Marriage (35 Married) I was looking to revive my stale marriage and took some steps to improve it First and foremost; I reconnected with my wife emotionally. 

I improved my self-respect. I treated my wife like when she was my GF.I got my head out of my a$$ and acted like the man I was. I gave her Alpha when appropriate and Beta as well.

She was into reading the usual romance novels that are in the Top Ten realm. You know the ones. I gave her a healthy dose of that as well over & over and still.

This was before I read the book .As I read the book I would tell my wife each chapter and what she had to look forward to. (The author tells you not to tell your wife that you are reading it) 

So a lot of his advice is solid. But on this forum I do get the sense that some posters are a shill for Athol Kay

The book is a bit oversimplified .But it does have some points to pay attention to. My Niece has just lost a significant amount of weight, going to the gym 3 / 4 days a week. Going to GNO. Well her husband has his head in the sand and will get a surprise as I see the Red Flags I will give him the book as a wakeup call at the very least
I have two sons I will tell them to read it as well


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

bfree said:


> You know what Athol Kay, Helen Fisher, and many others would say? Love is simply chemical responses in the brain.


You know what FaithfulWife was saying? That whether it be a chemical reaction in the brain, fat cherubs with crossbows, hard work, dedication and communication, the topic and concept of LOVE got almost no airtime in the book. She was wondering how anyone could discuss successful, strong marriages without touching on that topic. (sorry if I put words in your mouth or stole your voice FW)


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Paladin said:


> You know what FaithfulWife was saying? That whether it be a chemical reaction in the brain, fat cherubs with crossbows, hard work, dedication and communication, the topic and concept of LOVE got almost no airtime in the book. She was wondering how anyone could discuss successful, strong marriages without touching on that topic. (sorry if I put words in your mouth or stole your voice FW)


Athol Kay on love:

_I got told today from a friend that I’ve successfully managed to destroy love. That once all is said and done, by tearing apart love into it’s hormonal and neurotransmitter bits, it’s all just not the same anymore. He wishes he knew his wife loved him for just him, rather than because he’s running the MAP and doing X, Y and Z. I think there’s an element of truth to all that. It’s a little like I’ve explained how a magic trick works and now you don’t get to enjoy watching the trick anymore. The wonder is gone, the amazement is gone, the delight is gone.
Love is a little bit like eating chocolate cake. Everyone likes to eat chocolate cake and most of you showed up here hoping to get a slice. Instead you find yourself in a research kitchen where we mostly do stuff like tear chocolate cakes apart to see how they’re made. There’s discussion about flour and eggs and milk and how hot the oven has to be. Tips about greasing the pan and how to ice it. Writing about the shelf-life of chocolate cake makes people angry for some reason too. By the time we’re done, you’re all so sick of hearing about how chocolate cake is made, you’re starting to not want to hear or see another chocolate cake in your life.

Anyway…

…it’s all going to sink in and one day you’re going to just start throwing all the ingredients together. You’ll mix it just right and out it in the oven at the perfect temperature. The timer will ding and out comes this amazingly perfect chocolate cake. When you put it in your mouth, you aren’t going to taste Chocolate Cake Theory 101. All you’re going to taste is the delicious, delicious, chocolate cake. Warm, gooey and sweet. Nom nom nom nom.
The trouble is right now you’re not experiencing the end result of learning all this stuff just yet. You’re not at the end point of running your MAP. Right now it all feels like an abstraction and you’re also not getting all the love and sex and attention you want from her. So when you run your MAP and you find that level of interest you want coming to you, it’s going to feel good. The fact you have to do X, Y and Z to make her pay attention that way, is really no different than you having to turn the oven on to 350, use three eggs and exactly two cups of flour.
What you’re struggling with is moving from an unconscious relationship, to a conscious relationship. In an unconscious relationship “love” is the happy circumstance of two people getting along very well just doing whatever they do naturally when they are in a relationship. However people aren’t static and people change over time, what used to work perfectly well without trying, may not work so well over time. After a while it may even be counter-productive. Your relationship may be failing as “love” flickers out and dies.
That’s why you’re here, to unlearn what you were doing when you were unconsciously doing wrong and to learn what you were unconsciously doing right. It’s a lot of mental effort, but once you learn this stuff, you can consciously do what works in your relationship. There will be a lag between learning it, doing it and finally feeling it. But you will feel it.
It’s an amazing thing to learn all this. As I’ve said before, you are not some disembodied soul that is the “real you” riding around in your body. Your higher-level sapien brain is a late adaptation to work as a tool for your Body Agenda. Your brain and your body are one and the same thing, your body is the real you. Hormones and neurotransmitters carry information back and forth inside your brain like a big meat computer. The information is your thoughts and feelings. Thoughts and feelings are real world physical objects.
I know that’s a lot to mentally grasp, but consider that psychotropic medication comes in little tiny pills, and those little tiny physical objects when swallowed have the express purpose of changing the way people think and feel. If that doesn’t make your head spin I don’t know what will. Likewise, anyone who has taken a drink of alcohol has experienced the same change in mood and expression as well. You throw alcohol into a carbon based meat computer and it gets a little loose and playful. Add more and it gets mean. Add too much and it tries to eject as much alcohol as it can in a big old mess and then shuts down and reboots in safe mode. Beer is a physical object and is essentially a psychotropic medication in liquid form.
When you drink beer, you can’t choose to not be affected by the alcohol. You can choose not to drink the alcohol in the first place, but once you drink it, it’s in your system and will have an effect on you whether you want it to or not. Likewise, when you get to the end point of your MAP, and you’re finally with someone that loves you, has good sex with you and likes you, you’ll be affected by that whether you want it to or not._

Love, Beer and Chocolate Cake Theory 101 | Married Man Sex Life


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Yes, that's what I meant, Paladin.

There's a lot more that makes me shake my head in the book, too.

I'm married to a Sex God. I realize that saying this outloud makes me a target for being questioned as to my sanity, my vanity, or whatever. However, it is true. I am married to one of the men that have that natural thing going on. The kind that women flock to on a sexual level. It is fine with me if no one believes this, if they believe I am deluded, or whatever. It is still a true fact. (By Sex God I do not mean a creep, a dude who bangs chicks and leaves, or a guy who has bed post notches. I am talking about the Real Deal here).

Then here is this book, MMSL. A book that basically wants to help teach men how to be like my husband, a natural. So I read it based on curiousity of how close they came to how my husband actually is.

Phhhhttt.

My husband knows more about love, intimacy AND SEX than Athol Kay will ever know in his lifetime.

The main difference between my husband and what "those guys" are trying to be, is that my husband RESPECTS AND LOVES WOMEN.

He doesn't see women as the enemy who hold the golden p*ssy who men are supposed to try to "get sex" from.

Trying to "get sex" is the goal of MMSL, as far as I can see.

I understand why some men feel they want to "get sex". I understand some men haven't had luck with women or their wives and want to improve their marriages. I also understand MMSL may have helped a lot of marriages and so I'm happy for those people.

But when I read the book and Athol is trying to explain how these "naturals" are and how they think....I just had to laugh. Seems like the blind leading the blind to me.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

bfree...thank you for posting something that makes my point exactly. Athol Kay is clearly clueless about LOVE.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

NeverSawThisComing said:


> It's only 1 week since DDay of my WW's affair. I spent all day with the book yesterday and finished it (although I skim-read the sex stuff as that's not going to be useful for me for some time if you know what I mean).
> 
> I found some parts were indeed difficult to read, but I definitely needed a jolt and a plan to start implementing immediately.
> 
> ...


How is it going? With today's feministic mindset in America, many women will be the bosses in the space they reside in, doesn't matter if they are paying for it, or someone else is.

So you can Alpha all you want, she doesn't have to support it. But you should still do it for yourself. I'm reopining MMSL myself and getting to it.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> bfree...thank you for posting something that makes my point exactly. Athol Kay is clearly clueless about LOVE.


There's love and there's also what catches their eye, their sexual interest and their attention. If you have love ontop of all of this, its just the finest gravy.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

"If you have love ontop of all of this, its just the finest gravy."


Huh?

If you have no LOVE, you have no MARRIAGE. "Finest gravy?"


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> bfree...thank you for posting something that makes my point exactly. Athol Kay is clearly clueless about LOVE.


From your perspective that may be true....

....but he does talk about love. Just not in a way you appreciate. It's ok because there is a lot in his book and his blog that I don't really agree with. But I do understand why he says what he says and why he says it the way he does.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who has the "perspective" that LOVE is important in marriage. Athol is not talking about real emotional love, no matter how you want to frame it. The ONE lame blog post you copied proves that point exactly.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who has the "perspective" that LOVE is important in marriage. Athol is not talking about real emotional love, no matter how you want to frame it. The ONE lame blog post you copied proves that point exactly.


I guess maybe it depends on your definition of love. I love my mother and father. I love my children. I love my dog. But I'm not attracted to any of them (well my dog is pretty cute.) I think Athol's view of love is probably based heavily on attraction and the physical aspects of love. I tend to agree with you that I think there is more to love in an LTR. Strangely enough Athol's view of love is based heavily on Helen Fisher's work. And Helen Fisher's work was used to create the concept of (I think) Match.com. I personally dislike Match.com and all the other dating sites out there so maybe you and I tend to agree that definition of love is lacking somewhat in tangibles.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I don't really get your point. Why would a marriage book talk about our love for our dog? Obviously I am talking about ROMANTIC love, which there are literally thousands of books about, poems about, songs about, art inspired by, and is the thing that typically ignites a ROMANCE which then might become a marriage.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't really get your point. Why would a marriage book talk about our love for our dog? Obviously I am talking about ROMANTIC love, which there are literally thousands of books about, poems about, songs about, art inspired by, and is the thing that typically ignites a ROMANCE which then might become a marriage.


Because the concept of love that Athol bases his entire philosophy on is the "science of love." Of course calling it a science is somewhat of a trigger for some because it is debatable how much science has gone into it. It is not based on the "art of love" from which poems, songs and art gets its inspiration.

And you've never seen my dog so don't hate. 

(obviously kidding)


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

bfree said:


> Because the concept of love that Athol bases his entire philosophy on is the "science of love." Of course calling it a science is somewhat of a trigger for some because it is debatable how much science has gone into it. It is not based on the "art of love" from which poems, songs and art gets its inspiration.
> 
> And you've never seen my dog so don't hate.
> 
> (obviously kidding)


Athol likens his advice to that of a recipe. In a recipe, if you put x and y ingredients in a and b amounts, you get Z result. Every time.

Ignoring the fact that this is demonstrably not true when it comes to a person's interpretation of their feelings - even the end result is demonstrably neither reliably repeatable or, indeed, explainable.

He has over simplified the whole business to the point that his advice is, in reality, useless. He is a fortune teller of the marriage advice world.

If somebody gets results from reading his book, it's a great book. he's spot on. He knows his stuff.

If not, then they ignore it or they did it wrong, or it's their wife or whatever reason is given for the lack of results to fit the usual cognitive bias.

Just because oxytocin or beta 3 alpha cerinofides mixed with alpha gamma whatever makes some people feel good means not one jot.

To go back to mixed and inappropriate metaphors, many people don't like chocolate cake. Some people do, but are allergic. Others still like a little, but not too much. Etc. etc.

That assumes you have chocolate cake in the first place.

Athol neither has a recipe for chocolate cake - he can’t - , nor knows who will like it, by how much and - most importantly - *why.*

His intentions may be good, but the results are snake oil.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

WyshIknew said:


> I should have added more but I sometimes forget. I often post in a 'in general' mode.
> 
> Each situation, although there is undoubtedly a 'script' is different with different individuals.
> 
> ...


She was (is?) obsessed with certain elements of that culture - although didn't ever actually educate herself about anything. It was a bedazzlement with some of the shallower end - but her real obsession was with one man. 

His "culture" (ha!) was a large part of it (pun intended) although to those two "black culture" was having sex to smooth FM.

As far as where I am now, the financial thing has been a long road - one major issue after another has cropped up but the last piece of the jigsaw should be in place within a month (I keep saying that, but this *really* should be it).

I am very torn on what to do when I am able to leave. Staying would be a compromise; leaving would harm my children without doubt and I have to consider if the harm to them would be outweighed by my release from the relationship. I am lucky in some respects that I have this choice to make. A thoroughly remorseful ex wife, who will do anything for me one one side, or a new life on the other. A compromise, or a roll of the dice for a better life away my children for at least half the time...

edit/ thanks for remembering the story by the way!


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

I have read this book (re reading it right now) and in my opinion this book is not much different than any other self help / relationship whatever book you may find. There is some good, some bad and some Huh? just like all the rest.
There is not a book written that you can totally embrace cover to cover and say it is 100% right all the time (even the bible) no matter how much research is included most of it is still the author's opinion.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

love=pain said:


> I have read this book (re reading it right now) and in my opinion this book is not much different than any other self help / relationship whatever book you may find. There is some good, some bad and some Huh? just like all the rest.
> There is not a book written that you can totally embrace cover to cover and say it is 100% right all the time (even the bible) no matter how much research is included most of it is still the author's opinion.


Bingo!


----------



## Atholk (Jul 25, 2009)

just got it 55 said:


> So a lot of his advice is solid. But on this forum I do get the sense that some posters are a shill for Athol Kay


I wish I was rich enough to hire shills lol.


----------



## Chaparral (Jul 17, 2011)

The book has worked great for many men that have come through here, assuming they are not lying of course. The proof is in the pudding.

I am assuming the detractors have read the book, ran the MAP plan and it failed miserably for them.

The reason the book is suggested is that so many men come here crushed and the first thing you notice is how they are being ran over by their wayward wives and their new boyfriends. It always seem to work out better for them when we can convince them to quit feeling sorry for themselves and start kicking ass.


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

*Re: Re: Married Man Sex Life Primer (AKA MMSLP) and you.*



Atholk said:


> I wish I was rich enough to hire shills lol.


You got it backwards, they actually pay you, ala scientology fanatics paying to "level up" or gain "wisdom" about aliens or what have you. In your defense, people tend to tear down others who build/create for no other reason than pure hatred of the knowledge that someone else did something they themselves could/would not do, in your case, write a book/blog. Im not saying that the criticisms leveled against you are off base, but since I don't subscribe to 2x4ing I felt I should throw that out there.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Chaparral said:


> The reason the book is suggested is that so many men come here crushed and the first thing you notice is how they are being ran over by their wayward wives and their new boyfriends. It always seem to work out better for them when we can convince them to quit feeling sorry for themselves and start kicking ass.


100% agree, and for this Chap, you are a saint in my eyes.

Like I said a bunch of times, it really helped cheer me up. Gave me a direction to move forward when my world was crushed.

I'm just trying to come to grips with this red pill reality that it's all such a game. And so far I'm not able to convince myself that it isn't and I hate that.


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

*Re: Re: Married Man Sex Life Primer (AKA MMSLP) and you.*



Chaparral said:


> The book has worked great for many men that have come through here, assuming they are not lying of course. The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> I am assuming the detractors have read the book, ran the MAP plan and it failed miserably for them.
> 
> The reason the book is suggested is that so many men come here crushed and the first thing you notice is how they are being ran over by their wayward wives and their new boyfriends. It always seem to work out better for them when we can convince them to quit feeling sorry for themselves and start kicking ass.


That's quite a bit of assuming you are doing there Chap. Some people read the book, bounce the ideas presented within it off of a trained psychiatrist/psychologist, and file it in the pop culture, coaster for drinks, or table leveling tool category. A person does not need to "fail miserably" at implementing any of the concepts presented in the book to be a detractor, they simply need to objectively examine the arguments made and dismiss them. 

You also perfectly demonstrated, in one seemingly thoughtless sentence, the entire problem of embracing this crap as gospel. Equating a persons deep emotional pain with self pity, and assuming that they were a spineless p*ssy for "allowing" an affair to occur, is the exact "man up and grow some balls" shallow thinking that drives people away from a place (TAM) that would otherwise greatly benefit them. In my original reply to the OP I say exactly that. The blind faith in this book and the 2x4ing are constantly stated as reasons for people quitting on their own threads.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

Chaparral said:


> The book has worked great for many men that have come through here, assuming they are not lying of course. The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> I am assuming the detractors have read the book, ran the MAP plan and it failed miserably for them.
> 
> The reason the book is suggested is that so many men come here crushed and the first thing you notice is how they are being ran over by their wayward wives and their new boyfriends. It always seem to work out better for them when we can convince them to quit feeling sorry for themselves and start kicking ass.


I read the book; found some useful parts and some less so. I haven't "failed miserably" at the MAP as I didn't do it.

I wasn't being run over by anyone and I put the fear of God into the OM and had my wife begging me to stay before reading the book.

It isn't a bible, as others have said - just a pretty focused self help book.

I'm glad I read it and I even lent it out to a couple of others (Sorry Athol!) but I think I was too impressed by it at first.

Your comments about people "feeling sorry for themselves" is a bit insulting, but you do find some posters that *are* being walked over. 

I think I've run out of things to say, so I'll stop now


----------



## Chaparral (Jul 17, 2011)

This is what I mean. The last two posts totally misinterpret what I posted and then argue against what I did not post. For one thing I did not say everyone. There are several different kinds of posters . No where did I or anyone else I have seen state that there is a one size fits all solution.


----------



## Chris989 (Jul 3, 2012)

I get the feeling we're all saying the same thing, but in different ways. 

Like a lot of these discussions, it's the sort of thing we would have agreed on long ago and moved on if it had come up when we were talking over a beer.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Ok, let's just say that Athol is a genius and all those that don't agree with his wisdom are just jealous.

(can I get a discount on your third book? Just sayin)


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

If you guys think this argument over whether MMSLP is a useful book or not, is _that_t tiring,
Then just try Google "_ How to build muscle_."
You would get around 61,700,000 results and most are at variance with each other.
Yup , everyone argues that their system is best and the other one is rubbish.
Its the world some people live in, Black and White. No colours or hues between. Its either or.



BTW, Googled " Is MMSLP a good book?" and only got 4300 results

A lesson I've learned in life is simply use what applies and can help, and forget the rest.
If nothing applies to your situation,
Then the book is NOT for YOU.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> The ONE lame blog post you copied proves that point exactly.


Bloggers don't/shouldn't talk about the same stuff over and over again. If a reader wants to get the message, they'll read the previous message; they're the one trying to learn, they shouldn't be lazy. So one good post is enough.

I don't get what you're saying about it not talking about "LOVE". Neither the book or the blog needs to say "it feels like butterflies in your stomach" or talk about "the warm feeling you get when you hug you wife after a long day" Unless somebody's a total sociopath, chances are he's experienced love and understands some basic human feelings. Love (whether it's romantic, supportive, paternal, infatuation, attachment, bonding whatever) is basically "trigger -- brain part---- neurotransmitter --- feeling". Just like any other emotion. It's really no mystery. Just like a lightning isn't Zeus's wrath, love isn't some extremely random, "omg how did that happen, I guess we'll never know", sort of Cupid's arrow. The fact that there isn't anything mystical about them doesn't diminish my respect or for either of them in my eyes, neither does it diminish my feelings. 

The book, in my eyes, is the basics(that's why there's a forum where people get together for helping each other with more advanced stuff.). As someone who's seen a lot of guys slide into assh0le alpha or whiny beta mode and crashed and burned their relationship into the ground, lol, as someone who's crashed and burned his relationships, I can say it successfully conveys its message. Yes, for some people who did have a great understanding of these stuff, the book is extremely unnecessary. For a guy with a scientific/logic-based mind like me, the book was a great place to start. I also like the fact that it has gotten the seduction community dialect cleaned up (from all the emotional baggage that was there because the guys who had created and joined it first was, well, not very emotionally healthy guys. of course this changed as it grew more mainstream and more and more men who were in fact pretty normal came in.), placed much more emphasis on self-improvement than the gimmicks, putting the emphasis on marriage/monogamy(some guys are writing like running a soft harem is a viable option or want/need for every man). 

I understand that likening it to a very specific recipe is wrong. On the other hand, the ingredients, if you broadly name them, are the same. You're not going to put salt and vinegar in chocolate cake(what you put in it I have zero idea lol, chocolate and cake?), just like the answer to your marital problems will not be getting fat and neglecting your spouse sexually (just an example). On the other other hand, the labels, quality and quantity change from person to person and relationship to relationship. For example, one woman might be more attracted to a guy in rock band and one might be more attracted to an academic that commands the respect of his field (both are related to social dominance). With two women who like guys in rock bands, for one simple gigs in band with friends might get her heated, the other may just be a groupie for insanely famous metal bands. etc etc.

On the other other other hand, marriage(or other LTRs) isn't a one round ordeal, you get to set the mixture for yourself, and it has a range, there isn't just one "perfect spot" and every other place isn't sh!tty as hell. Also let's not forget the time going into screening for a like-minded and emotionally healthy and stable individual.

So, you know, what are we talking about again?


----------



## Atholk (Jul 25, 2009)

I also think an important point was that TAM was the forum that originally supported my work and encouraged me to write a book. If there's a lot of support for me here, it's in no small part that I put a great deal of effort in on TAM 2009-2010 and continue to be thankful for it.


----------



## Phenix70 (May 6, 2012)

> Just started reading this book
> 
> I understand why everyone who read this book now says weightlifting and getting in shape is helpful.
> 
> ...





Phenix70 said:


> How exactly is that going to work successfully in a relationship?
> How can you both be a higher point rank than the other?
> Because if you're the high rank, are you not yourself going to go looking for someone else?
> Seems like a paradox to me.


Since the author is posting in this thread, I would like to get his response to my questions since no one has answered them.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Phenix70 said:


> Since the author is posting in this thread, I would like to get his response to my questions since no one has answered them.


Well, the author actually has his own forum at his website and I can guarantee you that your questions have been answered many times already. I appreciate that given all the time constraints that he is under he still goes out of his way to not only come to TAM to lurk but to actually post once in a while. Maybe you should go to his forum and ask these questions there. I'm sure that not only will Athol respond but you will get responses from the many who post there already. Here's the direct link to his forum:

Married Man Sex Life Forum


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

Phenix70 said:


> Since the author is posting in this thread, I would like to get his response to my questions since no one has answered them.


Actually, I'd like to answer the question.

Higher sex rank means higher options. The one with more options holds more power, because then one can walk away from a relationship. This is not only just true for romantic relationships, it's true for every human relationship. There is a power dynamic in every human relationship, unfortunately. (Yes, I understand not everybody abuses this, but there are some people that do.)

Now, in a relationship where both of the people are happy with what is going on and attracted to each other, the one with the power doesn't really matter (although a man with who has less power than the woman in the dynamic "may" lose her respect and attraction, depending on the woman and what kind of relationship she needs/wants).

But sometimes, things need to be changed. Whether you are stuck in a sexless marriage, not receiving enough respect or appreciation, or your spouse has just become extremely sedentary and lazy. Whatever. You need them to change their ways. But unfortunately, you can't really force them to change. You can try to talk reasonably to them, give positive incentives etc, but sometimes you can't get them to pull their head out of their azz. Now you need to issue an ultimatum, but tbh why would someone who is the more desirable one in the relationship? I mean don't get me wrong... some do. But a lot don't. If you flip the power dynamic and become the more desirable person in the relationship, your ultimatum has more of a chance of opening their eyes.

This is a very interesting thread, I mean how can someone say they read the book and say in the same post that beta traits are those you want to get rid of? The whole point of MMSL is that both alpha and beta traits need to be in a man for him to be able to continue a stable relationship. 

And people posting "/sarcasm on wow i didn't know my wife wouldn't find me attractive if I became a fat, greasy slob /sarcasm off" or the ones posting "I was in good shape before my wife lost my attraction for me, proof that this book is rubbish"... First of all, wow. Way to create some sort of straw man. The book has ,I dunno, like 4-5 pages on the importance of fitness... and that's the only thing you took out of it? Not the attitude, not the "don't become the enabler of bad habits and bad actions", not the pages of sex advice? And the writer is at fault?

One poster posted about "unthought known"s... and yes I agree to a degree. A lot of MMSL's points are "unthought known"s. But I think when you need to consciously do things to improve your situation, you need to create a plan... And well, isn't it better that these "unthought known"s are out in the open for you to be able think about them?


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> This is a very interesting thread, I mean how can someone say they read the book and say in the same post that beta traits are those you want to get rid of? The whole point of MMSL is that both alpha and beta traits need to be in a man for him to be able to continue a stable relationship.


Yep. The fitness test I mentioned earlier in the thread was my wife directly and explicitly questioning my credentials as a father (as I'd been abroad for a few months). A lack of 'good' beta traits, from her perspective. Quite reasonable on her part and easily remedied as I enjoy being a father. 



> One poster posted about "unthought known"s... and yes I agree to a degree. A lot of MMSL's points are "unthought known"s. But I think when you need to consciously do things to improve your situation, you need to create a plan... And well, isn't it better that these "unthought known"s are out in the open for you to be able think about them?


Knowing is not enough. My biggest failures as a husband has been; complacency and taking things for granted. Letting things slide. Laziness basically. The book helped remind me to be pro-active in our relationship as I had been when we were dating. 

Knowing is not enough; the name of the game is action.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Actually, I'd like to answer the question.
> 
> Higher sex rank means higher options. The one with more options holds more power, because then one can walk away from a relationship. This is not only just true for romantic relationships, it's true for every human relationship. There is a power dynamic in every human relationship, unfortunately. (Yes, I understand not everybody abuses this, but there are some people that do.)
> 
> ...


Correct.

Its called a " Power Differential " in psychological terms.

In every single relationship, whether it be business / client , 
doctor / patient , student / teacher , government / governed , 
friend / friend , and even in romantic relationship , there exist a power differential.
This exist simply because no two people are exactly the same.

Any relationship where the power differential is constantly tipped in favour of one partner is not a healthy relationship and can be abusive in one way or the other.
Power differential doesn't only lie in looks , but also in other areas such as income disparity ,personality traits ,age, educational status and social mobility etc.
In a marriage , two people work as a team , but even in a team, partners challenge each other in order to bring out the best. It is the only way it can be done. If your wife doesn't inspire or challenge you to look better , be a better man , work harder at achieving your goals, then your marriage is in trouble. She has lost respect and attraction for you.
You no longer matter to her.
Nobody can " make " another person do anything.
A wife cannot force a husband to go to the gym no matter how hard she tries, neither a husband force his wife.
People need to stop fooling themselves.Transcendence and self actualization is at the pinnacle of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and psychologist says it takes almost a lifetime to reach that point. 
Biological and psychological needs are at the very bottom.
Sexual fulfilment falls under biological. In order to get that fulfilment in a marriage , there must be constant , sexual attraction.
Taking care of one's physical body and looks is just one way of helping both men and women maintain sexual attraction to each other in a marriage. But this is not a guarantee that a partner will always remain sexually attracted, or indeed faithful.
However , it is just common sense that one's health is in their own hands and that they should take care of their physical bodies for that and many other reasons including improving one's self esteem.

Any wife or husband who is against their partner taking care of their physical bodies and looks, has serious control issues and is insecure.
Such a person needs to re-evaluate, and work on their emotional maturity.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

azteca1986 said:


> Knowing is not enough. *My biggest failures as a husband has been; complacency and taking things for granted. Letting things slide. Laziness basically. *


And its still an area where quite a lot of men fall down.
Women / wives are always on a drive to improve themselves. Their physical looks and their beauty.
They do these things for themselves firstly, because it makes them feel good, and secondly for their husbands, because they want to keep him attracted.
This needs to be reciprocated by the husband in order for there to be a sense of equilibrium in the relationship.


----------



## Phenix70 (May 6, 2012)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Actually, I'd like to answer the question.
> 
> Higher sex rank means higher options. The one with more options holds more power, because then one can walk away from a relationship. This is not only just true for romantic relationships, it's true for every human relationship. There is a power dynamic in every human relationship, unfortunately. (Yes, I understand not everybody abuses this, but there are some people that do.)
> 
> ...


Or one could get out of the relationship if their SO is so adamantly refusing to change whatever it is you want changed.
Seriously, if your SO did a flip flop & became someone different than who you married & it affected you so much you felt that you needed to try to "one up" them, why not just leave?
I see way too much emphasis on trying to control another person through some sort of misguided game playing.
The only thing you can control is yourself.
If my SO became someone I was no longer attracted to & refused to do something about himself, that to me would show he didn't care about our relationship any longer.
Because to me, it's not only important to stay mentally engaged with your partner, it's also vital to stay physically engaged with them as well.
Besides, what is the pay off to go to so much trouble for someone who obviously doesn't place as much emphasis on the health of your relationship as you do? 
I see this as actually giving MORE power to the SO, because by going to such great lengths to change yourself in order to get them to change, are you not giving them the very power you're trying to increase?


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Hi there dead horse, meet my foot.


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

Chaparral said:


> This is what I mean. The last two posts totally misinterpret what I posted and then argue against what I did not post. For one thing I did not say everyone. There are several different kinds of posters . No where did I or anyone else I have seen state that there is a one size fits all solution.


I just reread the posts in question to make sure I did not need reading glasses. The posts do not claim, although they could, that you said "everyone," because you said ".. the *detractors *of the book tried to run the MAP and failed..." that pretty much sounds like you say *everyone* that is a detractor, and like I said, I could have gone there but again, that was not the point of the post. As chris989 points out, the self pity comments are "insulting" and off-putting, and even if some people do benefit from "tough love" or "2x4ing," those tactics should certainly not be the first ones used to reach a BS in the BS fog. If a BS begins to feel like they are being attacked, they will simply put up stronger self defense walls and will be much more likely to ignore good advice and leave the forum all together. Alienating people and keeping them from getting good advice is at the core of the criticism.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Shadow Nirvana said: "I don't get what you're saying about it not talking about "LOVE". Neither the book or the blog needs to say "it feels like butterflies in your stomach" or talk about "the warm feeling you get when you hug you wife after a long day" ".


This is your opinion. Good for you.

My opinion is different.

Neither of us is right or wrong.

There are a lot of marriage books out there. Most of them DO talk more about love and DO take it as an important element of marriage...and do not just discuss "chemicals". My opinion is that love is a much more topic in marriage than "chemicals".

I appreciate we can have different opinions, I hope you can, too.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> There are a lot of marriage books out there. Most of them DO talk more about love and DO take it as an important element of marriage...and do not just discuss "chemicals". My opinion is that love is a much more topic in marriage than "chemicals".


This marriage book, however, is about sex. The clue is in the title. Hence a lot of talk about sexual attraction, sex rank, getting in shape and "chemicals".

Thanks to this book (and TAM), our relationship is having a welcome renaissance since I never let a day go without letting my wife know I DESIRE her. Even from 5,500 miles away.

Love seems a bit wishy-washy in comparison. What am I/we missing out on FW?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I can only speak as a woman who is married to a Sex God....the reason he isn't just a "great lover" versus a Sex God, is that he not only understands sex, sexuality and desire BUT he is also aware that real love and intimacy are much more important and harder to achieve that just great sex. Sex is actually the easy part. I know that may not make sense to someone who hasn't experienced sex as the easy part...but it really is. Without the love and intimacy, great sex isn't going to make my eyes roll back in my head and make me express my undying love, devotion to and CONSTANT DESIRE for my husband.

But azteca....if "love" seems to pale in comparison to "desire" for you, then I guess you aren't missing out on anything. I'd just like to add that, for my Sex God husband, who has had all the great sex and sex partners in his life he ever wanted, love and intimacy trump sex ... and desire, well, that's just what happens when you marry someone you are INTO. Desire is no biggie. Desire is there or it isn't and if you are married to someone who isn't into you, it just isn't going to be there.

I understand MMSL is trying to help men get their wives to be into them (or rather, it is helping men trying to "get sex"). IMO, this is not the right approach. 

But it is only my opinion.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I also want to say something real quick, because I'm pretty sure that some man is going to soon tell me that as a woman, I don't actually know what I want.

I do know what I want.

I want a man who knows how to f*ck my brains out and makes me beg for more. I want a man who is fit and healthy and can throw me around the room. I want a man who won't take my sh*t (and my husband also wants a woman who won't take HIS sh*t). I want a man who has his own life, hobbies, friends. I want a man that I can respect, who has a good career, doesn't play video games all day.

It is all in my blog.

But I know the mantra that the MMSL disciples always throw around in order to shut down a woman is usually "you don't know that your limbic brain controls everything, so you're just talking about sunshine and rainbows".

I just want to make it clear: my limbic brain most definitely decides who I want to have sex with, and I am very in touch with the animal inside myself. F*ck me silly on a regular basis, or you have no chance with me.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> I want a man who knows how to f*ck my brains out and makes me beg for more. I want a man who is fit and healthy and can throw me around the room. I want a man who won't take my sh*t (and my husband also wants a woman who won't take HIS sh*t). I want a man who has his own life, hobbies, friends. I want a man that I can respect, who has a good career, doesn't play video games all day.


Typical, over demanding wife.

Do you even know how to make sandwiches?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

No, no sandwiches. I can't even make ice. He loves me for my t*ts.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

I don't believe you. I think this calls for pics.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

LOL! There are many pics on my blog.

Just none of me.

Caribean Man has seen pics of me. But he didn't know about my lack of ice making and sandwich skills...maybe he wouldn't think I am attractive if he knew?



(all of this just being jokey banter...but I do appreciate the banter, versus being bashed, so thank you)


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

NO MA'AM - YouTube


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Can't watch it at work...but will tonight at home.


----------



## love=pain (Nov 26, 2012)

I have finished re reading the book again and my thought is a man must be both when the situation calls for it.
Alpha all the time means finding a very submissive wife which is getting harder to do in this day and age and learning to be by yourself a lot after all who wants to be around an ass all the time.
Beta 24/7 then you will get walked on not just by your wife but by everyone but you sure will know how to fold a shirt.

Life is balance ying and yang too much of one and the other suffers, be an alpha in the bedroom, in protecting your family, in the boardroom, be a beta in taking care of your family, giving all of yourself and expecting nothing in return and in the bedroom make sure your spouse is pleasured beyond belief (she will make sure that the alpha gets everything and anything he wants.
Heard the old line men want a lady during the day and a sl*t in the bedroom
Well women want a domestic partner during the day and a stud in the bedroom.
Just my 2 Lincolns


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

*Re: Re: Married Man Sex Life Primer (AKA MMSLP) and you.*



Faithful Wife said:


> .
> 
> How is a marriage book that doesn't even discuss love helpful at all?


Because it presumes that a large portion of the readership already practices grossly 'over-loving' their wives.

Thats my take anyway.

There are plenty of other marriage books about love. Love puts the focus on the wife or the relationship. The book isnt about those things. Its intended beneficiary is the guy reading it, for better or worse.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I get that, Deejo. I used to be married to a Nice Guy. Now I'm married to a Sex God. I understand the difference.

All I am saying is that, having been married to both, I know what the differences are...and MMSL doesn't seem to address some of the biggest issues.

One of which is...if a man's main goal is "to get sex", this is automatically a turn off to (highly sexual) women. MMSL's goal seems to be to help men "get sex". If that is the highest goal for a man in marriage, his woman will not be happy. And no matter how many times someone tries to re-frame it, to "get sex" is really the only apparent goal in the book.

And please remember: I'm a very sexual person. I will never be in a relationship without mind blowing sex. I will never have to be coerced into or begged for sex.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> LOL! There are many pics on my blog.
> 
> Just none of me.
> 
> ...


What the?

FW , I have never seen pics of you! <----[ just kidding!]
lol,
Anyway your blog is a good one.

Forgive me , but when I got halfway into your blog it struck me that there are similarities between some of what MMSLP says and your husband's approach to sex.
Your husband is very dominant with sex ,something which quite a lot of men are either afraid of, or unable to execute.
From what I've read, some parts of MMSLP [ I have not read the entire book, just snippets ] seeks to correct that. MMSLP deals mostly with the raw,sexual dynamics of marriage, and is aimed at fixing the " nice guy syndrome " in the bedroom.
From all the discussions I've seen, for some men it can be fixed, for others it can't.
That was my initial impression


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

CM said: "....MMSLP says and your husband's approach to sex."

Nope. Again CM, the main difference (and you really haven't read the book or you would know this) is that my husband understands that women are sexual beings who WANT to have sex CONSCIOUSLY. MMSL thinks women only want to have sex on a subconscious level and you men are supposed to tap the correct limbic code in order to "get sex".

There are many things in MMSL that do float near to how my husband acts and behaves....in fact, that is why I initially read MMSL. It sounded, at first, like it was describing my husband.

But when I actually read it and realized that this book is written for men who think they have to "figure out how to get sex", I slapped my forehead.

Can I just ask all the guys to stop trying to explain to me what the book is for, what it is about, how it is supposed to work? I know all of those things...I read it myself....I am expressing my OPINION about it based on understanding it...not because I am curious about it.

I simply think it is not pointed in the right direction for marriage (or single life, either).


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> And please remember: *I'm a very sexual person. * I will never be in a relationship without mind blowing sex. I will never have to be coerced into or begged for sex.


How could we forget. You never stop telling us 

_For some people, sexual self-awareness is easy and natural and they have always had it. For me, I had some self-learning to do first. So I read a lot of books. I kept trying to find myself, or the keys to undoing myself, or whatever. How do you search externally for an answer about yourself? I read some good stuff about being authentic during sex. That was a curious thought…being authentic.
_

My wife falls into the first category. I doubt she's ever spent a minute of her day intellectualising being authentic. She just is. Lucky me.



> One of which is...if a man's main goal is "to get sex", this is automatically a turn off to (highly sexual) women.


Maybe it's just a turn off for you? Do you speak for all "highly sexual women"? It's a book to help some men get more sex from their wives. That's it's purpose. 



> MMSL's goal seems to be to help men "get sex". If that is the highest goal for a man in marriage, his woman will not be happy. And no matter how many times someone tries to re-frame it, to "get sex" is really the only apparent goal in the book.


Well, I'm getting NO SEX at the moment, primarily due to the fact that My wife and I are currently sitting on two different continents. Yet the book still had something for me. It still created resonance. It still improved my marriage - that was the goal of the book. Money well spent.



> Desire is no biggie. Desire is there or it isn't and if you are married to someone who isn't into you, it just isn't going to be there.


Desire ebbs and flows. Just like "love". It is a biggie and the a core part of the book.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Desire doesn't stop or ebb and flow if two people are truly into each other and are both sexual people (and both stay in good physical shape and attractive for each other).

Desire DOES stop and ebb and flow when one or both spouses is just not that sexual, or just not that into each other.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> From what I've read, some parts of MMSLP [ I have not read the entire book, just snippets ] seeks to correct that. MMSLP deals mostly with the raw,sexual dynamics of marriage, and is aimed at fixing the " nice guy syndrome " in the bedroom.
> From all the discussions I've seen, for some men it can be fixed, for others it can't.
> That was my initial impression


I'd say you're spot on. (Western) Nice Guys are the primary target audience. From my perspective, there's something for most people as I'm not a NG. I dislike pigeon-holing and like to keep an open mind


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

azteca said: "Maybe it's just a turn off for you? Do you speak for all "highly sexual women"?"

Um....maybe find me one highly sexual woman who says she is NOT turned off by a man who thinks he needs to trick her in order "to get sex"? I've talked to hundreds of highly sexual women in my life (in person and online) and yeah, they don't like that. It is yucky. I'm happy to read any evidence you have to the contrary.

azteca said: "It's a book to help some men get more sex from their wives. That's it's purpose."

Yes...again...I get that. Can you stop telling me what I already know? I am expressing my opinion...no one is right or wrong but I DO UNDERSTAND what the book is about and what it is for.

And I do realize that I "never let anyone forget" how sexual I am...the reason for that is because I get tired of men assuming that since I'm a woman and this topic is about sex, that I "just won't get it". Screw that. I GET IT.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

FW you seem to be 100% ignorant of the phenomena of loss of attraction when a man emasculates himself to her, thinking that the better he treats her the more she'll want him.

It's an epidemic in this screwed up back asswards culture we have where boys are taught to see women as authority and have no significant male role model in their lives.

It's why so many men marry HD women only to find themselves in sexless marriages a few years later.

"All I want is a house, a marriage and kids and I'll be happy" is what the woman says. The man says "Ok, sounds like if I do this then I'll have a life long supply of [email protected], which is what I really want".

And that is basically fraud.

My wife was crazy about me, had to beat other women off of me with a stick (and literally did just that) because I was totally care free and didn't really give two sh!ts about much.

Then, I got a mortgage, had kids, had to deal with pregnant mom, had to help with the housework, had to start caring about stuff, and guess what? SEXLESS MARRIAGE.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Desire doesn't stop or ebb and flow if two people are truly into each other and are both sexual people (and both stay in good physical shape and attractive for each other).


It certainly does ebb when real life intrudes, you're sitting in two different continents and it has no outlet. My wife doesn't have to question my love, commitment or sacrifice as it's the reason we are apart. Physical intimacy is impossible. But we can still have our desire rekindled, even at this distance. 



> Desire DOES stop and ebb and flow when one or both spouses is just not that sexual, or just not that into each other.


You do revel in your belittling language. 

_My_ experience is that there has been a noticeable response from my spouse since I read this book and kept us tuned into Desire FM.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Dude (Disenchanted)...I've read all the books...I've read relationship websites for 10 years....I've been divorced once already...I am immersed in relationship topics all the time (my side job is related to this)....I counsel people....thanks for calling me ignorant without knowing what I know - - that was nice.

I'm not ignorant of what you are talking about. I just don't agree that it ALL works the way MMSL says it does. There ARE other sources to look into about marriage you know! Do you feel MMSL has the one and only answer?

Can I not have an opinion? 

Sheesh.

OK guys...I'll leave it with you, since there is just no discussing my opinion on MMSL without the disciples running in to protect it. There is no real way to have anything I think be communicated when you've decided I'm ignorant before you even know what I know.

And azteca....If you want to personalize everything I say and feel belittled about it, I can't help that.

It isn't belittling anyone to state my opinion on a general topic.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Um....maybe find me one highly sexual woman who says she is NOT turned off by a man who thinks he needs to trick her in order "to get sex"? I've talked to hundreds of highly sexual women in my life (in person and online) and yeah, they don't like that. It is yucky. I'm happy to read any evidence you have to the contrary.


You say it's a 'trick'. I say it is the "unthought known". Men have to remember we know this already. That's a part of what got our spouse to commit to us in the first place. And that's not to down play the book; it's why it resonates with a lot of us.

I freely admit have had no discussions about the subject with highly sexual women (including my wife - we're both naturals). I'm a married man and it would be crossing one of my boundaries to do so.



> And I do realize that I "never let anyone forget" how sexual I am...the reason for that is because I get tired of men assuming that since I'm a woman and this topic is about sex, that I "just won't get it". Screw that. I GET IT.


No man has said anything of the sort on this topic, have they?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

azteca: "No man has said anything of the sort on this topic, have they?"

Not necessarily on this thread (I don't see many women on this thread) but yes, MMSL followers say it all the time to women when discussing sexual matters. They assume that women don't know what they want and shut them down by telling them that. I have heard it directly so many times. So I figured if I can state clearly "heck yeah I want to get my brains f*cked out regularly by a hot stud, not a dud", some men might actually believe I know what I want. (And since it is a true statement, I have no problem saying it). 

And even though I state over and over the things I do agree with, MMSL followers still want to find some reason to dismiss anyone who doesn't sing the praises.

It is weird that the book can't even be reviewed here on TAM unless you love it. Otherwise, you'll get a bunch of backlash. Why? It is just odd.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Can I not have an opinion?
> 
> Sheesh.


Of course you can. 



> OK guys...I'll leave it with you, since there is just no discussing my opinion on MMSL without the *disciples* running in to protect it. There is no real way to have anything I think be communicated when you've decided I'm ignorant before you even know what I know.
> 
> And azteca....If you want to personalize everything I say and feel belittled about it, I can't help that.
> 
> It isn't belittling anyone to state my opinion on a general topic.


You use belittling language. Why? I don't know. I don't feel belittled. You can't make me feel inferior without my consent.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Whatever you say azteca....you did what you apparently wanted to do which seems to be to run off anyone who doesn't love it so....go ahead and keep trying to insult me or whatever your point is.

No worries. Have your book, it is great and perfect and all those other words.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Oh and before some of the other disciples come rushing in to quote all my recent posts and tell me I am ignorant...save it. I get it, you love your MMSL and you won't hear anyone puttin' it down. No worries. I get it.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Whatever you say azteca....you did what you apparently wanted to do which seems to be to run off anyone who doesn't love it so....go ahead and keep trying to insult me or whatever your point is.
> 
> No worries. Have your book, it is great and perfect and all those other words.


Don't play the victim; you're better than that.

I don't know why you insist on using words like 'followers' and 'disciples'. What's wrong with 'people who like the book'? 

However if you write a post like this:


Faithful Wife said:


> Desire doesn't stop or ebb and flow if two people are truly into each other and are both sexual people (and both stay in good physical shape and attractive for each other).
> 
> Desire DOES stop and ebb and flow when one or both spouses is just not that sexual, or just not that into each other.


You will get a response. I'm tempted to write "Who the fvck are you to cast aspersions on me, my wife or our relationship?". But I'm too polite to do so. 

If you're feeling persecuted you could, perhaps, moderate your tone?


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

azteca1986 said:


> Don't play the victim; you're better than that.
> 
> I don't know why you insist on using words like 'followers' and 'disciples'. What's wrong with 'people who like the book'?
> 
> ...


Problably feeling like he is carrying the holy cross upon his back.


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

> I want a man who knows how to f*ck my brains out and makes me beg for more. I want a man who is fit and healthy and can throw me around the room. I want a man who won't take my sh*t (and my husband also wants a woman who won't take HIS sh*t). I want a man who has his own life, hobbies, friends. I want a man that I can respect, who has a good career, doesn't play video games all day.


Wait, I thought this is what MMSL is essentially trying to teach men to do. That's what I got out of it when I read it, (among other things). Not all men are natural sex gods like your husband.

Also, I don't know why its necessary to mention love in the book. The "love at first sight, soul mates, I'm gonna die without her", attitude is probably what got them where they are in the first place. There are plenty of other books out there that touch on the love subject.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh and before some of the other disciples come rushing in to quote all my recent posts and tell me I am ignorant...save it. I get it, you love your MMSL and you won't hear anyone puttin' it down. No worries. I get it.


I don't love MMSL. I am not and never have been a disciple, well, of anything really.

I read that book. I also read, NMMNG, Hold Onto Your NUTS, The Way of the Superior Man, Fire in The Belly, How to Win Friends and Influence People, How to be the Strong Man a Woman Wants, Awareness, Body Language, Mystery Method, Models, Hold Me Tight, Commitment: A skeptic makes peace with Marriage and a whole bunch of blogs including one by the lady with the Sex God husband who I don't have pictures of ...

I am no longer married, with no plans to enter that arena again any time soon. For those that have successful marriages, my deepest and sincere kudos and admiration.

But ... I have also come to accept that this weeks touchdowns, don't win next weeks game. (It's football season here in the US) Meaning that being successful requires work, and that work doesn't end just because you are successful now.

You know what I'd like FW? And I'm really not trying to put you on the spot or set you up ... but I'd like some further input from you on your ex, rather than Sex God.

That's the guy that MMSLP is targeted at. And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm guessing even had your ex tried to implement change in himself to win your respect and affection, it would have been too late. And the deterioration of your bond probably extended way beyond the bedroom.

In my opinion there is an invisible point of no return. Guys need to be able to learn the skills to make it visible, at least to see it for themselves. Know what it is. Know what it means. If your spouse either is at, or is approaching the place where she has a sexual aversion to you ... there isn't any book, tape, or dvd that you can implement to make her want to have sex with you.

All you can do at that point is look to 'inner game' another buzzy catchphrase that encompasses coming to see and treat yourself with respect, and a code of conduct ... and applying that code to how others treat you. Which by default, means that you cease the behaviors that enabled people alienate you, take advantage of you, or dismiss you. 

Attraction, attraction, attraction. That is the framework. Respect is the glue. 
When I read what you have to say about maintaining a sexual connection, I see 'maintaining attraction'.


I cannot possibly demonstrate on this forum how different my life is now than what I imagined it would be 5 or 10 years ago. Having digested MMSLP has contributed, but it certainly doesn't define me, my approach to women, love, or sex. 

I do.

And to me, that's the trick. It isn't about tricking women into wanting to have sex with you. It was about recognizing that I had been tricked into thinking that a particular set of actions and behaviors would make women 'happy' and therefore they would want to have sex with me ... for years. And I stuck with those behaviors right through ending up like your ex ... more than once.

It ain't about being someone you're not. It's about finally recognizing that you haven't taken the time and done the work to be who you were supposed to be all along. And I'm not just talking about MMSLP. The book isn't that encompassing. But lets face it, Athol had experiences and decided to write that book based on the journey he decided to take, all while remaining married. Enough people were interested that he got to quit his day job ... if you're going to be dead wrong about something, I suppose one could do a hell of a lot worse.

I really like your stuff too, by the way. You're right about highly sexual people. Gets to the point where you can sniff each other out. And you kind of have a radar for who the cold fish are. Wish I had 'untricked' myself 20 years ago. 

Completely different view on sex and relationships. The right view. For me.

My long winded, eloquent and brilliant post can be summed up as the following; somebody has to make the conscious choice to change their dynamic. They can certainly try chicanery, and may get some traction, but it can't last. You can read MMSLP, or a dozen books. None of it matters until you DO something.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

soccermom2three said:


> Wait, I thought this is what MMSL is essentially trying to teach men to do. That's what I got out of it when I read it, (among other things). Not all men are natural sex gods like your husband.
> 
> Also, I don't know why its necessary to mention love in the book. The "love at first sight, soul mates, I'm gonna die without her", attitude is probably what got them where they are in the first place. There are plenty of other books out there that touch on the love subject.


Yes,
That's what I got from the little snippets and reviews I read from the book. In fact that's why I never finished the book , because I am already having that kind of sex with my wife.
But just because the book doesn't apply to my marriage means that it cannot apply to a man who's having a sexless marriage.

And I also agree with the second paragraph.
The book is not about love.
There is an entire world of difference between raw sexual lust and love. But when both are combined , it can become like a drug. The beauty is that it's dynamic is different based on the personality types involved, so it varies from couple to couple.

And yes, the entire " soulmate / love " construct is basically a projection from ourselves towards another person. We see what we want to see in them, and create a fantasy.
A few years after marriage, comes the mortgage , kids etc, the fantasy fades and we wonder what went wrong, why the person / we, are no longer attracted.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Sorry if the term ignorant came off offensive. 

What gets me so fired up is that there was no way I could "love" my STBXWW out of her affair.

She was bored with me no matter how much I "loved" her.

If I had read some of the tips in MMSL before she lost all attraction I might have been able to save my family unit and keep us all together.

It was ideas like what I'm hearing from you that I've heard all my life that led me to believe I was on the right path in how I was treating my wife. I was doing exactly what women have been telling me to do my whole life.

It didn't work.


But now I'm going to search for a healthy woman instead, or just go it alone.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Deejo said:


> *In my opinion there is an invisible point of no return. Guys need to be able to learn the skills to make it visible, at least to see it for themselves. Know what it is. Know what it means. *


Yes, Yes and Yes.
And quite a lot of women can't really identify that point either.

As controversial as it might sound I personally believe from my experience that every , single woman has an inner sex goddess locked up in her. Some women are natural , they unleash it without any guilt .
They need a partner that can keep up with them. 
Others don't know how to express it , and their partner gets confused. Its like they're speaking Spanish and their partner speaking Greek. So he tries everything and it doesn't work.So she either shuts down and claim LD , or go looking for a partner who could bring it out.

Sexual attraction and love are two completely different things.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Dude (Disenchanted)...I've read all the books...I've read relationship websites for 10 years....I've been divorced once already...I am immersed in relationship topics all the time (my side job is related to this)....I counsel people....thanks for calling me ignorant without knowing what I know - - that was nice.


Let me reframe my statement, please.

I would really like to hear your advice for a man who has lost is sense of self because he has devoted every ounce of his being to becoming the ideal family man/father/husband according to the vision instilled in him by his mother.

Once he becomes exactly the man he thinks his mother wants him to be, he finds that his wife is disgusted by him. He has done everything he knows to do. He provides, he loves, he cherishes, he's thoughtful, considerate, he listens, he does it all! And the more he does those things the more repulsed his wife becomes.

What do you suggest he does at that point?

Thank you.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I agree with this completely. 

Very often, guys come here with the same refrain;
"My wife doesn't want sex."

And it can be extraordinarily difficult without making look like you are trying to club the guy like a baby harp seal, what the real truth is;

No bud. She does want sex. She just doesn't want sex with *you*.

New woman I am seeing was in exactly this kind of relationship, for 4 years, until she pulled the plug.
Her partner, anyone care to guess how she described him?



Caribbean Man said:


> Yes, Yes and Yes.
> And quite a lot of women can't really identify that point either.
> 
> As controversial as it might sound I personally believe from my experience that every , single woman has an inner sex goddess locked up in her. Some women are natural , they unleash it without any guilt .
> ...


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

> That's what I got from the little snippets and reviews I read from the book. In fact that's why I never finished the book , because I am already having that kind of sex with my wife.


I read the book because it's mentioned so much here and I was curious. I really liked the book. It made sense to me.


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

Disenchanted said:


> Let me reframe my statement, please.
> 
> I would really like to hear your advice for a man who has lost is sense of self because he has devoted every ounce of his being to becoming the ideal family man/father/husband according to the vision instilled in him by his mother.
> 
> ...


If that man had married his mothers clone, he would be getting exactly what he wanted out of that relationship. The problem is, he did not marry his mother, he married a completely different human being. The first thing i would suggest to this man is rather obvious, I would tell him to *sit down with his wife and ask* her what she wants out of a relationship with him. I would make sure that during that conversation the man explain to his wife exactly what youve just written here and ask her what changes she would like to have him make, in addition to that, I would tell him to explain to her what he is looking for out of a relationship with her. The conversation could be structured somewhere along the lines of:

"Hon, over the last few <whatever frame of time> I've done my best to be a good husband to you and good father to our children. I consistently do <trait a, b, c, d,> to make sure you are happy and <trait a, b, c, d> to make sure the kids are taken care of. It has become clear to me that those actions do not make you see me as a good husband/man but make you feel disgusted with me. I feel this way because you do <bad thing a, b, c, d> and I want to know what meaningful changes I can make to ensure that you no longer have those feelings. I want you to be concrete and tell me exactly what you would like to see happen in the short and long term to help me be a man closer to your idea of the ideal. While I am working on those things, I would like for you to do <improvement a, b, c> so that I feel happier in our relationship as well."

I would also heavily consider adding marriage counseling to the equation so that both the man and his wife can learn a new way of communicating with one another that does not make either of them defensive when issues are being discussed. The scenario I outlined leaves both spouses with agency of action and choice without games or manipulation coming into the picture. Open and honest communication, along with a willingness to assess and reassess the state of the marriage on a regular basis, are primary components in having a co-equal relationship. I know the question wasnt directed at me, but I felt like answering.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Disenchanted said:


> I would really like to hear your advice for a man who has lost is sense of self because he has devoted every ounce of his being to becoming the ideal family man/father/husband *according to the vision instilled in him by his mother.*


Isn't this a large part of the problem? Shouldn't you be having your vision instilled by and asking questions of your father?

The other day my wife referred to our DS6 as "her baby" when he got his first wobbly tooth. I corrected her. I've been calling him "My little man" since he could walk.


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

azteca1986 said:


> Isn't this a large part of the problem? Shouldn't you be having your vision instilled by and asking questions of your father?
> 
> The other day my wife referred to our DS6 as "her baby" when he got his first wobbly tooth.* I corrected her*. I've been calling him "My little man" since he could walk.


:whip: Yeah! alpha curb stomp that p*ssy limp wristed term of endearment right out of the park. She will think twice before she emasculates your six year old again. He doesnt want to hear that crap coming home from the coal mines, he just wants his beer and skinning knife so he can go to the den and relax by field dressing the buck he took down on his way home.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

I may have missed a trick, by not insisting my wife supplicate herself in awe of my Alphaness. Though, I feel I did successfully put her in her rightful place under my Alpha-jack-boots-of-suppression when I said "He's not a baby anymore, my love".


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

Was the Schutzhund barking at the time? Or was she allowed to make eye contact with you while you said that to her? Is he your first child? Do you really think she was thinking of him as a baby when she said that, or simply using a common term of endearment?


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Paladin said:


> Is he your first child? Do you really think she was thinking of him as a baby when she said that, or simply using a common term of endearment?


Yep he's our one and only for now. 

_(this exchange happened over Skype)
_Her: (A bit plaintively) I've got some bad news about [DS6]
Me : Sh!t! What's up?
Her: I saw him playing with his tooth... and when I had a look I saw it was wobbly... My baby's growing up
Me :He's not a baby anymore, my love (Calming down from alarm as it might have been something serious to comforting the wife)

I've told her point blank that if it were left up to her she molly-coddle the sh!t out of him. It's to be expected. It's her 'baby'. Her first born son. It's what she's going to do as a mother. I understand.

But in turn I've let her understand that she's never been a little boy, she's never been a son, she'll never been a man, a husband or a father. As this is my area of expertise she'll have to defer once in a while. She buys my rational argument; as to the greater (male) influence I should exert on our son's up-bringing, the older he gets.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Paladin said:


> If that man had married his mothers clone.....


Thanks Paladin. That's exactly what I did. MC told wife she was codependent, to detach, so she did, by screwing another man.

Or in other words, that didn't work, lol.



Paladin said:


> I would tell him to *sit down with his wife and ask* her what she wants out of a relationship with him


The answer to this question is _always_ "well, it's a moving target".


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

azteca1986 said:


> Isn't this a large part of the problem? Shouldn't you be having your vision instilled by and asking questions of your father?


Exactly, but we don't all get that choice, do we?

Most men learn about women primarily from their mother. They _should_ learn how to deal with women from their father.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

*Re: Re: Married Man Sex Life Primer (AKA MMSLP) and you.*



Paladin said:


> If that man had married his mothers clone, he would be getting exactly what he wanted out of that relationship. The problem is, he did not marry his mother, he married a completely different human being. The first thing i would suggest to this man is rather obvious, I would tell him to *sit down with his wife and ask* her what she wants out of a relationship with him. I would make sure that during that conversation the man explain to his wife exactly what youve just written here and ask her what changes she would like to have him make, in addition to that, I would tell him to explain to her what he is looking for out of a relationship with her. The conversation could be structured somewhere along the lines of:
> 
> "Hon, over the last few <whatever frame of time> I've done my best to be a good husband to you and good father to our children. I consistently do <trait a, b, c, d,> to make sure you are happy and <trait a, b, c, d> to make sure the kids are taken care of. It has become clear to me that those actions do not make you see me as a good husband/man but make you feel disgusted with me. I feel this way because you do <bad thing a, b, c, d> and I want to know what meaningful changes I can make to ensure that you no longer have those feelings. I want you to be concrete and tell me exactly what you would like to see happen in the short and long term to help me be a man closer to your idea of the ideal. While I am working on those things, I would like for you to do <improvement a, b, c> so that I feel happier in our relationship as well."
> 
> I would also heavily consider adding marriage counseling to the equation so that both the man and his wife can learn a new way of communicating with one another that does not make either of them defensive when issues are being discussed. The scenario I outlined leaves both spouses with agency of action and choice without games or manipulation coming into the picture. Open and honest communication, along with a willingness to assess and reassess the state of the marriage on a regular basis, are primary components in having a co-equal relationship. I know the question wasnt directed at me, but I felt like answering.


Now see, I am very curious why you think this would work? Personally I don't see how further supplicating yourself to someone who doesn't value or respect you can conceivably improve things. You can't have open and honest communication with someone who doesn't acknowledge or want those same things.

Here is exactly how my open and honest played out ... verbatim.

Me: I'm making an appointment with a therapist, I'd like you to come.

Her: (rolls eyes) Why, because we don't have sex enough? 

Me: No. So I can decide if I'm going to stay married to you.

And with that, her entire demeanor changed. Everything that had built up to create our utterly dysfunctional marriage shifted in that moment. 

Quite literally, our entire dynamic changed with that exchange.

The man in the scenario you wrote is asking his wife who she wants him to be. He is validating her sh!tty opinion of him.

He needs to decide what kind of man HE wants to be, and if his wife wants to stick around great. If she wants to preserve the old, broken, disrespectful and loveless dynamic? You leave her. And that's all there is to it.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 10, 2011)

Paladin said:


> :whip: Yeah! alpha curb stomp that p*ssy limp wristed term of endearment right out of the park. She will think twice before she emasculates your six year old again. He doesnt want to hear that crap coming home from the coal mines, he just wants his beer and skinning knife so he can go to the den and relax by field dressing the buck he took down on his way home.


I really just spit coffee out of my mouth.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Disenchanted said:


> Exactly, but we don't all get that choice, do we?
> 
> Most men learn about women primarily from their mother. They _should_ learn how to deal with women from their father.


I'm beginning to understand how lucky I was/am. Having a son really focuses your mind on the example you're supposed to be setting. I had the good the fortune of having a good example follow.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

My parents divorced as I was hitting adolescence. 

I always blamed my father for leaving, but now realizing what a nut job my mother was I can't blame him.

I thought he didn't pedestalize women enough and I never respected him because of that. So I tried what he didn't do in hopes it would create a healthy marriage that would last. (Every piece of literature I read pretty much said he failed by not "emotionally supporting" her enough).

At least my divorce has reinvigorated my relationship with him, and he simply doesn't put up with other people's sh!t. But you see, a child of divorce rationalizes this stuff however they can.

This is where MMSL helps and "marriage by love" does not.

Nice Guy anyone?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I do just want to say that the last several posts were so very "real"...and even though I don't dive into any of your particular stories (you guys here, on this thread) it is still sad to hear how bad things can go wrong. I do have a lot of empathy for people who divorce...was a child of divorce myself and my own divorce SUCKED. In fact, divorce was the reason I ended up reading all of these books. It still hurts. For you guys who are headed there....I'm sorry.

Deejo...the only reason I do not talk more about my ex is out of respect for him. NG or not, I loved him and he is the father of my kids. For awhile after my divorce, I talked about him on other websites. But once I moved on from that, it felt slimy to discuss him since our D was 50% my fault, and he wasn't around to defend any of my statements. So now I only talk about him vaguely, but hopefully it shows, with respect. He is a good man and I do not "blame" him being a NG for our D. 

You guys are great actually...sorry I got snitty.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> You guys are great actually...sorry I got snitty.


Aren't you forgetting something?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

What am I forgetting, friend?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> What am I forgetting, friend?


An official invite to read _your_ married man sex blog.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Disenchanted said:


> My parents divorced as I was hitting adolescence.


I feel for you, my man. Obviously there's no good time for a divorce but that would be the worst from a male perspective.

I hope this lightens the mood. Once again science telling us what we already know (the unthought known). 

*Testicle size 'link to father role'
*_A link between the size of a father's testicles and how active he is in bringing up his children has been suggested by scientists._ 

BBC News - Testicle size 'link to father role'


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Funny, but it doesn't add up. 

I've always been a very involved father. 

Maybe I'm just the exception, lol.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Disenchanted said:


> I've always been a very involved father.


No issues with your equipment, then.

ETA: So, less of the domestic stuff and more of the leading by example, pillow fighting and letting him fall off things.

"Sorry, I'd love to help you honey but my testicles won't allow it. It's Science"


----------



## Trickster (Nov 19, 2011)

I've read MMSLP several times. Each time I read it I gain new insite.

Did it help my marriage and sex life? No...A real big no.

A lot of what I was reading I was already improving on. Getting healthy, working out, dressing a little better, and developing friends ( my wife was my only friend for 20 plus years)

Although my wife is cute, she has no interest in improving her body in any way. She is way overweight now. I don't believe every woman has an inner sex goddess. My wife is closer to being asexual. She has always been. 

So what has been happening over the past 6 months or so, I've been having lunch with friends. Some of them female, all with my wife's knowledge. I don't hide anything. She doesn't seem jealous.

Also, by reading MMSLP, I decided to up the sex. I may have a little rough at times. Nothing extreme at all. That was about when my wife told me the sex was too much and too lasted long for her. *She even told me to have sex with other women!*. I know she doesn't really mean that. She just wanted my passive Beta man back.

In addition, I am joining meetup groups. The newest on being a hiking group. The next one is a 10 mile hike. I've been meeting many people. That's what MMSLP has done for me. I am becoming more confident each day. I was always too needy before. Not anymore. I no longer NEED my wife anymore. She is no longer my everything.


I will agree that it take a lot of work to be Alpha. Especially because I am more Beta. I am still trying to find my *balance *that works for both my wife and I to be happy. 

Overall, it seems like MMSLP is like the 180 we hear so much about. Fix ourselves to be more attractive with the opposite sex.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Paladin said:


> If that man had married his mothers clone, he would be getting exactly what he wanted out of that relationship. The problem is, he did not marry his mother, he married a completely different human being. The first thing i would suggest to this man is rather obvious, I would tell him to *sit down with his wife and ask* her what she wants out of a relationship with him. I would make sure that during that conversation the man explain to his wife exactly what youve just written here and ask her what changes she would like to have him make, in addition to that, I would tell him to explain to her what he is looking for out of a relationship with her. The conversation could be structured somewhere along the lines of:
> 
> "Hon, over the last few <whatever frame of time> I've done my best to be a good husband to you and good father to our children. I consistently do <trait a, b, c, d,> to make sure you are happy and <trait a, b, c, d> to make sure the kids are taken care of. It has become clear to me that those actions do not make you see me as a good husband/man but make you feel disgusted with me. I feel this way because you do <bad thing a, b, c, d> and I want to know what meaningful changes I can make to ensure that you no longer have those feelings. I want you to be concrete and tell me exactly what you would like to see happen in the short and long term to help me be a man closer to your idea of the ideal. While I am working on those things, I would like for you to do <improvement a, b, c> so that I feel happier in our relationship as well."
> 
> I would also heavily consider adding marriage counseling to the equation so that both the man and his wife can learn a new way of communicating with one another that does not make either of them defensive when issues are being discussed. The scenario I outlined leaves both spouses with agency of action and choice without games or manipulation coming into the picture. Open and honest communication, along with a willingness to assess and reassess the state of the marriage on a regular basis, are primary components in having a co-equal relationship. I know the question wasnt directed at me, but I felt like answering.


What your write seems to make perfect sense but in reality it doesn't work most of the time. I know a man whose wife wanted to quit her job and be a SAHM. So she did. Then she was concerned about the finances so he had to work more hours to keep them afloat. She complained to him that although their bills were getting paid there was not enough money left for vacations and "fun stuff." So he worked even more hours. She eventually divorced him because she said he was never home with her. So what exactly did he do wrong according to your strategy? My opinion is that he let her "run the show" way too much. She said jump and he said "how high." Had he read MMSL or some of the other books that Deejo mentioned he would have realized where he was going wrong and potentially saved his marriage. We here on TAM are more introspective than most people. Most people move through life never really looking inside to see what it is that they truly want or what will truly make them happy. Sometimes people say what they want but when they actually have it they aren't any happier than when they started.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

azteca said: "You will get a response. I'm tempted to write "Who the fvck are you to cast aspersions on me, my wife or our relationship?". But I'm too polite to do so."


But see....I wasn't directing my general statement at YOU, but here you are saying that I was. That is why the next thing I said was "if you want to take it personally, I can't help that"...and then you said you didn't take it personally...but now you are saying you did....WTF? I got confused and I still am, actually.

I made that general statement and I stand by it. I don't know YOUR story so I don't know how YOU read my statement...but please believe me that it was a general statement.

BUT...I will re-state it in a different way to be more clear, but this is still just general, ok? I still don't know YOUR story.

What I mean by my statement is this: there are women out there whose sex drive doesn't wane, just like there are men out there whose sex drive doesn't wane.

Yes, there are women who are going to stop having a sex drive after kids. Some of these women will never get their sex drive back. IMO, these women, regardless of appearances, are not and were not ever HD.

When you are horny as hell, (some of you men can attest to this), you just plain don't "lose" your sex drive...this applies to horny as hell WOMEN, too. 

Let's say that there is the average sex drive line (where ever it is) and half of everyone is on the higher or lower side of that line or right on it. If you are married to a woman on the lower side of the line, this will NOT likely ever change. It seems like MMSL will try to give you hope even if your wife is in this category.

So that's why I made the general statement about being into each other, and being truly sexual to begin with.

I have known so many horny mommies who turn TOWARD sex, not away from it, during stress.

If horny women have not been what a man has experienced, I can see why it is hard for him to believe this.

I think it would be helpful for those guys to know that there are truly HD women out there and understand that a truly LD woman isn't likely to change, so they would not have false hope about an LD wife.

Then there is the "being into each other" piece. If that isn't there, that isn't likely to change either.

And then there is the fact that some MEN just aren't that sexual. Again half of them would be on the average line or lower statistically, right? Well, these lower sexual men are sometimes not understanding their own contribution to these problems.

(again...nothing of what I said applies to YOU azteca as far as I know, ok?)


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

FW,

I would love to be an observer of your marriage for a month or so. I would bet that much of what is written about in Athol's book/blog and other books and blogs your husband actually does but you just don't notice it.

Before I met my wife I was definitely what you would call a player type. I'd go to bars, pick up women, bed them and then that was it for me. I wasn't interested in a relationship. I just wanted sex. As for what the girls wanted or what they thought...I didn't much care. I never lied to them I just wasn't very forthcoming. Later after I was married I read MMSL and Athol's blog. That led me to other "game" blogs and you know what I found? I was doing much of what they were counseling guys to do but for me it was just natural. Some blogs say that you should act as if you don't care. Well, I didn't care. Some suggest you "neg" the beautiful women because it puts them off guard. Well, I guess I did "neg" women but not because I thought I'd get anything out of them. It was because they were rude to me when I tried to initiate a conversation so I blasted them. Funny thing, I usually ended up bringing them home. So I am betting that much of what is suggested to men on these blogs and in these books are things that your husband has always done just because its part of his personality. To you these suggestions seem like tricks because these men have to consciously make them happen. But to me (and I suspect your husband) they aren't tricks, they are just "me."


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...the only reason I do not talk more about my ex is out of respect for him. NG or not, I loved him and he is the father of my kids. For awhile after my divorce, I talked about him on other websites. But once I moved on from that, it felt slimy to discuss him since our D was 50% my fault, and he wasn't around to defend any of my statements. So now I only talk about him vaguely, but hopefully it shows, with respect. He is a good man and I do not "blame" him being a NG for our D.
> 
> You guys are great actually...sorry I got snitty.


Absolutely respect that perspective. I'm thrilled for you that you have an amazing sexual connection with your husband. Odds are, it isn't by accident. And odds are, you don't feel 'tricked'.

Whatever it is that creates your sexual chemistry is intrinsic to him, who he is, how he thinks, how he conducts himself and how as a result, you respond to him.

Same is true for your ex, or, many of the guys that find themselves looking for insight on this board about why despite their belief that they are good men, their wives won't touch them with a 10 foot pole.

My qualm about how you presented Sex God, was similar to my qualm with WiserforIt; that somehow what is right and good and attractive a man should just know, and 'do', no trickery or manipulation involved.

It's dismissive of the glaring reality that the 'doing' is a completely foreign concept to many men in these circumstances. You tell a typical 'Nice Guy' to stand up for himself and people will respect him, without explicitly talking about what steps he needs to take and what he needs to consider, and that guy is going to get steamrolled whether it's by his wife, boss, or 12 year old.

The 'doing' is the important piece. And if you don't know what it is you are supposed to be doing, someone has to spell it out ... with instructions.

To me, that was the goal and takeaway of the books.

In my case, I learned that I did in fact know intuitively what to do. I had just been conditioned not to do it.

I feel like I'm on the other side of that journey now. I'm very content with who I am and how I conduct myself. So does it seem, do most of the people that I interact with.
Others don't approve? Tough. If I don't approve, then I change it.

Love it or hate it, MMSLP is now a standard go to reference in the lexicon of faltering marriages with flat or failing intimacy.

It's written in language guys can understand. It isn't preachy. And importantly ... it is focused on the GUY. To me, that's important. To others it is a glaring flaw. I'm ok with the fact that those people are wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

bfree...I have said many times that it would appear there are similarities and that was why I read MMSL to begin with. But then when I actually read it and read the lack of love, the lack of respect for humanity and women (sorry guys, that is just how I read it), and knowing the HUGE amount of love and respect that my husband has, I saw the differences very clearly.

Same thing for game theories. I have read the literature...there are differences, big ones. 

I will be making blog posts about these differences...too much to go into here.

But the main one is the respect he has for women, AND the understanding that women don't actually NEED to be gamed if they are highly sexual. The readers of MMSL and game theory seem to be stuck on "getting sex" and that implies that women don't want to give up the sex.

My husband has never experienced a lack in the sexual realm. He has always experienced women as highly sexual....THIS mindset, is the difference. I am blogging about this difference in various ways. I really only started my blog 2 months ago and only have 26 posts, so give me some time...I will describe more differences as we go.

You said: "Before I met my wife I was definitely what you would call a player type. I'd go to bars, pick up women, bed them and then that was it for me. I wasn't interested in a relationship. I just wanted sex. As for what the girls wanted or what they thought...I didn't much care."

This does not describe my husband at all. Nothing I have ever said would suggest that this describes my husband. And yet, it seems that this "player" type of bad boy is the ONLY way some men can comprehend a guy like my husband. 

He is a different animal.

He loves and respects women, and sex is not his goal.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

So were you "highly sexual" with your NG ex?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Deejo said: "My qualm about how you presented Sex God, was similar to my qualm with WiserforIt; that somehow what is right and good and attractive a man should just know, and 'do', no trickery or manipulation involved.

It's dismissive of the glaring reality that the 'doing' is a completely foreign concept to many men in these circumstances. You tell a typical 'Nice Guy' to stand up for himself and people will respect him, without explicitly talking about what steps he needs to take and what he needs to consider, and that guy is going to get steamrolled whether it's by his wife, boss, or 12 year old." (end quote)


Well, I get what you are saying....but Deejo...I never said I was here to help a NG learn anything. I am here sharing information and gathering information. I have (from what I can tell by lots of reading) a unique perspective to share (mostly blogging it now, not putting it on message boards). I have a lot more to get into. MOST of it is about sexuality, not NG's.

So I don't feel any particular obligation toward addressing NG's in particular.

I understand what you are saying, though.

I will try to change up my tone, I guess. I don't want to hurt people's feelings. But please, anyone, everyone....take me for the uppity horny sl*t that I am! I'm always going to be talking about SEX. I have been doing this here and elsewhere for a long long long time. Its my thang. I'm not here to insult or hurt you. 

Regardless, I hear what you are saying on how you read me...but I have never said that a man should "just know" anything.

Don't forget that there are equivalent books for women, and I have read those, too.

There are game books for women, I have read those, too.

There is so much to read and learn.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Disenchanted...yes, I was.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Disenchanted...yes, I was.


So back to my offensive "ignorance" insult.

If you don't know what it's like for a NG in a sexless marriage, how can you help one?

:scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Did I ever say I could help one? I am just offering opinions here and there.

Having said that...my last marriage was technically sexless by the end of it...and yes I do have a lot of thoughts on that topic...I said I was still highly sexual. It was mostly with myself. My ex-h was just not that sexual. Get it?


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Did I ever say I could help one? I am just offering opinions here and there.
> 
> Having said that...my last marriage was technically sexless by the end of it...and yes I do have a lot of thoughts on that topic...I said I was still highly sexual. It was mostly with myself. My ex-h was just not that sexual. Get it?


Yes but this entire thread is focused on the book MMSLP, which you are saying lacks the element of "love" that any marriage advice book worth it's salt should have.

But it's a book that is focused on helping the NG type from being cheated on and having a sexless marriage!!!

So now I don't know what your point is!

No offense intended, but I guess what I am saying is that the intended target audience of this book and your personal intended target audience are vastly different demographs!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Right but all I did was offer my opinion Disenchanted....I never said that I could help NG's with their specific problems (though I probably could and have done coaching with those guys) just not on this board (but I have on many other boards).

My point stands....I didn't like major portions of the book and I think it is waaaaaay off base on a lot of the sex stuff, for ANY man, not just NG's.

Not sure where you misunderstood me on this: I never said I could or would help you. I just said I don't like the book.

I loved the book NMMNG.

I also loved Why Men Love B*tches.

I also loved Passionate Marriage.

MMSL is one of many books in this genre of self-improvement and I read lots of those books like that...my opinion is as valid as anyone's, I feel. Why wouldn't it be? It is only an opinion, as I've said over and over.

I have a lot of knowledge cross-referenced between all of these books, all of my own experience, and all of my message board reading. I gave a review of MMSL based on what I know and have seen and read. That's it.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure where you misunderstood me on this: I never said I could or would help you. I just said I don't like the book


I don't think I misunderstand you at all. I'm just saying that the book doesn't fit your situation, which is not to say it doesn't fit other people's! You aren't the target audience for the book.

You aren't involved in a sexless marriage, nor are you a man!

And I never insinuated that your opinion isn't valid. But I'm not validating your opinion either.

Men are from Mars blah blah blah

Thanks for chatting!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I was involved in a sexless marriage with an NG. I am divorced. I am re-married to a Sex God. Do you not see how I do actually have some of the experience that MMSL talks about?

Why am I not allowed to give my review on it just because I'm not currently in a sexless marriage and nor am I a man? MMSL says a whole lot about women and how they think and feel and when and why they are turned on. I do believe very much that I have a right to respond to what it says, since I don't agree with a lot of it, especially where the MALE author is trying to speak about how women don't even know what they want. Where is the problem with me sharing my review about that? 

Funny, when someone doesn't like a book I did like, I don't take it so personally nor tell them they don't have the right to their opinion.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 10, 2011)

God, if


> But it's a book that is focused on helping the NG type from being cheated on and having a sexless marriage!!!


was plastered on the front of the book, that would have helped me immensely.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Why am I not allowed to give my review on it just because I'm not currently in a sexless marriage and nor am I a man? MMSL says a whole lot about women and how they think and feel and when and why they are turned on. I do believe very much that I have a right to respond to what it says, since I don't agree with a lot of it, especially where the MALE author is trying to speak about how women don't even know what they want. Where is the problem with me sharing my review about that?


Whoa, who said anything about you being allowed, or having a right, or that there is a problem?

Wasn't me.

This is actually becoming humorous!


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> MMSL is one of many books in this genre of self-improvement and I read lots of those books like that...my opinion is as valid as anyone's, I feel. Why wouldn't it be?


The book isn't targeted at you. It's not relevant to you or your Sex God, so your dismissal of it, though only opinion, is not really valid. You're the equivalent of a Pepsi drinker telling a bunch of Coke drinkers your opinion of the product. Besides, you baldly stated you're not here to help anyone, so, well...

Disenchanted, I do agree the book would be most helpful to NG's but I think MMSLP has something for a lot of men.

I downloaded NMMG and tried to read it (first chapter and the chapter headings). I couldn't relate, so I didn't bother.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Disenchanted...you said this "I'm just saying that the book doesn't fit your situation, which is not to say it doesn't fit other people's! You aren't the target audience for the book....You aren't involved in a sexless marriage, nor are you a man!" and then dismissed me with "thanks for chatting". 

If you don't feel that was dismissive, then ok, but it was. I interpreted it (from very clear language of yours) that you felt that since the book doesn't apply to me (in your opinion) then there is no reason to discuss it with me further.

Which doesn't bother me, I just think it is odd, that's all.

Nice chatting with you, too.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> God, if
> 
> was plastered on the front of the book, that would have helped me immensely.


There is actually a disclaimer on the first page or two for women.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 10, 2011)

Yeah, I know.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Why am I not allowed to give my review on it just because I'm not currently in a sexless marriage and nor am I a man? MMSL says a whole lot about women and how they think and feel and when and why they are turned on. I do believe very much that I have a right to respond to what it says, since I don't agree with a lot of it, especially where the MALE author is trying to speak about how women don't even know what they want. Where is the problem with me sharing my review about that?





Faithful Wife said:


> If you don't feel that was dismissive, then ok, but it was. I interpreted it (from very clear language of yours) that you felt that since the book doesn't apply to me (in your opinion) then there is no reason to discuss it with me further.
> 
> Which doesn't bother me, I just think it is odd, that's all.
> 
> Nice chatting with you, too.


I don't mind discussing _anything_ with you, I rather enjoy it.

However, you are accusing me of all kinds of things that I'd prefer you didn't.

_I have not disallowed you from anything. I have not claimed you have no right to do anything. I have not claimed that there is a problem. I have not dismissed you.
_
You seem very offended by what I do say though and I have no interest in offending you or anyone else.

So if you'd like to continue our discourse it would be appreciated if you would stop accusing me of things I have not done.

Thanks!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I don't really know how to make us both happy with this discussion...so I'll bow out but please accept my offering of this: I have nothing but respect for you and no hard feelings.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Thanks! 

And I am happy with this discussion! I make myself happy now, not anybody else. (Thanks Athol)


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> bfree...I have said many times that it would appear there are similarities and that was why I read MMSL to begin with. But then when I actually read it and read the lack of love, the lack of respect for humanity and women (sorry guys, that is just how I read it), and knowing the HUGE amount of love and respect that my husband has, I saw the differences very clearly.
> 
> Same thing for game theories. I have read the literature...there are differences, big ones.
> 
> ...



Ok, this is probably going to sound a tad crass so forgive me in advance.

You said your husband was not a player type. Ok, so then where did ll these women that you say he has experienced come from? Mail order? Babes-R-Us? If your husband has loads of experience like you say I'm sure he has picked up a woman or two (or 20) in a bar during his single days.

See that's the thing, you don't know how he was before you met him. I've told my wife everything about my past. Every detail I could remember. But even if I didn't miss anything she was not there with me. She didn't experience the flavor of those moments so for all my honesty she still doesn't really know me as far as my past goes. I have a friend who used to troll the bars with me. He's married now and when we got together on one occasion his wife remarked how respectful and trustworthy he was. I had to leave the room! This guy was one of the biggest horn dogs I had ever met. He'd say or do whatever it took to get his target in the sack. But to his wife he was honorable and respectful of women. Ok, whatever. Thing is that he is still happily married and has been faithful to his wife. My wife knows of my past but she would tell you that I am completely respectful of women. And I am. Was I then? I guess that's debatable but the man I am now certainly is. I do believe that your husband is respectful and honorable. Was he always? I don't know but it really doesn't matter so long as he is the man you need him to be. But remember that experience came from somewhere although I'm sure you are happy as heck to be reaping the benefits.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

FW and French Fry,

Athol has a new book out which you might want to take a look at. His reasons for writing it were because many women wanted something a little more geared for them. I haven't read it yet but from what I gather its more toned down and more female friendly. Maybe you should investigate?

The Mindful Attraction Plan: Your Practical Roadmap to Creating the Life, Love and Success You Want: Athol Kay: 9781490451510: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

bfree...You haven't read my blog then right? Not saying you should, just saying I have answered everything you asked me in my blog.

Extremely sexual people have Sex-dar, they know each other in the sexual jungle, they find each other, and they have sex. Notice the lack of "picking up" in that statement.

Extremely sexual women do not need to be "picked up in bars". Extremely sexual women might be the ones in the bar who are picking up the man. In my husband's case, it was never bars. There are highly sexual women everywhere...and they "see him" and know he is a Sex God because they have Sex-dar. I have witnessed this myself (seeing highly sexual women "see him").

We have both talked a lot about our experiences, because we aren't ashamed of them.

I am bi-sexual and have lived in an alternative lifestyle for a certain portion of my life. He knows all those details, too...and those details are things that might make another man turn and bail. Some of my exploits have not been very chaste or classy....yet I have no issue telling him any of it that he wants to know.

Believe what you want...but there is openness and honesty about our pasts in our relationship. I know who he is and was. We have both made errors, but not the type you are describing. We have both met some of each other's exes. We are not young, this is a 2nd marriage for both of us.


----------



## nuclearnightmare (May 15, 2013)

very interesting thread. But got to put it down now! other things beckon......

as I said I liked the book. Since this is CWI one thing I want to point out: chances that a bonafide 'Alpha' male will reconcile after his wife is unfaithful - 0%


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> bfree...You haven't read my blog then right? Not saying you should, just saying I have answered everything you asked me in my blog.
> 
> Extremely sexual people have Sex-dar, they know each other in the sexual jungle, they find each other, and they have sex. Notice the lack of "picking up" in that statement.
> 
> ...


So maybe all those women in the bars I went to picked up on the fact that I was a highly sexual male and just had to have me? That's a way of looking at it that I hadn't thought of. Thanks!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

"So maybe all those women in the bars I went to picked up on the fact that I was a highly sexual male and just had to have me?"


Except you already admitted that you didn't care about them or what they wanted....opposite from my husband's experience.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> "So maybe all those women in the bars I went to picked up on the fact that I was a highly sexual male and just had to have me?"
> 
> 
> Except you already admitted that you didn't care about them or what they wanted....opposite from my husband's experience.


I don't think its that different at all. When I said I didn't care about what they wanted it was in reference to having a relationship. I wasn't interested in being with them long term. Just wanted a night's comfort. And I was pretty upfront about it but sometimes women tend to hear what they want to hear. More than one seemed to think they could bend my will and rescue me from my immoral lifestyle. Of course they tended to lose credibility while they were trying to find their bras and panties. So I didn't lose any sleep if their feelings were hurt. Saying that though once in the bedroom though I made sure that their experience was top notch.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Sorry if you just can't conceptualize it. I realize he is a very special person, as am I, and since you didn't have the same experiences he did....I can't fault you for not getting it. I do discuss a lot of this in my blog though if you actually are interested in what I'm saying.

If instead you are just going to consider me as "she doesn't know what she's talking about...husband has probably lied to her and was a dirtbag" or whatever you are implying, I can't help that. Those are your thoughts on the subject, based only on what you are projecting about your own experience.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Dude you can never explain game to a woman.

Any woman.

Ever.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry if you just can't conceptualize it. I realize he is a very special person, as am I, and since you didn't have the same experiences he did....I can't fault you for not getting it. I do discuss a lot of this in my blog though if you actually are interested in what I'm saying.
> 
> If instead you are just going to consider me as "she doesn't know what she's talking about...husband has probably lied to her and was a dirtbag" or whatever you are implying, I can't help that. Those are your thoughts on the subject, based only on what you are projecting about your own experience.


I never suggested that your husband was a dirtbag. Men who happen to go to bars are not necessarily dirtbags. I certainly hope you aren't implying that I am a dirtbag because I picked up women at bars? I actually started hanging in bars not to pick up women but because I was going out with friends. I just happened to find women there and I saw no reason to go elsewhere since I never slept alone if I didn't choose to. If you are implying that you and/or your husband frequented sex clubs or were into alternative lifestyles allow me to share with you that I still have an active account at Fetlife.com although I don't go there much anymore. I think I know a lot more than you are giving me credit for.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Disenchanted, I could and will write blog posts about game myself. If you'd bother to read it, I'm sure you'd feel differently.

But of course, you can't possibly imagine a woman who knows anything about game, ever. 

Even a woman who has gamed other women to get them in bed.

Think what you want, but why try to shut me down with such a lame comment? I really don't get that.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

bfree: "I think I know a lot more than you are giving me credit for."

Clearly I can say the same, no?


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

Disenchanted said:


> Dude you can never explain game to a woman.
> 
> Any woman.
> 
> Ever.


Not for lack of trying ... 

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

I believe that women inherently know when they have a good partner. Whether that partner is a player or not, in my book is irrelevant, if he treats the women he involves himself with, with respect and compassion, and those feelings are reciprocated, generally you are going to have 2 happy people as a result.

Oh, and there most definintely is girl-game. And for women that are aware of 'bad game'? They will chew those guys up and spit them out.


----------



## Wiserforit (Dec 27, 2012)

Disenchanted said:


> Dude you can never explain game to a woman.
> 
> Any woman.
> 
> Ever.


Talk about condescending bigotry. The very definition of misogyny. 

This is one of the inherently offensive things about self-styled "players" - imagining themselves as the puppet-master and women as stupid, lesser beings.


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Nope, totally off base Wiseforit.

I've tried some of these horrid and offensive "game" maneuvers and been shocked (and appalled) at the result.

I have plenty of female friends who I have tried to explain it to and they simply don't get it.

I'll be the first to admit, I hate that game works, but it does. (I managed to get a beautiful "10" to invite herself to dinner with me using pre selection. Really? Yup, it shocked me.)

At least on screwed up hot chicks.

I am no player, I'm a lost father whose wife cheated on him and left him adrift in mid life with no direction.

Game is appalling to the Nice Guy in me, and its appalling to women.

And it should be.

But it still works.


----------



## FrenchFry (Oct 10, 2011)

bfree said:


> FW and French Fry,
> 
> Athol has a new book out which you might want to take a look at. His reasons for writing it were because many women wanted something a little more geared for them. I haven't read it yet but from what I gather its more toned down and more female friendly. Maybe you should investigate?


By "investigate" you mean







right?

Because otherwise...


----------



## camillaj (Aug 3, 2013)

I've read some of this book and honestly I'm not sure if I'd laugh or cry if a guy came trying these silly tricks on me. They only work on brainless people.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

camillaj said:


> I've read some of this book and honestly I'm not sure if I'd laugh or cry if a guy came trying these silly tricks on me. They only work on brainless people.


What silly tricks?


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

Deejo said:


> Now see, I am very curious why you think this would work? Personally I don't see how further supplicating yourself to someone who doesn't value or respect you can conceivably improve things. You can't have open and honest communication with someone who doesn't acknowledge or want those same things.
> 
> Here is exactly how my open and honest played out ... verbatim.
> 
> ...


Asking what your partner wants/expects and telling them what you want/expect out of the relationship is not supplicating yourself, its attempting to establish a dialogue. Your conversation is a perfect example of what step number two would look like in the above scenario if the attempts at open dialogue were thwarted or met with cynicism and disrespect. Personal agency is important to me, both ensuring that I have it, but also that my partner has it to an equal degree. That way, when the nuclear option must be used, there are no questions about what could have been done differently, as all possible civil routes to resolve issues were taken.


----------



## cpacan (Jan 2, 2012)

Paladin said:


> If that man had married his mothers clone, he would be getting exactly what he wanted out of that relationship. The problem is, he did not marry his mother, he married a completely different human being. The first thing i would suggest to this man is rather obvious, I would tell him to *sit down with his wife and ask* her what she wants out of a relationship with him. I would make sure that during that conversation the man explain to his wife exactly what youve just written here and ask her what changes she would like to have him make, in addition to that, I would tell him to explain to her what he is looking for out of a relationship with her. The conversation could be structured somewhere along the lines of:
> 
> "Hon, over the last few <whatever frame of time> I've done my best to be a good husband to you and good father to our children. I consistently do <trait a, b, c, d,> to make sure you are happy and <trait a, b, c, d> to make sure the kids are taken care of. It has become clear to me that those actions do not make you see me as a good husband/man but make you feel disgusted with me. I feel this way because you do <bad thing a, b, c, d> and I want to know what meaningful changes I can make to ensure that you no longer have those feelings. I want you to be concrete and tell me exactly what you would like to see happen in the short and long term to help me be a man closer to your idea of the ideal. While I am working on those things, I would like for you to do <improvement a, b, c> so that I feel happier in our relationship as well."
> 
> I would also heavily consider adding marriage counseling to the equation so that both the man and his wife can learn a new way of communicating with one another that does not make either of them defensive when issues are being discussed. The scenario I outlined leaves both spouses with agency of action and choice without games or manipulation coming into the picture. Open and honest communication, along with a willingness to assess and reassess the state of the marriage on a regular basis, are primary components in having a co-equal relationship. I know the question wasnt directed at me, but I felt like answering.


I agree 100% with you on the last paragraph. As for the first two, I would like to say that this approach was my recipe for disaster. 

I spend 25 years with my wife, doing exactly this; she demanded and wanted, I adjusted and changed myself, I did whatever it took to make her happy. I lived by the philosophy "chose your battles carefully" - and there were none, because her happyness was the most important thing to me, or should I say _perceived_ happyness.

What I realize in hindsight is, that I lost myself in the process while my wife ended on a pedestral. She took me and what I had to offer for granted and cheated after 26 years of living together. She didn't even realize that she could lose anything.

I'm not saying that you need to grow alpha, be an a$$ or just plain selfish, but it's important not to lose yourself while listening to all her wishes and demands. 

Athols book was one of many very different resources that helped me recreate myself. I didn't eat every word of it raw, but as with other resources, I find it very giving to find something to take from it and put it to use. I would feel empty and sad if I read a book and couldn't find just one bit to learn something from.


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

cpacan said:


> I'm not saying that you need to grow alpha, be an a$$ or just plain selfish, but it's important not to lose yourself while listening to all her wishes and demands.


I agree with this. It's healthy that a wife shares her wishes, requests and demands. We shouldn't forget that that same right should be afforded to us in a marriage of equals. Accept nothing less.



> I would feel empty and sad if I read a book and couldn't find just one bit to learn something from.


Wisdom is knowing how little we know.


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

The last sentence in each of the first two paragraphs of my post attempts to address the issue being raised. The advice is not to simply ask, listen, and do what one is told, but also explain what ones needs and expectations are as well.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Paladin said:


> The last sentence in each of the first two paragraphs of my post attempts to address the issue being raised. The advice is not to simply ask, listen, and do what one is told, but also explain what ones needs and expectations are as well.


I would add that words are fine but they are just words. Actions matter both yours and your partner's. As some point the promises become hollow.


----------



## cpacan (Jan 2, 2012)

I must have misread the sentence: "I want to know what meaningful changes I can make to ensure that you no longer have those feelings. I want you to be concrete and tell me exactly what you would like to see happen in the short and long term to help me be a man closer to your idea of the ideal."

It indicates to me that I should change so that she doesn't feel whatever it is that she feels. That's taking responsibility for her feelings at any given time - I don't see any good, and certainly not any maturing coming from that.

I normally respect and agree with your posts, so it seems to me I must be misunderstanding your position


----------



## azteca1986 (Mar 17, 2013)

Paladin said:


> The advice is not to simply ask, listen, and do what one is told, but also explain what ones needs and expectations are as well.


But surely there's an inherent imbalance here?

Ask, listen, do what I'm told vs Listen to my needs and expectations.

Action vs Being heard. No way.

I would say: "I'm happy to listen to you and act on your ideas (because I trust your judgement and believe what you say is for the good of our marriage). I will do what I'm told. But the same applies to you, otherwise no deal."


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Disenchanted said:


> Nope, totally off base Wiseforit.
> 
> I've tried some of these horrid and offensive "game" maneuvers and been shocked (and appalled) at the result.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

As long as there are men wanting to have sex with women ,as long as there are women wanting no strings attached sex from men, as long as there are social constructs that prevent them from doing so as soon as , or as often as they like,

There will always be game.

It has always existed , and will always exist in some form or another.

The very first time I had sex , I was just 16 years old, but already knew my way around girls, just never had penetrative sex.
The woman I had sex with was 10 years my senior and I had just met her the day before, suntanning on the beach.

Did I approach her with: " Hi , my name is CM, can we have sex?"
LMAO, if I did, and every other woman after her, today I'd be a 43 yr old virgin.
No.
She sat on a lounge chair in the sand reading , I walked up to her , introduced myself and began to chit- chat and I poked fun at her and vice versa.
Definitely I wanted sex, halfway through the convo I realised that she was up for " some fun " too , because she was on the island for the holidays.
She invited me back to her villa for lunch and a drink, I promised her that I would be back, but I didn't go. I knew what was going to happen, but I couldn't believe how easy it was.
I doubted myself.
I met her on the beach the following day, and made up an excuse. I couldn't let her know that I was still a virgin, and I couldn't let her think I was desperate for sex.
We went for a short swim,after which I offered to apply suntan lotion on her.
Halfway through she offered a drink back at her place with a 
"knowing " expression on her face.
I accepted and we had sex for the rest of the weekend right through till she was ready to leave.

At 16 years old I had never read any book on game, but I knew my way around women, and I knew what worked.

We didn't know each other prior to that. She came to the island to relax and have fun, maybe sex was part of the fun, but definitely not sex with me.

Had I just waved to her,she would have just probably smiled and continued reading her novel.
Had I been shy, maybe she would have felt sorry for me and want to have sex?
No.
I had a plan ,
I made the first move,
I engaged her with small talk till I got the information I wanted, 
I skilfully interjected sexual innuendoes during the conversation, 
She responded positively, 
I pulled back a little ,
She took the bait and we had sex, lots and lots of it.
Did I manipulate her?
Absolutely not , I just gave her what she wanted and she gave me what I wanted.
We both wanted to have sex.
Not an intellectual discourse on ethics , morals and decency.

As long as people are wanting to have sex, there will be game.


----------



## camillaj (Aug 3, 2013)

Sorry to burst your man-bubbles guys but your thinking that you got "game" is just an illusion you have from the book(s) or other sources. 

You can throw all the silly books in the trash now, this is the only information you will need. The silly book tricks won't work on intelligent women. They. Won't. Work. The best approach is to be yourself, not some learned behavior from a book. If you insist acting by some book you could aswell take a bible with you on your dates and start sitating Jesus to her...

The real "game" is the woman either chooses you or not. Whether you screw it up by your talking or actions might give you the impression it's your own doing. Your "game" doesn't matter if you can behave; the woman has chosen you already. This is why I'd suggest the gym rats, muscle guys and meat heads keep their mouths shut so they don't ruin their chances. Just smile and behave. The females doing the choosing is biological and can't be changed. You can try to manipulate it by some odd book behavior but in the end your true nature will push through and you'll get caught and it won't work.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

camillaj said:


> Sorry to burst your man-bubbles guys but your thinking that you got "game" is just an illusion you have from the book(s) or other sources.
> 
> You can throw all the silly books in the trash now, this is the only information you will need. The silly book tricks won't work on intelligent women. They. Won't. Work. The best approach is to be yourself, not some learned behavior from a book. If you insist acting by some book you could aswell take a bible with you on your dates and start sitating Jesus to her...
> 
> ...


Do we offer them money or anything, or just kind of stand there smiling?


----------



## Disenchanted (Sep 12, 2012)

Was gonna pop in on this but realized how futile discussing this is with self proclaimed bisexual women, lol.


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Disenchanted said:


> Was gonna pop in on this but realized how futile discussing this is with self proclaimed bisexual women, lol.


Wise man. Sitting there behaving isn't going to get anyone any panties.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Deejo said:


> Do we offer them money or anything, or just kind of stand there smiling?


Or maybe just ignore * _those_ * types, and go for women who are actually interested?


----------



## camillaj (Aug 3, 2013)

Don't pop just yet, it's as much futile to discuss anything reasonable with self proclaimed heterosexual men. This forum is a good example. Smile. 

Ps. I wear boxers not panties.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

camillaj said:


> If you insist acting by some book you could aswell take a bible with you on your dates and start sitating Jesus to her...


...and I did that a couple of times,not in a bar,
but I _still_ got laid.

Yup,
It works like that too.

And nothing you say gonna stop it.


----------



## Deejo (May 20, 2008)

I will simply and lightly suggest as a moderator, that any discussion of game should be directed to that thread rather than further derailing the discourse surrounding Married Man Sex Life Primer.


----------



## nuclearnightmare (May 15, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> As long as there are men wanting to have sex with women ,as long as there are women wanting no strings attached sex from men, as long as there are social constructs that prevent them from doing so as soon as , or as often as they like,
> 
> ...



Carribean Man:

you at 16 vs me at 16 -- we were perfect opposites!
I knew this was possible, theoretically. but reading your story proves it.


----------



## Paladin (Oct 15, 2011)

cpacan said:


> I must have misread the sentence: "I want to know what meaningful changes I can make to ensure that you no longer have those feelings. I want you to be concrete and tell me exactly what you would like to see happen in the short and long term to help me be a man closer to your idea of the ideal."
> 
> It indicates to me that I should change so that she doesn't feel whatever it is that she feels. That's taking responsibility for her feelings at any given time - I don't see any good, and certainly not any maturing coming from that.
> 
> I normally respect and agree with your posts, so it seems to me I must be misunderstanding your position


Maybe it was a poor choice of words on my part, when writing "scripts" of conversations I try to take a neutral tone so that those scripts can be modified to suit the needs of a person wishing to follow them. The idea behind the words was to get her to give concrete examples, not generalized dissatisfaction, of what causes her to be "disgusted" with her partner. If she has to spend meaningful time thinking about the relationship, then come up with her own ideas for how things could be improved, then maybe she would realize that some of her ideas of the situation are overblown or unrealistic, and if she wanted things to improve she would have to change her outlook. Things like "you should be 5" taller" = unrealistic, while things like "put your dirty plate in the dishwasher" = doable. 

Thank you for your kind words about the substance of my posts, I try to spend as little time as possible verbally masturbating, and as much time as possible writing useful/meaningful stuff. If my posts have managed to help even one person is some way, I feel like all my time invested in writing them was worth it.


----------



## whatUknow (Aug 17, 2013)

This book is amazing! i wish i had read it months... years ago - well i have now and putting it into practice. It explains so much, not just with me and my relationships, but in others around me.


----------



## BetrayedDad (Aug 8, 2013)

Started reading this book on the advice of TAM members. I'm about halfway through it and so far it is an excellent read. Alot of great advice, much of it echoed by the people on this forum. The title is a bit misleading because I think even single people would benefit greatly from it. It's spot on, on a lot of different subjects. Kinda scary sometimes lol.

I also read "No More Mr. Nice Guy" and didn't think it was nearly as good. It was ok but MMSLP 2011 is much better and a more enjoyable read.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, that's what I meant, Paladin.
> 
> There's a lot more that makes me shake my head in the book, too.
> 
> ...


It is an afternoon's read and should be viewed as such. Most of the advice is reasonably common sense, but there is no harm in that - most errors in marriage are stupid mistakes and habits and having the advice down in black and white is useful.

In my case, I read the book and it bascially predicted the marraige was doomed. It was pretty much correct.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

BetrayedDad said:


> Started reading this book on the advice of TAM members. I'm about halfway through it and so far it is an excellent read. Alot of great advice, much of it echoed by the people on this forum. The title is a bit misleading because I think even single people would benefit greatly from it. It's spot on, on a lot of different subjects. Kinda scary sometimes lol.
> 
> I also read "No More Mr. Nice Guy" and didn't think it was nearly as good. It was ok but MMSLP 2011 is much better and a more enjoyable read.


MMSLP is useful for general marraige.

NMMNG is for a specific group of men and rather than nice, most men would perceive them as self-absorbed and precious. It is for the type of man that thinks other men are mean and inferior and gets their gf to stick up for them. There will be bits in there that are useful generally, but most men have to accept (and be thankful) that they are not the target audience.


----------



## DayOne (Sep 19, 2014)

Good book.

But zombie thread.


----------



## IIJokerII (Apr 7, 2014)

DayOne said:


> Good book.
> 
> But zombie thread.


 It is a good read, although some things of merit are left open for disagreement. Online affairs challenge this, the sex rank so to speak loses it's influence in the digital world, it in turn graduates to an emotional need and when left unchecked grows wild with lust and becomes uncontrollable. 

It also bears mentioning that this book applies to a healthy couple or people capable of a healthy relationship. 

It's not a zombie, it's a reboot!!!


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

DayOne said:


> Good book.
> 
> But zombie thread.


Yes. 

Sorry.


----------



## Q tip (Apr 15, 2014)

If a guy would just work out, the rest just comes natural it seems.

There just too many fat folks nowadays. There's no excuse. Fat is an estrogen farm and estrogen in men brings on more fat. The cycle spirals out of control.

Real weightifting (free weights) melts fat off the body. That's half the problem with a guy. The book is correct on many levels, but is a beginning and not the answer. It guides him to being a better man.


----------

